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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-11, and 13-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the third action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 8/1/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/1/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fitch (PGPub #2017/0339911).
Regarding claim 1, Fitch teaches an indoor pet toilet system comprising: an elevated platform (22) having a vertical wall extension along a rear (12, 17, and 22 as seen in figure 1B), a drain opening through a top surface of the platform (Paragraph 66, lines 1-15); a water source connection (Paragraph 39, lines 1-22); a sewer drain connection (Paragraph 66, lines 1-15); and a motion activated and timer controlled flushing mechanism in fluid communication with a water source (Paragraph 39, lines 1-22, and Paragraph 60, lines 1-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 3, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday (PGPub #2017/0245459) in view of Dustin (PGPub #2015/0053139).
Regarding claim 2, Halliday teaches a pet toilet system comprising: an interior enclosure (The space enclosed by 112, and 126 as seen in figure 1) comprising an elevated platform (110 as seen in figure 1) having a sloped-surface (110 as seen in figure 1) and a drain opening (110, and 120 as seen in figures 1-3, as can be seen there is a central opening in the sloped surface that allows the waste to be drained into the lower bowl), the platform defined by an upstanding lower interior sidewall (126 as seen in figure 1) comprising a plurality of water-jets (122) delivering water under pressure across the sloped- surface of the platform (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26) and an upstanding upper interior sidewall (112) upwardly depending from the platform (110, and 112 as seen in figure 1) and having an interval defined by a left lateral margin (112 as seen in figure 1) and a right lateral margin (112 as seen in figure 1) defining the lateral edges of the upper interior sidewall (112 as seen in figure 1), the interval providing ingress and egress into and out of the platform (100, 110, and 112 as seen in figure 1); a toilet assembly comprising a bowl (120), a water-flushing tank (114), and an outlet drain-pipe (152), the tank in fluid communication with the bowl (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26, and Paragraph 26, lines 1-19), and the bowl and outlet drain-pipe in fluid communication with the drain opening (110, 120, and 152 as seen in figure 3), where the water supply system includes the tank (114 as seen in figure 3). But Halliday does not teach an exterior enclosure comprising an upstanding exterior sidewall and an exterior top wall disposed along the top of the upstanding exterior sidewall, the exterior sidewall and the top wall removable and defining a first space formed between the exterior sidewall and the interior sidewall housing the water supply system and the outlet drain-pipe, and wherein the exterior sidewall and the top wall are each separately removable.
However, Dustin does teach an exterior enclosure (250, 360, 370, 380, and 390) comprising an upstanding exterior sidewall (360, 370, 380, and 390 as seen in figure 2) and an exterior top wall (250 as seen in figure 2) disposed along the top of the upstanding exterior sidewall (250, 360, 370, 380, and 390 as seen in figure 2), the exterior sidewall and the top wall defining a first space formed between the exterior sidewall and the interior sidewall housing the water supply system and the outlet drain-pipe (220, 250, 320, 360, 370, 380, 390, and 410 as seen in figure 2), It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an exterior enclosure with a sidewall and top wall that encloses the plumbing elements because Halliday and Dustin are both pet restroom systems. The motivation for having an exterior enclosure with a sidewall and top wall that encloses the plumbing elements is that it helps to contain the system and limit the spread of odors and particulates to the surrounding environment. But Dustin does not explicitly teach that the exterior sidewall and the top wall are removable and wherein the exterior sidewall and the top wall are each separately removable.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the exterior sidewall and the top wall be separately removable, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349. The motivation for having the exterior sidewall and the top wall be separately removable is that it allows the toilet system to be contained when in use but to be separated to allow access to the plumbing system for maintenance and upkeep especially in the event of a leak.
Regarding claim 3, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 2 further comprising an automatic purge system for moving excretions from the platform through the drain- opening and outlet drain-pipe (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26, and Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday).
Regarding claim 13, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the sloped-surface of the elevated platform comprises a top surface and a bottom surface in mutually opposed orientation (110 as seen in figure 3 of Halliday), the bottom surface elevated above a sub-floor surface of a structure (110 as seen in figure 3 of Halliday) and defining a second space housing the bowl in fluid communication with the drain-opening (110, and 120 as seen in figure 3 of Halliday, as can be seen the bowl is located in the space whose top surface is defined by the sloped surface).
