DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/26 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications. MPEP 608.01 (IV)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 36-37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
All patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) units followed by the equivalent English units when describing their inventions in the specifications of patent applications, and the claims are included within the specification section of the patent application.
In claim 36, “Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction…” should begin with a lowercase “w” as it is not the beginning of a new sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 states “Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction and positioned in any part of a preferred location the fill line will be viewable in the same way… wherein the fill line structure is designed to be viewed from the lowest human eye viewpoint, and all angles, including a bird's eye view, below, so the litter box may be placed in any number of locations throughout a home, corners, alcoves, tight spaces, where the owner may not have a direct sightline to the side wall and the exterior ridge ensures the fill line remains visible regardless of placement.” There is no support for this in the specification. Specifically, the specification has no mention of placing the litter box in a preferred location, viewing the litter box from all angles, or placing the litter box in any number of locations.
Claim 37 is rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 states “wherein the "U" shaped opening is set back recessed inwards towards the center of the litter box offset at an angle.” It is unclear what exactly is offset at an angle to what. For example, is the entire U-shaped opening the thing that is offset at an angle, or only part of the opening? And if so, what is it offset at an angle from? The floor, the center of the litter box the wall of the litterbox, or something else entirely? The Figures do not further clarify this point, as it appears only part of the opening is angled inwardly, and the rest of the opening is arranged vertically.
Claim 36 states “continuous radius of curvature of vertical height of two parallel coplanar lines.” It is unclear what this is talking about, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, first it is unclear if this is talking about the fill line, or the fill line channel, or another part of the invention. Additionally, it is unclear what “of vertical height of two parallel coplanar lines” means.
Regarding claim 36, the use of the language "can be" and “may be” renders the claim indefinite. "can be" and “may be” makes it unclear whether the limitations are required of the claim, and what exactly the bounds of the limitation are, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Examples of this include “Wherein the litter box can be rotated,” “so that it can be viewed from the vantage point,” and “the litter box may be placed in any number of locations”
Claim 36 states “Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction and positioned in any part of a preferred location the fill line will be viewable in the same way.” It is unclear how the fill line could be “viewable in the same way” from any direction, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, even if a person could see the fill line from a number of different directions, the fill line would not be “viewable in the same way” from these different directions, as the view point would change the view of the fill line.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the tangent" in page 2 line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 states “wherein the tangent of the cylindrical container is perpendicular to the ground excepting the fill line wherein the fill line protrudes beyond the edge of cylindrical container.” However, applicant previously states in claim 36, “a rounded curved edge formed at an intersection of the floor and sidewall.” Therefore, if a tangent line is drawn touching the bottom rounded corner of the cylindrical container, it would not be perpendicular to the ground, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, if the tangent line were placed on the top of the container, or on parts of the U shaped opening, the line would not be perpendicular to the ground.
Claim 36 states “wherein the fill line is viewed proportionally against the 2-3 inch floor-to-fill-line distance disclosed in the original application.” It is unclear what is required structurally of this limitation, thus rendering the claims indefinite. For example, what is required of “wherein the fill line is viewed proportionally against the 2-3 inch floor-to-fill-line distance.” Is the fill line required to be 2-3 inches off of the floor? What is required of viewing the fill line? How can a fill line be “viewed proportionally?”
Claim 36 states “wherein the fill line is viewed proportionally against the 2-3 inch floor-to-fill-line distance disclosed in the original application.” Claims must not reference their own disclosure in the limitations. Referencing the disclosure, renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is included or not included within the claim.
Claim 36 states “the fill line clearly has substantial width, not a hairline.” It is unclear what the bounds of “substantial width, not a hairline” are, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, isany width greater than a “hairline” considered substantial? And what exactly is the size of a “hairline.” The specification fails to provide any special definitions for this limitation, and therefore fails to clarify what this width represents.
Claim 36 states “wherein the fill line structure is designed to be viewed from the lowest human eye viewpoint, and all angles, including a bird's eye view, below.” It is unclear what is structurally required of this claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, what is “the lowest human eye viewpoint?” Is this when a human is lying on the ground? Does a human have to lift the device in order to view it? It is also unclear what “including a bird's eye view, below” means. Typically, a birds eye view is from above, so it is unclear if the below is separate or describing the birds eye view. Additionally, it is unclear how something can be “designed to be viewed” and what exactly is required of that.
