Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21 to 45 are new.
`
`Support for the new claims can be found throughoutthe specification, claims, and figures as
`
`filed. No new matter has been added. After entry of the forgoing amendments, Claims 21-45 are
`
`pending and submitted for consideration.
`
`New claims 21-40 are claims 1-20 asfiled and claims 1-20 as amendedin the Preliminary
`
`Amendmentfiled on March 22, 2018. The claim numbering changes betweenthe claims as
`
`filed, as amendedin the Preliminary Amendment, and as in this Response are summarized in the
`
`chart below. New claims 21-40 incorporate the claim amendments from the Preliminary
`
`Amendmentas well as correct the claim dependenciesto reflect the new claim numbering.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As Filed Prelim. Amend.|This Response
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Canceled
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Canceled
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`40
`
`
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`Claim 41 is new and depends from claim 1. Support for the new claim can be foundin at
`
`least paragraphs 23, 30, 32, and 46, and in Figures 2, 3, and 4.
`
`Claim 42 is new and depends from new claim 41. Support for the new claim can be
`
`foundin at least paragraph 32.
`
`Claim 43 is new and depends from new claim 41. Support for the new claim can be
`
`foundin at least paragraph 32.
`
`Claim 44 is new and depends from new claim 41. Support for the new claim can be
`
`foundin at least paragraphs 27, 29, 37 and 45.
`
`Claim 45 is new andrecites the features of claims 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12, as filed, rewritten
`
`in independent form. Support for the new claim can be found in claims 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as
`
`filed.
`
`Interview
`
`Applicant thanks the Examinerfor the telephone interview on September 17, 2019.
`
`During the interview, the parties discussed the claim numbering issue. Due to the multiple
`
`numberingerrors, it was decided that it would be best to renumberthe claims starting with claim
`
`number21.
`
`Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner’s assessmentofthe priorart.
`
`However, prior to responding to the Examiner’s rejection, it should be notedthat the Office
`
`Action contains language that is not part of the pending claim set. Specifically, at least the
`
`current claim set does not use the term “sealed perimeter.” In fact, upon review the quoted
`
`language seems to be based on prior continuation applications of Applicant. As such, to avoid
`
`confusion, Applicant requests an amendedoffice action using the current pending claim set.
`
`The abovesaid, while Applicant agrees with the Examiner that Rabenbauer does not
`
`disclose angled segments, wherein angled segments within a [sealed perimeter] of the
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a predefined distance,
`
`and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the
`
`bottom side, there is no evidence of record that Rabenbauer teaches an endothermically activated
`
`and exothermically deactivated cooling platform. Rabenbauer doesindicate that the invention
`
`contemplates pre-frozen,artificial, ice packs. See Col. 2; Ln. 1 —- 4. However, ice packs are not
`
`the sameas the cooling platform in Applicant’s invention, which is endothermically activated
`
`and exothermically deactivated.
`
`The Examinercites Gatten as teaching a cooling mattress for sunbathing comprising a
`
`plurality of angled segments, wherein angled segments within a [sealed perimeter] of the
`
`temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at predefined distance,
`
`and channels wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the
`
`bottom side in order to enable the portions of the liner carrying the cavities to be folded to place
`
`the mattress in a compact configuration. Applicant disagrees with this assessment and takes issue
`
`with the motivation supplied by the Examiner.
`
`First, Gatten does not supply the missing features of “channels” that “substantially form
`
`sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side.” The Examiner appears to argue that the
`
`liner partitions 318 of the mattress 316 of Gatten read on the claimed “channels.” Respectfully,
`
`this position is misplaced. As shownin Figure 8, for example, the v-shaped liner partitions 318
`
`of Gatten terminate prior to reaching the opposite side. Therefore, these partitions do not form
`
`sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side. Accordingly, even if the proposed
`
`modification could be made,the result is still not what is claimed by independent claims 1-2.
