`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
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site