Claim 37 is rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (US 2014/0196669) in view of Macneil et al. (US 2018/0020637), Giddings (US D858006), Mineo (US 2009/0019632), and Elfindale (US 2018/0199537).
Regarding Claim 36, Barr discloses an animal litter device, comprising:
a circular floor (base 14);
a sidewall (wall 16) extending up from around a perimeter of the circular floor forming cylindrical container with an open top area (Figure 1), wherein the cylindrical container is seamless and creviceless (“The base 14 and the wall 16 may be formed integrally” Paragraph [0029]; Figure 1);
a rounded curved edge formed at an intersection of the circular floor and sidewall, the rounded edge preventing a buildup of materials stored in the animal litter device (“an existing plastic cylindrical, drum-shaped, or capsule-shaped container may be used to form the litter container” Paragraph [0030]; capsule shape has rounded edges);
a single "U" shaped opening (opening 18) formed in the sidewall in a front area of the animal litter device and at least 4" above the floor (“The bottom edge 20 of the notch opening 18 may be positioned about 7 inches above the base 14 as it rests on a floor.” Paragraph [0036]) forming a single entry way for entering and exiting the cylindrical container (Figure 1).
Barr fails to disclose the container formed of at least 316 stainless steel; wherein the "U" shaped opening is set back recessed inwards towards the center of the litter box offset at an angle so that the opening is behind the plane of the container viewed from the side; a fill line formed 360 degrees continuously without any gaps around the cylindrical container, wherein the fill line is embossed in the thin sheet stainless steel material of the container to create a raised area along an exterior perimeter of the container and the embossing on the exterior creates a visible depression along an interior perimeter of the container in a corresponding position and wherein the fill line curves raised on the exterior in a semi-ellipse shape relative to the plane of the container and a corresponding semi-ellipse channel is formed on the corresponding interior aspect and the top of the fill line above the channel is coplanar with the bottom of the fill line below the channel, continuous radius of curvature of vertical height of two parallel coplanar lines, Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction and positioned in any part of a preferred location the fill line will be viewable in the same way, wherein the tangent of the cylindrical container is perpendicular to the ground excepting the fill line wherein the fill line protrudes beyond the edge of cylindrical container so that it can be viewed from the vantage point of the top or bottom of the cylindrical container; wherein the fill line is viewed proportionally against the 2-3 inch floor-to-fill-line distance disclosed in the original application, the fill line clearly has substantial width, not a hairline, wherein the fill line structure is designed to be viewed from the lowest human eye viewpoint, and all angles, including a bird's eye view, below, so the litter box may be placed in any number of locations throughout a home, corners, alcoves, tight spaces, where the owner may not have a direct sightline to the side wall and the exterior ridge ensures the fill line remains visible regardless of placement; and a pair of handle openings formed on opposing sides of the sidewall.
However, MacNeil teaches a similar receptacle for use with pets (bowls 102, 104; Figure 2), wherein the floor and sidewalls are formed of 300 series stainless steel (“The bowls may be formed from stainless steel. More particularly, bowls 102, 104 and the other bowls described in the specification below may be stamped or formed from 300-series stainless steel, such as Type 301 or Type 304” Paragraph [0047]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have modified the container of Barr, to be made of 300 series stainless steel as taught by MacNeil, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the bowls are corrosion resistant while also safe for use with pets (MacNeil Paragraph [0047]).