`
`Second, with respect to motivation, the Examinerstates that “it would have been obvious
`
`to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of
`
`Rabenbauer,to include a plurality of angled segments wherein angled segments within a sealed
`
`perimeter of the temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a
`
`predefined distance, and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting
`
`the top side with the bottom side, as taught by Gatten, in order to enable the portionsof the liner
`
`carrying the cavities to be folded to place the mattress in a compact configuration.” The proposed
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`modification would not result in making the pet bed of Rabenbauer foldable. The Examiner
`
`refers to the insulation 2 of Rabenbaueras reading on the claimed “temperature regulation
`
`layer.” Even if one were to modify the insulation 2 to include the alleged angled segments of
`
`Gatten, the result would be to renderthe insulation 2 more foldable. However, since the
`
`insulation 2 is housedinside the rigid lower portion 1 and top 4 ofthe pet bed, the pet bed as a
`
`whole would not be made foldable by implementing the proposed modification. This highlights
`
`why the Examiner’s reasoning lacks any rational underpinning.
`
`Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that modifying the system Rabenbauerwith
`
`Gatten would render the system inoperable as Rabenbauer cannot be folded because it only
`
`contemplates “wood or plastic, and is of sufficient strength to support the weight of a pet.” See
`
`Col. 1; Ln: 29-35. Thus, even if the area surrounding the ice packs in Rabenbauer were
`
`foldable; the surrounding structure is not — this notwithstanding the fact that ice-packs or ice
`
`cannot be folded themselves. Given that Rabenbaueris the primary reference, the claimed
`
`combination cannot changetheprinciple of operation of the primary reference or render the
`
`reference inoperable for its intended purpose; which it does. See MPEP § 2143.01. Lastly, the
`
`Examiner seems to suggest that Rabenbauer would be folded “to place the mattress in a compact
`
`configuration.” However, the Examiner has not made a showing that Rabenbauer would be
`
`modified to even use a mattress, or even contemplate folding. As stated above, Rabenbauer uses
`
`reusable ice packs and hard woodorplastic to provide support. There is no support for the
`
`notion to combine the tworeferences to achieve the result the Examinerargues.
`
`The Examiner uses Lachenbruch to teach (another feature lacking in Rabenbauer) that the
`
`support layer comprises an elastic material that deforms and reforms upon the application and
`
`release of pressure to that of Rabenbauer. Specifically, the Examinerstates it would be “obvious
`
`to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system of
`
`Rabenbauer, to include an elastic material that deforms and reforms upon the application and
`
`release of pressure, respectively, within the support layer, as taught by Lachenbruch,in order to
`
`provide comfort to the user when applying cooling.” This cited motivation is inapposite and also
`
`renders Rabenbauerinoperable becausethe use of elastic material underneath or around the ice
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`packs in Rabenbauer would provide no such comfort given the degree of hardness in and of the
`
`packs themselves.
`
`Under Ex 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).) Because the references cited do not
`
`meetthe limitations set forth in Claims 1 or 2, Claims 3 — 20 are also allowable. Furthermore,
`
`new Claims 23 to 27 depend from or incorporate the limitations of Claims 1 or 2 and are also
`
`allowable.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicants believe that the claim amendments, new figures, specification amendments,
`
`and remarks madeherein fully addressall issues raised in the 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 independent claim that Applicant considers allowable for reasons provided herein, is not an
`
`acquiescenceto 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 amendments
`
`relative to the independent claim (that Applicant considers allowable) from which the dependent
`
`claim(s) depends.
`
`In view of the foregoing remarks, Applicant respectfully submit 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.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Appl. No. 15/850,700
`Attorney Docket No. GRPET-1147302
`Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner contact the undersigned attorney at
`
`(213) 576-5065, or at rdaramann@egordonrees.com, if itis believed that such contact will
`
`expedite prosecution.
`
`Please charge any fee deficiency or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`1990 and reference GRPET-1147302. However, the Commissioner for Patents is not authorized
`
`to charge the cost of the issue fee to the Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`_/Reid E. Dammann/
`Reid E. Dammann
`Registration No. 57,227
`
`Please recognize our Customer Number 27111 as
`our correspondence address.
`
`
`Dated:_ October 18, 2019
`
`GORDON & REES LLP
`101 West Broadway, Suite 1600
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone (main): (619) 696-6700
`Facsimile:
`(619) 696-7124
`
`Email:
`ipdocketigordonrees com
`Attorney Docket No.: GRPET-1147302
`
`11
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket