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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,6,14,15,23,27,31,44,63,69-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (KR 102004482 B1) in view of Ahn (WO 2018174350 A1) and Reitz (US 5662066 A).
For claim 1, Jeon teaches a litter device comprising:
a) a base (can be ref. 120 or ref. 220 OR both);
b) a chamber (interior space surrounded by ref. 220) rotatably supported by the base (ref. 200 rotates and supported by the base 120 per the translation: “A drum 200 installed at an inner side of the case 100 so as to be able to separate the defecation material including the cat excrement and the sand while being rotated by the driving force of the motor 510”, and “The upper case 110 includes a first locking member 112 having an inlet 111 formed on the front surface thereof and formed in a semicircular shape and provided with locking projections 112-1 on both sides thereof to be coupled to the lower case 120 Upper reinforcing protrusions (not shown) are formed in a lattice shape so as to maintain the shape of the inner side. The upper reinforcing protrusions are formed so as not to interfere with the rotation of the drum 200.”), the chamber having an entry opening (121 or 201), wherein the chamber is configured to hold a litter and to allow an animal to enter and excrete a waste;
c) a bonnet (110 or 210 or both) located at least partially over a portion of the chamber, wherein the chamber is located between the base and the bonnet;
d) a waste receptacle (250) in communication with the chamber and configured to receive the waste;
e) a bezel (fig. 1, the frame member of ref. 110, 120 that surrounds the entry opening) encircling about the entry opening; wherein the bezel is affixed to the base and the bonnet, wherein the bezel conceals a gap formed between the chamber and the bonnet and conceals another gap formed between the chamber and the base (a gap and another gap can be any areas, thus, any areas that the bezel covers are considered a gap and another gap between the chamber/bonnet and chamber/base), and wherein the bezel has an annular cross-sectional shape (fig. 1 shows the bezel as annular) such as to have an opening aligned with the entry opening; and
wherein the chamber is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (500) for a cleaning cycle to be executed (as stated in the above excerpts from Jeon);
wherein the axis of rotation extends through the entry opening (fig. 1, ref. 500).
However, Jeon is silent about the waste receptacle being a waste drawer; wherein the bezel is separated from and affixed to the base and the bonnet; and f) an entry barrier located adjacent to and/or within the entry opening, wherein the entry barrier is configured to open to allow the animal to enter and exit the chamber and to close to prevent access by one or more animals into the chamber, wherein the entry barrier includes one or more mating features which are engaged with the bezel such as to affix the entry barrier to the bezel; wherein the entry barrier includes one of the one or more entry barrier portions and wherein at least one of the one or more entry barrier portions is rotatable such as to place the entry barrier in a closed position such as to prevent entry into the chamber by the one or more animals, an open position such as to allow entry into the chamber and/or exit from the chamber by the animal, or both; wherein the one or more entry barrier portions include a first barrier portion and a second barrier portion; wherein the first barrier portion remains fixed relative to the bezel, the bonnet, and the base; and wherein the second barrier portion is rotatable relative to the first barrier portion.
Reitz teaches a litter device comprising a waste drawer (54,124,122) in communication with a chamber (chamber of ref. 132) and configured to receive waste. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the waste receptacle of Jeon with a waste drawer as taught by Reitz, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of waste container would result in the same function to receive waste). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Ahn teaches a litter device comprising a bezel (31) is separated from and affixed to a base (10 or 10,20) and a bonnet (20 or 40); and f) an entry barrier (32) located adjacent to and/or within an entry opening (21), wherein the entry barrier is configured to open to allow the animal to enter and exit the chamber and to close to prevent access by one or more animals into the chamber, wherein the entry barrier includes one or more mating features (not numbered but can be seen in figs. 1-2 as the hinge and connection of ref. 32a to that of ref. 31) which are engaged with the bezel such as to affix the entry barrier to the bezel; wherein the entry barrier includes one of the one or more entry barrier portions (32a-32c) and wherein at least one of the one or more entry barrier portions is rotatable such as to place the entry barrier in a closed position such as to prevent entry into the chamber by the one or more animals, an open position such as to allow entry into the chamber and/or exit from the chamber by the animal, or both; wherein the one or more entry barrier portions include a first barrier portion (the hinge connection with the sleeve and pin) and a second barrier portion (any one of refs. 32a-32c); wherein the first barrier portion remains fixed relative to the bezel, the bonnet, and the base (the pin of the hinge connection is fixed relative to the bezel, the bonnet, and the base), and wherein the second barrier portion is rotatable relative to the first barrier portion (ref. 32a can be considered as the second barrier portion that is rotatable relative to the hinge connection or the first barrier portion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bezel of Jeon as modified by Reitz be separated from and affixed to the base and the bonnet as taught by Ahn in order to provide for assemblage and dis-assemblage of the litter device for ease of shipment and/or storage.