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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “145” has been used to designate both the side platform face and the overhanging edge in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-12 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 8 recites the limitation "the threshold" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 states in line 15 “an overhanging edge coupled to a back wall and a side wall.” However, a back wall and sidewall have already been introduced in lines 4 and 6, therefore it is unclear if these are referring to the same parts, or if these are additional sidewalls and backwalls.
Claim 11 states “an internal platform extending in a direction exterior to the basin.” It is unclear how the platform that is internal to the basin can extend in a direction external to the basin. The Figures shows the internal platform being inside the basin, and extending towards the sidewalls, and therefore do not provide further clarification as to how this would function. For examination purposes, the Office will read this to say “an internal platform extending in a direction interior to the basin.”
Claim 12 states in line 2 “coupling a rubberized pad to the entrance ramp” However, a rubberized pad has already been introduced in claim 11 line 4, therefore it is unclear if these are referring to the same parts, or if this is an additional rubberized pad.
Claims 9-10 are 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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US 5329878) in view of Northrop et al. (US 2004/0129230) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 2/1/22), Diskin et al. (US 2012/0227672), and Mitcheil (US 3377990).
Regarding Claim 1, McCauley discloses a pet litterbox (container 12) comprising:
an entrance ramp (ramp structure 36);
a threshold (front end portion 26) coupled to the entrance ramp (via end portion 44; Figures 3 and 4);
a non-slip tread coupled to the entrance ramp (non-slip treads 40; Figure 1);
a basin (container 12) coupled to the threshold, further comprising:
a back wall (end portion 28);
at least one side wall (side portions 22 and 24);
a front wall (end portion 26);
an outer edge coupled to the side wall and back wall (peripheral edge 30);
a basin floor (bottom wall 18);
and an internal platform (ramp structure 34) that serves as a ramp going down into the basin (Figures 1 and 3) and is coupled to the entrance ramp (Figures 1 and 3) to form a structure that extends both internals into and externally from the basin (Figures 1 and 3), the internal platform comprising:
an upper platform face (top wall 34a), wherein the upper face extends at a downward angle towards the back wall (Figures 1 and 3); and
at least one side platform face (side wall 34B),
wherein the internal platform is coupled to the threshold (via lower edge 32A Figure 2); and
wherein the internal platform and basin floor are configured to be interior to the basin (Figure 1); and
an overhanging edge coupled to the back wall and the side wall extending in a direction exterior to the basin (peripheral edge 30 shown overhanging in annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McCauley fails to disclose an entrance ramp having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge; a rubberized pad coupled to the entrance ramp; wherein the structure is integrated; at least one side platform face, wherein the side face extends at a downward angle towards the side wall.
However, Northrop teaches a similar pet litterbox comprising an entrance ramp (entrance ramp 258) having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge (Figures 1 and 12).
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 entrance ramp of McCauley, with the lip of Northrop, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent litter from being spread outside of the litterbox.
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 modified the basin and ramps of McCauley, to be made integral, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent building up of litter and waste, and make the device easier to clean, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Additionally, Diskin teaches a pet litterbox, further comprising a rubberized pad coupled to said entrance (“cat litter mat 10 is composed of silicone rubber” Paragraph [0014]).
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 non-slip tread of McCauley, with the rubberized pad of Diskin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the pet can safely enter and exit the litter box.
Additionally, Mitcheil teaches a similar pet litterbox comprising at least one side platform face, wherein the side face extends at a downward angle towards the side wall (“the surface 21 of the portion 24 slopes from the center and apex 25 downwardly toward the flat portion 22 at a substantially equal angle in every direction” Col. 3 lines 3-6).
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 side platform face of McCauley, with the side face extending downwards at an angle as taught by Mitcheil, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure there is proper drainage within the litter box, to prevent a buildup of excrement on the platform.
Regarding Claim 3, McCauley as modified teaches the pet litter box of claim 1.
McCauley fails to disclose the pet litterbox, wherein the rubberized pad is comprised of silicone.
However, Diskin teaches a pet litterbox, wherein the rubberized pad is comprised of silicone (“cat litter mat 10 is composed of silicone rubber” Paragraph [0014]).
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 non-slip tread of McCauley, with the silicone pad of Diskin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the pet can safely enter and exit the litter box, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley in view of Northrop, Diskin, and Mitcheil as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo et al. (US 2009/0000560).
Regarding Claim 7, McCauley as modified teaches the pet litter box of claim 1.
McCauley fails to disclose the pet litterbox, wherein that pet litterbox is at least partially comprised of a polypropylene.
However, Matsuo teaches a pet litterbox, wherein that pet litterbox is at least partially comprised of a polypropylene (“any type of material which is normally used for an animal litter box may be used without any limitation. For example, synthetic resin such as polyethylene and polypropylene can be used.” Paragraph [0041]).
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 litter box of McCauley, to be made of polypropylene as taught by Matsuo, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easy manufacturability of the litter box, 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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US 5329878) in view of Northrop et al. (US 2004/0129230) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 2/1/22), and Mitcheil (US 3377990).