Regarding claim 14, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 2, wherein the exterior sidewall comprises three upstanding exterior sidewalls (As can be seen in figure 1 of Halliday the exterior surface has a left wall, a right wall, and a rear wall).
Regarding claim 18, Halliday teaches a pet toilet system comprising: an interior enclosure (The space enclosed by 112, and 126 as seen in figure 1) comprising an elevated platform (110 as seen in figure 1) having a sloped-surface (110 as seen in figure 1) and a drain opening (120), the platform defined by an upstanding lower interior sidewall (126 as seen in figure 1) comprising a plurality of water-jets (122) delivering water under pressure across the sloped-surface of the platform (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26) and an upstanding upper interior sidewall (112) upwardly depending from the platform (110, and 112 as seen in figure 1) and having an interval defined by a left lateral margin (112 as seen in figure 1) and a right lateral margin (112 as seen in figure 1) defining the lateral edges of the upper interior sidewall (112 as seen in figure 1), the interval providing ingress and egress into and out of the platform (100, 110, and 112 as seen in figure 1); an outlet drain-pipe (152) in fluid communication with the drain opening (110, 120, and 152 as seen in figure 3), where the water supply system includes the tank (114 as seen in figure 3). But Halliday does not teach an exterior enclosure comprising an upstanding exterior sidewall and an exterior top wall disposed along the top of the upstanding exterior sidewall, the exterior sidewall and top wall removable and defining a first space formed between the exterior sidewall and the interior sidewall housing the water supply system and the outlet drain-pipe.
However, Dustin does teach an exterior enclosure (250, 360, 370, 380, and 390) comprising an upstanding exterior sidewall (360, 370, 380, and 390 as seen in figure 2) and an exterior top wall (250 as seen in figure 2) disposed along the top of the upstanding exterior sidewall (250, 360, 370, 380, and 390 as seen in figure 2), the exterior sidewall and top wall defining a first space formed between the exterior sidewall and the interior sidewall housing the water supply system and the outlet drain-pipe (220, 250, 320, 360, 370, 380, 390, and 410 as seen in figure 2), It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an exterior enclosure with a sidewall and top wall that encloses the plumbing elements because Halliday and Dustin are both pet restroom systems. The motivation for having an exterior enclosure with a sidewall and top wall that encloses the plumbing elements is that it helps to contain the system and limit the spread of odors and particulates to the surrounding environment. But Dustin does not explicitly teach that the exterior sidewall and the top wall are removable.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the exterior sidewall and the top wall be removable, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349. The motivation for having the exterior sidewall and the top wall be removable is that it allows the toilet system to be contained when in use but to be separated to allow access to the plumbing system for maintenance and upkeep especially in the event of a leak.
Regarding claim 19, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 18 further comprising an automatic purge system for moving excretions from the platform through the drain- opening and the outlet drain-pipe (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26, and Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday).
Claims 4, 5, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday (PGPub #2017/0245459) as modified by Dustin (PGPub #2015/0053139) as applied to claims 3, and 19 above, and further in view of Dumitrescu (PGPub #2022/0151193).
Regarding claim 4, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 3, wherein the automatic purge system further comprises a motion sensor (Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday) and a control system (Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday, for the sensors to be able to trigger a flush there must inherently be a control system communicating between the two systems), but does not teach that the control system has a variable control interface, the variable control interface comprising variable water-pressure controls for the plurality of water-jets to optimize water waste.
However, Dumitrescu does teach that the control system has a variable control interface (Paragraph 35, line 1-Paragraph 36, line 7), the variable control interface comprising variable water-pressure controls for the plurality of water-jets to optimize water waste (Paragraph 35, line 1-Paragraph 36, line 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system have a variable control interface that can vary the water pressure because Halliday and Dumitrescu are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having a variable control interface that can vary the water pressure is that it helps to ensure that there is sufficient water pressure to clean away all of the pet waste.
Regarding claim 5, Halliday as modified by Dustin and Dumitrescu teaches the system of Claim 4, wherein the automatic purge system actuates the tank to evacuate excretions from the bowl and through the outlet drain-pipe (Paragraph 20, lines 1-26, and Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday).
