1. Question 1
Response to Written Opinion
We refer to Written Opinion for Singapore Patent Application Number 20070001-1.
Amendment
Applicant 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 Invention
Since claims 6-8 are cancelled, new claims 1-5 are related to a single inventive concept.
Therefore unity of invention is given.
Novelty
D1 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 Step
As 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.

2. 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 observations
1. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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,