Regarding Claim 8, McCauley discloses a pet litterbox (container 12) comprising:
an entrance ramp (ramp structure 36)
a basin (container 12) coupled to the threshold (front end portion 26), the basin comprising:
a back wall (end portion 28);
at least one side wall (side portions 22 and 24);
a front wall (end portion 26);
an outer edge coupled to the side wall and back wall (peripheral edge 30); and
a basin floor (bottom wall 18);
an internal platform (ramp structure 34) configured to be interior to the basin (Figure 1) comprising:
an upper platform face (top wall 34a), wherein the upper face extends at a downward angle towards the back wall of a basin in which the internal platform is located (Figures 1 and 3);
at least one side platform face (side wall 34B);
and an overhanging edge coupled to a back wall and a side wall extending in a direction exterior to the basin (peripheral edge 30 shown overhanging in annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McCauley fails to disclose an entrance ramp having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge; at least one side platform face, wherein the side platform face extends toward at least one side wall of the basin at a downward angle towards the basin floor.
However, Northrop teaches a similar pet litterbox comprising an entrance ramp (entrance ramp 258) having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge (Figures 1 and 12).
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 entrance ramp of McCauley, with the lip of Northrop, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent litter from being spread outside of the litterbox.
Additionally, Mitcheil teaches a pet litter box comprising at least one side platform face, wherein the side face extends at a downward angle towards the side wall (“the surface 21 of the portion 24 slopes from the center and apex 25 downwardly toward the flat portion 22 at a substantially equal angle in every direction” Col. 3 lines 3-6).
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 side platform face of McCauley, with the side face extending downwards at an angle as taught by Mitcheil, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure there is proper drainage within the litter box, to prevent a buildup of excrement on the platform.
Regarding Claim 10, McCauley as modified teaches the pet litter box of claim 8. McCauley further discloses the pet letterbox, wherein the at least one side platform face is coupled to the basin floor (“the lower edges of the top wall 34A and side walls 34B of the first ramp structure 34 are rigidly attached to the inside periphery of the bottom wall 18” Col. 3 lines 28-32).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley in view of Northrop and Mitcheil as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Munson et al. (US 2019/0274273).
Regarding Claim 9, McCauley as modified teaches the pet litter box of claim 8.
McCauley fails to disclose the pet litterbox, wherein the upper platform face is coupled to the back wall of the basin.
However, Munson teaches the pet letterbox, wherein the upper platform (deck 30) face is coupled to the back wall of the basin (Figures 1 and 2).
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 upper platform of McCauley, to couple to the back wall as taught by Munson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent a buildup of excrement in any gaps, nooks, and crannies.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US 5329878) in view of Northrop et al. (US 2004/0129230) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 2/1/22), Diskin et al. (US 2012/0227672), and Lewis (WO 0036906).
Regarding Claim 11, McCauley discloses a method of manufacturing a pet litterbox, comprising the steps of:
forming an entrance ramp (ramp structure 36);
forming a non-slip tread coupled to the entrance ramp (non-slip treads 40; Figure 1);
forming a threshold (front end portion 26) coupled to the entrance ramp (via end portion 44; Figures 3 and 4);
forming a basin (container 12), the basin further comprising:
a back wall (end portion 28);
at least one side wall (side portions 22 and 24);
a front wall (end portion 26);
an outer edge coupled to the side wall and back wall (peripheral edge 30);
a basin floor (bottom wall 18); and
an internal platform (ramp structure 34) extending in a direction exterior to the basin (Figure 1; see 112b above);
further comprising:
an upper platform face (top wall 34a); and
a side platform face (side wall 34B);
wherein the internal platform is coupled to the threshold (via lower edge 32A Figure 2);
McCauley fails to disclose the method of manufacturing comprising forming an entrance ramp having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge; forming a rubberized pad coupled to the entrance ramp; forming the litterbox via a mold.
However, Northrop teaches a similar pet litterbox comprising an entrance ramp (entrance ramp 258) having an upward facing lip along an outermost edge (Figures 1 and 12).
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 entrance ramp of McCauley, with the lip of Northrop, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent litter from being spread outside of the litterbox.
Additionally, Diskin teaches a pet litterbox, further comprising a rubberized pad coupled to said entrance (“cat litter mat 10 is composed of silicone rubber” Paragraph [0014]).
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 non-slip tread of McCauley, with the rubberized pad of Diskin, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the pet can safely enter and exit the litter box.
Additionally, Lewis teaches a method of manufacturing comprising forming the litterbox via a mold (“The litter containers are fabricated by injection molding using a plastic” Page 6 lines 17-18).
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 method of McCauley, to have the litterbox formed via a mold as taught by Lewis, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help create a more efficient manufacturing process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley in view of Northrop, Diskin, and Lewis as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Amicarelli (US 2017/0318772).
Regarding Claim 12, McCauley as modified teaches the method of claim 11. McCauley further discloses the method further comprising the step of: coupling a non-slip tread coupled to said entrance ramp (non-slip treads 40; Figure 1).
McCauley fails to disclose the method, further comprising the step of: coupling a rubberized pad to the entrance ramp.
However, Amicarelli teaches the method, further comprising the step of: coupling a rubberized pad to the entrance ramp (“The climbing ramp 16 may be made of plastic or wood and may include a gripping material, such as a fabric or rubber material.” Paragraph [0021]).
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 non-slip tread of McCauley, with the rubberized pad of Amicarelli, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the pet can safely enter and exit the litter box.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/25 regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Figure 7 has been amended, however, there are no new figures attached with the amendments and arguments filed 2/19/25 or the ones filed 2/3/25.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/19/25 with respect to claims 1, 8, and 11 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 reference Northrop et al. (US 2004/0129230) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 2/1/22) in combination with previously used references teaches the amended claims as discusses in the currently presented rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642