Animal husbandry – Feeding device – Hopper and trough
Reexamination Certificate
2001-02-15
2002-09-10
Jordan, Charles T. (Department: 3643)
Animal husbandry
Feeding device
Hopper and trough
C119S062000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06446574
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to the field of animal feeders. More specifically, the present invention relates to the field of small animal feeders actuated by the animal.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Animals typically prefer food that is in a palatable condition, i.e., dry food that is not stale and moist food that has not dried out. When feeding animals, therefore, it is desirable to use a feeder that does not expose the food for prolonged periods. This poses a problem for most feeding dishes and other exposed feeders. Being exposed, the food becomes stale or dried out and is not consumed. Such uneaten food is typically discarded, representing an undesirable expense to the owner and a loss of nutrition to the animal.
Additionally, a wide variety of creatures find animal foods desirable. Some of the most bothersome are birds, toads, rabbits, squirrels, rats, mice, and other small vertebrates. Such creatures may spoil the food, scatter the food, and soil the food and nearby areas with droppings. The persistent efforts of these creatures to steal animal food may pose a loss of food and a source for the spread of disease.
Additionally, the presence of animal food often attracts invertebrate pests, typically spiders, scorpions, flies, ants, beetles, sow bugs, pill bugs, and other arthropods. These unwanted pests may directly infest the food, as with a swarm of ants, or lay eggs and infest the food with their larvae, as with flies. These pests consume food intended for the animal(s), may contaminate or scatter the food, and may contribute to the spread of disease. A significant problem is therefore posed by feeders that do not adequately exclude both vertebrate and invertebrate pests.
Furthermore, when the animals are fed indoors, as with pets, the presence of the food may contribute to an invasion of the home by mice, ants, and other pests, thereby bringing infestation, contamination, disease, and esthetic problems into the home.
Toddlers and babies may gain access to the feeding locations. They are often curious about the food and may ingest and/or scatter the food. The problems of contamination and disease are therefore increased when small children are present.
Additionally, animal foods, especially moist (canned) animal foods, often have distinctive odors that may be unpleasant to nearby humans. The noisome dissemination of such odors is often a problem in and of itself.
Infestation by crawling arthropods, typically ants, is a common problem. While sealing the food dish or feeder to prevent the dissemination of odors significantly reduces such infestations, it does not eliminate them. A barrier approach, such as a moat, is often used to inhibit such infestation. The use of a moat or similar barrier, however effective, poses additional problems. Moats are typically filled with water, which provide a reasonable barrier. Many species of ants, however, can swim. Almost all ants and similar crawling arthropod can be supported by the surface tension of the water. Some species of ant may form bridges of their comrades to access a food source. To be effective, therefore, a moat must either be wide enough to inhibit swimming and/or bridging, or contain a barrier other than water.
Impregnating moat water with a few drops of a surfactant, e.g., a detergent, tends to destroy the surface tension of the water. This causes ants or other crawling arthropods to sink and drown, thereby effectively inhibiting swimming and/or bridging of the moat. A problem exists, however, in that in conventional feeders with moats, the moat medium is typically accessible to the animal. This allows the animal to consume the moat water. This empties the moat and defeats its ability to inhibit crawling arthropods and other pests. Also, if the moat water is impregnated with a surfactant, consumption by the animal may lead to indigestion, diarrhea, or even death.
Another problem with moats and similar liquid-filled barriers are the ease of splashing and spillage when full. This makes it difficult to transport a feeder with a full moat. A moat often spills as the feeder is carried from the sink, where the moat is filled, to the feeding area. Also, a full moat may splash and spill should the animal exhibit excessive enthusiasm while eating.
The use of a closed or sealed food container in a feeder intended for pets or other small animals poses the problem of access to the food by the animal. Some conventional animal feeders utilize a mechanical or electrical/electronic mechanism to open the feeder at a predetermined time or other predetermined event. With such a feeder, the animal is denied access until after the predetermined time or event. Once opened, however, the feeder remains open until reset, i.e., reloaded with food and closed, by the owner. That is, if the animal is not present or does not desire to eat at the predetermined time or event, the food container is opened and the food is made available and inviting to pests.
Some feeders remain closed until the presence of an animal is detected. That presence triggers a mechanism to open the container and grant access to the food. Typically, these feeders open upon detecting the weight of the animal, upon interruption of a light beam, upon detection of proximate motion, etc. However, such triggering methods are unable to adequately detect the presence of a specific animal. For example, a large squirrel may open a feeder intended for a cat.
Alternatively, some conventional feeders remain closed until the presence of a specific desired animal is detected. Such feeders may inhibit access by pests by requiring that the animal have a trigger, such as a magnetic tag or an electronic collar, before the feeder will grant access. Again, however, a problem exists in that many such feeders, once opened, remain open until reset by the owner. Therefore, if the animal fails to consume all the food in the container immediately upon gaining access, the remaining food is made available to pests.
Few conventional feeders limit feeding to one specific animal. For example, if a feeder for a pet cat is to be located upon an open patio, it is normally desirable to bar the neighbor's cat from also being granted access to the food. To accomplish this, the animal may wear a collar having an electronic device that triggers the feeder only when that device (i.e., the animal) is proximate. Unfortunately, such devices are active. That is, such devices typically transmit a signal that is received by the feeder. This poses the problems of size, cost, reliability, and maintenance of the active device. Having both circuitry and a power source (i.e., a battery) to operate the circuitry, the devices are relatively large. Most often, the devices are attached to a collar, making the collar stiff, bulky, and uncomfortable, especially for small animals. Such devices are also expensive, in that the circuitry, the battery, and the housing therefor are complex. Additionally, the risk of loss is high, especially if the animal is a cat (cats being notorious for wriggling out of collars). The battery for the device must be replaced often, adding to the cost and maintenance of the device. Finally, the battery compartment provides the possibility of the introduction of water and other contaminants that may corrode, short, or otherwise damage the circuitry and/or the battery.
Even with the bulky and less than ideal electronic triggers discussed hereinbefore, it is not readily feasible with conventional controlled feeders to feed multiple animals in a single environment where differing animals have differing food requirements. For example, if one pet in a multi-pet household requires a special (e.g., medicated) diet, it is desirable to bar the other pets in the household from that pet's food while barring that pet from the other pets' food.
Some animals, such at cats and some small dogs, desire a calm, non-intimidating environment in which to eat. Covered or sealed feeders typically have a spring-action lid. Such a lid may pop open quickly. This may be interpreted
Gresham Lowell W.
Jordan Charles T.
Meschkow & Gresham PLC
Shaw Elizabeth
LandOfFree
Animal-actuated feeder does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Animal-actuated feeder, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Animal-actuated feeder will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2829193