Regarding claim 20, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of claim 19, wherein the automatic purge system further comprises a motion sensor (Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday) and a control system (Paragraph 26, lines 1-19 of Halliday, for the sensors to be able to trigger a flush there must inherently be a control system communicating between the two systems). But Halliday does not teach that the control system has a variable control interface, the variable control interface comprising variable water-pressure controls for the plurality of water-jets to optimize water waste.
However, Dumitrescu does teach that the control system has a variable control interface (Paragraph 35, line 1-Paragraph 36, line 7), the variable control interface comprising variable water-pressure controls for the plurality of water-jets to optimize water waste (Paragraph 35, line 1-Paragraph 36, line 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system have a variable control interface that can vary the water pressure because Halliday and Dumitrescu are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having a variable control interface that can vary the water pressure is that it helps to ensure that there is sufficient water pressure to clean away all of the pet waste.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday (PGPub #2017/0245459) as modified by Dustin (PGPub #2015/0053139), and Dumitrescu (PGPub #2022/0151193) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Fitch (PGPub #2017/0339911).
Regarding claim 6, Halliday as modified by Dustin and Dumitrescu teaches the system of Claim 5, but Halliday does not teach that the motion sensor and the variable control interface are interoperable for detecting a pet entering the platform and activating the plurality of water-jets for evacuating excretions on a predetermined time-delay. However, Fitch does teach that the motion sensor and the variable control interface are interoperable for detecting a pet entering the platform and activating the plurality of water-jets for evacuating excretions on a predetermined time-delay (Paragraph 39, lines 1-22, and Paragraph 60, lines 1-17). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system detect an animal entering the system and activate the water jets on a time delay because Halliday and Fitch are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having the system detect an animal entering the system and activate the water jets on a time delay is that it helps to ensure that the system will actuate to ensure that the waste is disposed of.
Regarding claim 7, Halliday as modified by Dustin, Dumitrescu, and Fitch teaches the system of Claim 6, but Halliday does not teach that the variable control interface comprises variable timer controls for time-delay activation. However, Fitch does teach that the variable control interface comprises variable timer controls for time-delay activation (Paragraph 39, lines 1-22, and Paragraph 60, lines 1-17). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a variable timer for time-delay activation because Halliday and Fitch are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having a variable timer for time-delay activation is that it helps to ensure that the system disposes of the waste after it is detected that an animal has entered the system.
Regarding claim 8, Halliday as modified by Dustin, Dumitrescu, and Fitch teaches the system of Claim 7, wherein the time-delayed activation results in synchronous activation of each one of the plurality of the water-jets (Paragraph 20, line 1-Paragraph 21, line 23 of Halliday).
Regarding claim 9, Halliday as modified by Dustin, Dumitrescu, and Fitch teaches the system of Claim 8, but does not teach that the time-delayed activation results in select synchronous activation of the plurality of water- jets. However, Fitch does teach that the time-delayed activation results in select synchronous activation of the plurality of water- jets (Paragraph 60, lines 1-17, and Paragraph 65, lines 1-21, this teaches that just the two top jets can be activated synchronously, and teaches that the system can be activated on a time delay after the motion has been detected). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water jets be selectively synchronously activated because Halliday and Fitch are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having the water jets be selectively synchronously activated is that it allows the water to be delivered in a manner that helps to most efficiently remove the waste.
Regarding claim 10, Halliday as modified by Dustin, Dumitrescu, and Fitch teaches the system of Claim 7, but Halliday does not teach that the time-delayed activation results in asynchronous activation of each one of the plurality of the water-jets. However, Fitch does teach that the time-delayed activation results in asynchronous activation of each one of the plurality of the water-jets (Paragraph 60, lines 1-17, and Paragraph 65, lines 1-21, this teaches that the system can be activated on a time delay after the motion has been detected). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water jets be asynchronously activated because Halliday and Fitch are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having the water jets be asynchronously activated is that it can allow the jets to more effectively and consistently remove all of the waste.