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have modified the 300 series stainless steel of MacNeil, to be specifically 316 stainless steel, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further increase corrosion resistance as well as increase the overall longevity of the device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Additionally, Giddings teaches a similar cat litter box wherein the "U" shaped opening is set back recessed inwards towards the center of the litter box offset at an angle so that the opening is behind the plane of the container viewed from the side (Figures 10 and 12-13); a fill line formed around the cylindrical container (Figures 8-13; shown in annotated Figures 12-13 below), Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction and positioned in any part of a preferred location the fill line will be viewable in the same way (Figures 10-15; see 112b rejection above), the fill line clearly has substantial width, not a hairline (Figures 10-13, see 112b rejection above), and a pair of handle openings formed on opposing sides of the sidewall (Figures 12-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the U-shaped opening of Barr, to be set back as taught by Giddings, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help further prevent any litter from exiting the litter box container, and to have provided the litter box of Barr, with the fill line of Giddings, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the user from using excessive amounts of litter which can lead to an increase in odor build up, and to have provided the litter box of Barr, with the handles of Giddings, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily lift and clean the container, or transport the container.
Additionally, Mineo teaches a similar toilet bowl comprising:
a line formed 360 degrees continuously without any gaps around the cylindrical container (shown in annotated Figure 1 below, Figures 1-3, 6, 8), wherein the fill line is embossed in the thin sheet stainless steel material of the container (Figures 4, 8, and 9; “the portable toilet of the present invention includes a stainless steel pail” Paragraph [0105]) to create a raised area along an exterior perimeter of the container and the embossing on the exterior creates a visible depression along an interior perimeter of the container in a corresponding position (Figures 4, 8, and 9) and wherein the fill line curves raised on the exterior in a semi-ellipse shape relative to the plane of the container and a corresponding semi-ellipse channel is formed on the corresponding interior aspect (Figures 4, 8, and 9) and the top of the fill line above the channel is coplanar with the bottom of the fill line below the channel (in Figure 9, the top of the fill line is vertically in the same plane as the bottom of the fill line), continuous radius of curvature of vertical height of two parallel coplanar lines (Figure 9; see 112b rejection above), Wherein the litter box can be rotated in any direction and positioned in any part of a preferred location the fill line will be viewable in the same way (Figures 1-4; see 112b rejection above), wherein the tangent of the cylindrical container is perpendicular to the ground excepting the fill line, wherein the fill line protrudes beyond the edge of cylindrical container so that it can be viewed from the vantage point of the top or bottom of the cylindrical container (Figures 1-4; the main sidewall of the container is perpendicular to the ground; see 112b rejection above);
the fill line clearly has substantial width, not a hairline (Figures 1-4, see 112b rejection above), wherein the fill line structure is designed to be viewed from the lowest human eye viewpoint, and all angles, including a bird's eye view, below, so the litter box may be placed in any number of locations throughout a home, corners, alcoves, tight spaces, where the owner may not have a direct sightline to the side wall and the exterior ridge ensures the fill line remains visible regardless of placement (Figures 1-4; see 112a and 112b rejections above).
PNG
media_image2.png
485
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the container of Barr, with the embossed, semi-ellipse shaped fill line of Mineo, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the container does not become overfilled and the contents spill outside of the container, while also increasing the durability of the fill line.
Additionally, Elfindale teaches a similar animal litter device wherein the fill line is viewed proportionally against the 2-3 inch floor-to-fill-line distance disclosed in the original application (see 112b rejection above; “The litter is provided in the basket to a depth of between about 1″ and 4″, with a depth of about 2″ to about 3″ being preferred. The basket may include a “fill line” or other indicator of the appropriate fill depth for the litter.” Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have provided the container of Barr, with the fill line at least two inches above floor as taught by Elfindale, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the user from using excessive amounts of litter which can lead to an increase in odor build up, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 37, Barr as modified teaches the animal litter device of claim 36.
Barr fails to disclose the animal litter device, wherein the fill line is positioned on the sidewall at least two inches above the floor.
However, Elfindale teaches a similar animal litter device wherein the fill line is positioned on the sidewall at least two inches above the floor (“The litter is provided in the basket to a depth of between about 1″ and 4″, with a depth of about 2″ to about 3″ being preferred. The basket may include a “fill line” or other indicator of the appropriate fill depth for the litter.” Paragraph [0087])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have provided the container of Barr, with the fill line at least two inches above floor as taught by Elfindale, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent the user from using excessive amounts of litter which can lead to an increase in odor build up, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/10/26 with respect to claims 36-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added references Giddings (US D858006) and Mineo (US 2009/0019632) in combination with previously used references, teach the amended claim as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights