Bowl

Addison Edmonds, Nashville, TN (US); Colton Gray Breeding, Nashville, TN (US); Gene Andrew Sparks, Nashville, TN (US)

USPTO: us-12648543 · published 2026-06-09 · patents · A01K 5/0114

Bowl

Addison Edmonds, Nashville, TN (US) , Gene Andrew Sparks, Nashville, TN (US) , Colton Gray Breeding, Nashville, TN (US) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-10 12:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents A01K 5/0114

keywords bowl apparatusretainerbasebossespinsholesopeningsinterlocking

0 comments

The pith

The bowl apparatus connects a bowl, base, and retainer by having bosses, pins, and pads pass through matching holes and openings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims a particular apparatus design for a bowl. It consists of a bowl with bosses on the bottom, a retainer with pins and openings on top, and a base with pads on the bottom and holes throughout. The parts are stacked with the base in the middle so that the base pads go through the retainer openings, the bowl bosses go through the base holes, and the retainer pins go through the base holes to engage the bosses. This arrangement is presented as the complete description of the apparatus. A sympathetic reader would be interested in how these features are combined to create an assembled unit.

Core claim

An apparatus comprising a bowl with one or more bosses protruding from the bottom side, a retainer with one or more openings and one or more pins protruding from the top side, and a base with one or more base pads protruding from the bottom side and one or more holes, positioned such that the base is between the retainer and the bowl, the base pads extend through the openings, the bosses extend through the holes, and the pins extend through the holes and engage the bosses.

What carries the argument

The alignment and engagement of bosses, pins, and holes that allows the three components to interlock into a single apparatus.

Load-bearing premise

The bosses, pins, openings, and holes are sized and positioned to allow the parts to fit together and engage as stated.

What would settle it

Physically constructing the bowl, base, and retainer with the specified features and verifying whether the pins engage the bosses while the pads and bosses pass through the respective openings and holes.

read the original abstract

1 . An apparatus comprising: a bowl including a top side, a bottom side, and one or more bosses protruding from the bottom side of the bowl; a retainer including a top side, a bottom side, one or more openings, and one or more pins protruding from the top side of the retainer, the top side of the retainer disposed on the bottom side of the bowl; and a base including a top side, a bottom side, one or more base pads protruding from the bottom side of the base, and one or more holes, the base positioned between the retainer and the bowl such that the top side of the base is disposed on the bottom side of the bowl and the bottom side of the base is disposed on the top side of the retainer, wherein the base pads extend through the openings, the bosses extend through the holes, and the pins extend through the holes and engage the bosses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a US patent claim for a bowl with a specific interlocking base-retainer assembly using bosses, pins, and pads; nothing more.

read the letter

This patent describes a bowl with bosses on the bottom, a retainer that has pins and openings, and a base with pads and holes. The claim spells out how the base sits between the bowl and retainer so the pads go through the openings, the bosses go through the holes, and the pins go through the holes to engage the bosses. That arrangement is the entire content. It is a structural description only. The combination of these parts in this order may be new for a bowl product, but it draws on standard mechanical interlocking methods without any first-principles change. The filing does a clean job of enumerating the components and their spatial relationships so the claim language is unambiguous. That is the main positive. There are no performance numbers, no stability tests, and no comparison to prior designs. The weakest assumption in the reader's note is that the assembly must be shown to work in practice, but the claim itself makes no functional promise, so the lack of testing does not undermine what is written. This document is aimed at product designers or patent examiners working on consumer bowls, most likely pet feeding items. It has no place in an academic reading group or as a citable research result. The claim is internally consistent and does not rely on hidden assumptions or fitted parameters. It does not rise to the level that would justify sending it out for peer review in a research context. If the question is whether to treat this as prior art in a mechanical design project, the description is clear enough to note; otherwise it can be set aside.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents US patent Claim 1 describing an apparatus comprising a bowl with one or more bosses protruding from its bottom side, a retainer with openings and pins protruding from its top side (top side of retainer disposed on bottom side of bowl), and a base with pads protruding from its bottom side and one or more holes (base positioned between retainer and bowl), such that the base pads extend through the retainer openings, the bosses extend through the base holes, and the pins extend through the holes and engage the bosses.

Significance. The claim enumerates a specific set of spatial relationships and engagements among three components. If novel, the precise interlocking geometry could support a patentable mechanical assembly, but the manuscript contains no performance data, stability analysis, or comparison to prior art, limiting significance to the literal structural description.

minor comments (2)

The provided text consists solely of the claim language with no accompanying detailed description, background, drawings, or embodiments, which would be expected in a journal submission to allow evaluation of the assembly.
Repetitive phrasing (e.g., repeated references to 'top side' and 'bottom side' of each component) reduces readability; a single diagram or consolidated description would clarify the relative positioning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review of our patent claim. We address the points in the report below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The manuscript presents US patent Claim 1 describing an apparatus comprising a bowl with one or more bosses protruding from its bottom side, a retainer with openings and pins protruding from its top side (top side of retainer disposed on bottom side of bowl), and a base with pads protruding from its bottom side and one or more holes (base positioned between retainer and bowl), such that the base pads extend through the retainer openings, the bosses extend through the base holes, and the pins extend through the holes and engage the bosses.

Authors: The summary accurately captures the claim language. No revision is required. revision: no
Referee: The claim enumerates a specific set of spatial relationships and engagements among three components. If novel, the precise interlocking geometry could support a patentable mechanical assembly, but the manuscript contains no performance data, stability analysis, or comparison to prior art, limiting significance to the literal structural description.

Authors: We agree the manuscript is limited to the structural claim. As this is a patent claim, the invention is defined by the recited components and their spatial engagements; empirical performance data or stability analysis is not a requirement for such mechanical claims. Prior art comparison occurs during patent examination and is outside the scope of the claim itself. revision: no
Referee: Recommendation: reject

Authors: We respectfully disagree with the rejection recommendation. The claim sets forth a specific interlocking configuration that we maintain meets the criteria for patentability based on the described geometry. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in structural patent claim

full rationale

The document consists solely of a US patent Claim 1 that enumerates physical components (bowl with bosses, retainer with pins and openings, base with pads and holes) and specifies their spatial relationships and engagements. No equations, derivations, predictions, fitted parameters, or self-citations exist. The claim is a direct structural description with no load-bearing steps that could reduce to inputs by construction, making the derivation chain empty and self-contained by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the document is a mechanical patent claim enumerating existing component types and their arrangement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5693 in / 937 out tokens · 55684 ms · 2026-06-10T12:31:00.393670+00:00 · methodology

Bowl

Core claim

What carries the argument

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it

discussion (0)