Appl. No. 14/695,909
`Amendment and Response to Final Office Action
`Docket No. GRPET-1108751
`
`REMARKS
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Applicant’s representative thanks the Examiner for the phone interview on November11,
`
`2017. Applicant’s representative and Examiner discussed claim amendments, specifically
`
`removing the term “capable.” It was provisionally agreed that the proposed claim amendments
`
`would place the claims in condition for allowance.
`
`After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0
`
`Applicant respectfully request consideration of this Amendment and Response underthe
`
`After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP2.0). As per the requirements ofthis
`
`program, Applicant is submitting (1) a transmittal form (PTO/SB/434)identifying the
`
`submission as an AFCP 2.0 submission and requests consideration under AFCP 2.0 and (2) a
`
`response under 37 CFR 1.116 that includes an amendmentto at least one independent claim, and
`
`the amendmentdoes not broaden the scope of the independentclaim in any aspect. With respect
`
`to the independent claim amendment, claims 1 to 4 have been amendedherein to incorporate a
`
`new limitation. The undersigned attorney is willing and available to participate in an interview
`
`initiated by the Examiner concerning the accompanying response. Any necessary fees have been
`
`paid. Accordingly, the requirements for the program havebeensatisfied.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`Claims 1 to 16 are pending. Claims 1 to 16 stand rejected. Claims | to 4 have been
`
`amended. Claims 17-20 are new. Support for the claim amendments and new claims can be
`
`found throughoutthe specification and figures. Accordingly no new matter has been added.
`
`After entry of the forgoing amendments, Claims 1 to 16 are pending and submitted for
`
`consideration.
`
`Claims 1 to 4 have been amendedto clarify that the support layer comprises “an elastic
`
`material that deforms and reforms upon the application and release of pressure, respectively.”
`
`Support for the amendment can be found onat least page 7, second to and last paragraphs.
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 14/695,909
`Amendment and Response to Final Office Action
`Docket No. GRPET-1108751
`
`Claims 17 to 20 depend from claims 1 to 4, respectively and recite that the elastic
`
`material is foam. Support for the amendment can be found on at least page 7, second to and last
`
`paragraphs.
`
`Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 1-16 stand rejected as allegedly being obvious over Rabenbauer(USpat. no.
`
`4064835) in view of Gatten (USpat. no. 7036162) and in further view of Quincy (US. pub. no.
`
`20080053109). The Examinerrelies on Rabenbauerfor teaching a pressure activated recharging
`
`cooling platform comprising a temperature regulation layer, a support layer, and an elastic
`
`material capable of deforming. The Examinerrelies on Gatten to teach a plurality of angled
`
`segments. The Examinerrelies on Quincy for teaching cooling compositions that do not require
`
`refrigeration or freezing priorto use.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s interpretation of the art. However,
`
`solely to expedite allowance, Applicant has amendedthe claims to clarify the physical qualities
`
`of the “elastic material.” Specifically, the elastic material deforms and reforms upon the
`
`application and release of pressure, respectively. Rabenbauer does not teach or suggest an elastic
`
`material that deforms and reforms upon the application and release of pressure. Instead,
`
`Rabenbauerteachesthe use of a rigid material such as woodandplastic. Basically, the
`
`Rabenbauerdeviceis a rigid box filled with ice packs. Asillustrated in figure 3, the device is so
`
`rigid that it does not deform whena dog lies down on top of it. Furthermore, Rabenbauerstates,
`
`“The perforated planar surface provides an area on which the pet reclines and simultaneously
`
`prevents direct contact with the aforementioned ice-packs.” If the Rabenbauerplanar surface
`
`deformed upon the application of pressure, then the pet would be in direct contact with the ice-
`
`packs, via the perforations, which is the opposite of what Rabenbauerteaches. Neither Gatten
`
`nor Quincy remedy the defects of Rabenbauer.
`
`Regarding claims 5 to 8, the Examiner believes that Gatten teaches angled segments
`
`having trapezoidal-like shape. Specifically, the Examinerrelies on figure 8 of Gatten to teach
`
`the trapezoidal-like shape. Werespectfully disagree with the Examiner. The illustration in
`
`figure 8 of Rabenbauer shows segments havinga parallelogram shape, nor a trapezoid shape. A
`
`parallelogram is a quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel sides, as shown in Rabenbauer, figure
`
`6
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 14/695,909
`Amendment and Response to Final Office Action
`Docket No. GRPET-1108751
`
`8. A trapezoid, on the other hand is a quadrilateral with only onepair of parallel sides, as shown
`
`in Applicant’s figures 3 and 8.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Applicant believes it has overcomethis rejection and thus
`
`respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw this rejection.
`
`New Claims 17 to 20
`
`UnderEx Parte Ligh, if a claim is allowed,all proper dependent claims are also allowed.
`
`(See Ex Parte Ligh, 159 USPQ (BNA)61, 62 (BPAI 1967).) New claims 17 to 20 depends from
`
`claims 1 to 4, respectively and further limits claim 1 to 4. Thus, if claims 1 to 4 are found
`
`allowable, then new claims 17 to 20 should also be allowed
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicants believe that the claim amendments and remarks made herein fully address all
`
`issues raised in the Final Office Action. Silence with regard to any of the Examiner’s rejections
`
`is not an acquiescence to such rejections. Specifically, silence with regard to Examiner’s
`
`rejection of a dependent claim, when such claim depends from an independentclaim that
`
`Applicant considers allowable for reasons provided herein, is not an acquiescence to such
`
`rejection of the dependentclaim(s), but rather a recognition by Applicant that such previously
`
`lodged rejection is moot based on Applicant remarks and/or amendmentsrelative to the
`
`independentclaim (that Applicant considers allowable) from which the dependentclaim(s)
`
`depends.
`
`In view of the foregoing remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are
`
`patentable and in condition for allowance. The undersigned has made a good-faith effort to
`
`address all the points raised in the outstanding Office Action and seek allowance.
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 14/695,909
`Amendment and Response to Final Office Action
`Docket No. GRPET-1108751
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner contact the undersigned attorney at
`
`(213) 576-5065, or at rdammann@izordonrees.com, if itis believed that such contact will
`
`expedite prosecution.
`
`Applicant petitions for an appropriate extension of time. Please charge any fee
`
`deficiency or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 50-1990 referencing GRPET-
`
`1108751 and please credit any excess fees to such deposit account. However, the Commissioner
`
`for Patents is not authorized to charge the cost of the issue fee to the Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: _November 14, 2017
`
`By:
`
`_/Reid E. Dammann/
`Reid E. Dammann
`Registration No. 57,227
`
`Please recognize our Customer Number 27111 as
`our correspondence address
`
`GORDON & REES LLP
`101 West Broadway, Suite 1600
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone (main): (619) 696-6700
`Phone (direct): (213) 576-5065
`Facsimile:
`(619) 696-7124
`Email:
`indocket@zordonrees.com
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: GRPET-1108751
`
`1108751/35602684v.1
`
`8
`
`