Question 1

Response to Written Opinion

We refer to Written Opinion for Singapore Patent Application Number 20070001-1.

AmendmentApplicant cancelled claims 6-8.Also, Applicant amended claim 1 has been amended as follows: 1. A bowl for containing food for an animal, the bowl comprising:

(a)a base;

(b)a circumferential wall defining an interior volume for accommodating the food; and

(c) a protrusion extending upwardly from the base of the bowl into the interior volume to allow the animal to moderately consume the food. moderate its speed of eating, wherein the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion; and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion.

Support for “moderate its speed of eating” can be found in page 2 line 9 of present application.Support for “the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion; and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion” can be found in page 4 lines 14-16.

Also, the feature of claim 4 has been included in claim 3.No added matter has been introduced in these amendments.

Unity of InventionSince claims 6-8 are cancelled, new claims 1-5 are related to a single inventive concept. Therefore unity of invention is given.

NoveltyD1 discloses three equally spaced apart protrusions. However, D1 does not disclose the feature that the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion; and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion. Therefore the present invention is novel over D1.

D2 is a design patent. Figure 1 of D2 shows a central protrusion joined by protrusions that extend the radius of the tub. However, D2 does not disclose the feature that the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion; and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion. Therefore the present invention is novel over D2.

Hence, D1 and D2 does not disclose all the features of new claims 1-4.

Inventive StepAs described in page 8 of present application, the outer portions serve as an obstruction to deter an animal from “inhaling” (sucking or gobbling) food in the bowl because they prevent the muzzle of an animal from reaching too close to the food at the base of the bowl.

Also, the joined inner radial portions on the base of the bowl prevent the animal from making a clean sweep of the food (i.e. “lapping” up the food). The inner portions allow food to be pushed over and/or rolled over in the bowl, and thus achieving a prolonged feeding time.

Therefore, this arrangement of having a higher and lower portion combines both advantages of preventing the animal from consuming food too fast either by inhaling and/or lapping.

However, neither D1 nor D2 recognizes these animal characteristics of feeding, i.e. inhaling and lapping. Therefore providing the feature that “the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion; and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion” is not obvious for a person skilled in the art.

According to D1, although the heights of the protrusions may be varied, the height of all the protrusions are the same as one another. In light of this description, it is clear that the inventors of D1 had no intention to differentiate the height of all the protrusions. Therefore it is not obvious to apply the protrusion of D2 to the feeding dish of D1.

Even if a skilled persion in the art managed to apply the protrusion of D2 to the feeding dish of D1, it is not obvious to reach the inventive concept of present invention because in D2, the outer portion is lower than the inner portion. Without recognition about inhaling and lapping, it is not obvious to reach the inventive concept of present invention.

Hence, new claims 1-4 are inventive over D1 and D2.

Other observations1. According to Written Opinion, the term “moderately consume” in claim 1 is unclear.

Therefore, the part has been amended to “moderate its speed of eating”. Thus new claim 1 is clear.

2. According to Written Opinion, there is no antecedent for more than one protrusion in claim 3 to 5 when dependent on claim 1. Therefore the feature of claim 4 has been included in claim 3. In new claims, there is only single protrusion. Thus antecedent issue will be solved.

Claims

1. A bowl for containing food for an animal, the bowl comprising:

(a)a base;

(b)a circumferential wall defining an interior volume for accommodating the food; and

(c) a protrusion extending upwardly from the base of the bowl into the interior volume to allow the animal to moderately consume the food. moderate its speed of eating,

wherein the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion, and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion.

2. The bowl according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion comprising limbs.

3. The bowl according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the protrusion has three limbs joined together.

The bowl according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the three limbs are joined together.

4. The bowl according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the heights of the limbs are different from each other.

6. A bowl for containing drinking water for an animal, the bowl comprising:

(a) an interior volume for accommodating said water, the interior volume is defined by a base and an upwardly extending circumferential sidewall; and

(b) a floating device for floating on said water, wherein the floating device has a conduit for allowing said water to form a reservoir of sufficient amount of water on a drinking surface of the floating device for the animal to moderately consume the water.

7. The bowl according to claim 6, wherein the floating device further comprises an interior cavity and the buoyancy of the floating device is determined by an amount of water introduced into the cavity.

8. The bowl according to any one of claims 6 or 7, wherein the floating device has a depressed portion for allowing the reservoir of water to collect on the drinking surface of the floating device.

Question 2

Dear Peter Bow,

Thank you for your latter.

Please be informed that the Written Opinion is Examiner’s opinion before establishment of Examination Report. If you do not file the response, the Examiner will proceed to issue Examination Report without changing the contents. Since this is a good opportunity to overcome negative impression of this application, I strongly advise you to file a response.

Also, I understand you wish to get your patent as soon as possible.

The reason the examiner did not examine all the claims is that there are different inventions. I understand all you bowls prevent dogs from eating or drinking too fast. However, one of your bowl prevents dogs from eating too fast. The other prevents dogs from drinking too fast. The common technical feature for your embodiment 1 and your embodiment 2 is a bowl only. Therefore the examiner considered that there are two inventions. To solve this deficiency, it is advisable to cancel claims 6-8 which was not examined.

To protect your invention regarding embodiment 2, it is advisable to file a divisional application.

I understand the material of your bowl is also important. The bowl is made from a composite material of thermoplastic epoxy resin and natural fibers. However, this information was not included in specification of present application at the time of filing. Since adding matters beyond specification as filed is prohibited, I cannot use this information in this response.

Although your bowls are different from bowls in D1 or D2, the wordings of claims of present application is similar to bowls in D1 or D2. Therefore it is advisable to amend the wordings of claims to differentiate the claims from D1 or D2.

I noted that the feature that the protrusion has a radial outer portion and a radial inner portion, and the outer portion is higher than the inner portion is not disclosed in D1 or D2. To clarify the difference, it is advisable to include the feature to new claim 1.

Also, the examiner noted that “moderately consume the food” is unclear. To clarify the expression, it is advisable to amend the part to moderate its speed of eating.

Furthermore, the examiner noted that there are several protrusions in claim 3-5 instead of single protrusion described in claim 1. Since there is only single protrusion jointed together in description of present application, I suggest to be consistent by using only single protrusion.

I enclosed proposed amendment and draft response. Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,