Regarding claim 11, Halliday as modified by Dustin, Dumitrescu, and Fitch teaches the system of Claim 10, but Halliday does not teach that the time-delayed activation results in select asynchronous activation of the plurality of water-jets. However, Fitch does teach that the time-delayed activation results in select asynchronous activation of the plurality of water-jets (Paragraph 60, lines 1-17, and Paragraph 65, lines 1-21, this teaches that the system can be activated on a time delay after the motion has been detected). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water jets be selectively asynchronously activated because Halliday and Fitch are both pet waste disposal systems. The motivation for having the water jets be selectively asynchronously activated is that it can allow the jets to more effectively and consistently remove all of the waste while helping to conserve water all of the nozzles are not needed.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday (PGPub #2017/0245459) as modified by Dustin (PGPub #2015/0053139) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of McCauley (US #5,329,878).
Regarding claim 15, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 2, but does not teach that the interior sidewall comprises four upstanding interior sidewalls. However, McCauley does teach that the interior sidewall comprises four upstanding interior sidewalls (20, 22, 24, 26, and 28 as seen in figures 1, and 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sidewalls have four walls because Halliday and McCauley are both pet waste systems. The motivation for having the sidewalls have four walls is that it helps to more fully enclose the waste area and prevent waste material from escaping out from the system.
Regarding claim 16, Halliday as modified by Dustin teaches the system of Claim 2 but does not teach removable steps. However, McCauley does teach removable steps (36, as seen in figures 1, and 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removable steps because Halliday and McCauley are both pet waste systems. The motivation for having removable steps because it makes it easier for animals to get into and out of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Halliday as modified by Dustin and McCauley teaches the system of Claim 16, wherein the exterior enclosure abuts the interior surface (112, and the exterior enclosure as seen above in figure 1 of Halliday), but Halliday does not teach that the removable steps abut the exterior enclosure and the interior enclosure, the removable steps oriented with the interval formed between the lateral margins of the upstanding upper interior sidewalls.
However, McCauley does teach that the removable steps abut the exterior enclosure and the interior enclosure (20, and 36 as seen in figure 1, this teaches that the steps abut the interior enclosure and when applied to the system of Halliday would result in the elements forming a chain of abutting elements), the removable steps oriented with the interval formed between the lateral margins of the upstanding upper interior sidewalls (20, and 36 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the removable steps abut the opening in the interior enclosure because Halliday and McCauley are both pet waste systems. The motivation for having the removable steps abut the opening in the interior enclosure is that it helps to allow the animals to get into and out of the system while also limiting the opportunity for the waste to escape out of the sides of the system.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that Fitch does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1. As can be read in the cited sections the motion detection system is capable of initiating a flush and dispersal of the water system based upon detected movements and the ability of the motion system to control when the flush is released inherently requires the that the motion system is in fluid communication with the water as it would otherwise be unable to communicate and control when the water is released.
Regarding applicant’s argument pertaining to claims 2, and 18 that neither Halliday nor Dustin teaches that the top can be separately removable, the examiner agrees that neither of the references teach the limitation. However as is discussed in the rejections of claims 2, and 18, the mere act of making an element separately removable has been held to be a concept that is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that Halliday does not teach a bowl, 120 as cited in the rejection is located beneath the upper platform, receives water from the tank when the system is flushed and the water that it receives exits out of the center opening and into the drain which are the features required of the bowl in the claim.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Halliday does not teach three exterior walls, while the walls of Halliday are continuous with each other they form three clear wall segments that act as a left, right and rear wall, and the claim as currently written does not require there to be a sharp corner between the walls.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the combination using Dumitrescu fails to teach all of the limitations of the claim. Dumitrescu is not relied upon to teach the presence of the plurality of jets and is instead only relied upon to teach limitations of the control system that dictate the release of water to the nozzles and the system of Dumitrescu can be applied to any water nozzle system including that of Halliday which does teach the presence of multiple nozzles.
The applicant argues that in claim 6, Fitch fails to teach the control interface comprising variable water-pressure controls, however claim 6 does not currently require variable water-pressure controls.
While the applicant is correct that Halliday does disclose an alternative embodiment that only has a single outlet, the cited paragraphs, as well as the previously cited figures, also disclose an embodiment with a plurality of outlets which do allow for synchronized activation.
The applicant argues that Fitch fails to teach the time-delayed nature of the limitation, however the examiner had outlined in the rejection of the claims how they believe that Fitch does teach the time-delayed limitation.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that McCauley does not teach that the steps are removable, as can be seen in the figures of McCauley the steps are only attached to the body by a hook at the end of the steps and the mere act of lifting the steps will cause them to be removed from the system.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647