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an entry barrier as taught by Ahn located adjacent to and/or within the entry opening of the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz, wherein the entry barrier is configured to open to allow the animal to enter and exit the chamber and to close to prevent access by one or more animals into the chamber, wherein the entry barrier includes one or more mating features which are engaged with the bezel such as to affix the entry barrier to the bezel as taught by Ahn, wherein the entry barrier includes one of the one or more entry barrier portions and wherein at least one of the one or more entry barrier portions is rotatable such as to place the entry barrier in a closed position and an open position such as to prevent entry into the chamber by the one or more animals as taught by Ahn, and wherein the one or more entry barrier portions include a first barrier portion and a second barrier portion; wherein the first barrier portion remains fixed relative to the bezel, the bonnet, and the base; and wherein the second barrier portion is rotatable relative to the first barrier portion as taught by Ahn in the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz in order to allow entry into the chamber and/or exit from the chamber by the animal, or both.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 6, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, wherein the entry barrier includes one or more rotating doors (as relied on Ahn, refs. 32 are rotating doors as stated in the translation), one or more iris openings, one or more folding doors, one or more sliding doors, one or more swing doors, or any combination thereof.
For claim 14, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 12, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the entry barrier and its features) wherein the second barrier portion (32a) rotates about a rotational axis of the second barrier portion into the closed position, the open position, or both while the first barrier portion remains statically fixed relative to the bezel (the pin of the hinge connection does not move and it is fixed to the bezel as shown in fig. 1 and the illustration of fig. 3 above).
For claim 15, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the entry barrier and its features) wherein the first barrier portion has a cross-sectional shape which is reciprocal with a cross-sectional shape of the entry opening, the bezel, or both (the hinge connection tubular sleeve has reciprocal shape as that of the opening 21 and/or the bezel 31 in Ahn in order to match and fit therein as shown in fig. 3 in the above illustration).
For claim 23, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 11, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the entry barrier and its features) wherein the entry barrier includes one or more frames (not numbered but the frame is the hinge connection which is a typical tubular sleeve and rod configuration making up the hinge connection as shown in fig. 3 of Ahn) which affix the entry barrier to the bezel.
For claim 27, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 23, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the entry barrier and its features) wherein the one or more frames are removably affixed to the bezel (fig. 1 shows the parts are removably affixed to each other; not numbered but the frame is the hinge connection which is a typical tubular sleeve and rod configuration making up the hinge connection as shown in fig. 3 of Ahn and the hinge connection can be removed by removing the rod from the tubular sleeve of the hinge connection); and wherein the one or more frames are removably affixed to the bezel via an interference fit, a snap fit, or both (rod inside the tubular sleeve for the hinge connection in Ahn would be considered an interference fit).
For claim 31, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 23, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the entry barrier and its features) wherein the one or more frames has a cross-sectional shape substantially reciprocal to a cross-sectional shape of the entry opening, the bezel, or both (the hinge connection tubular sleeve has reciprocal shape as that of the opening 21 and/or the bezel 31 in Ahn in order to match and fit therein as shown in fig. 3 in the above illustration).
For claim 44, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, wherein the litter device includes one or more controllers (600 of Jeon), one or more communication modules, or both.
For claim 63, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, and further teaches (emphasis on Reitz since they are relied on for the drawer) wherein the waste drawer is below the chamber (as shown in fig. 1 of Reitz), removably located within the base, and removable from a front of the litter device below the top portion of bezel.
For claim 69, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, (emphasis on Ahn since he was relied on for the bezel, the entry barrier and its features) wherein the bezel includes a front surface (can be any surface on the front, for example, figs. 2,3 where ref. 31 is pointing at can be a front surface) connected to an inner flange (see the examiner’s illustration below), wherein the front surface defines an outer surface of the bezel, and the inner flange defines the opening of the bezel, wherein the inner flange is the portion of the bezel which conceals the gap and the another gap; wherein the entry barrier includes a base member (32a) and projecting therefrom is a rear flange (mounted on the top portion of ref. 32a is the tubular sleeve for the hinge connection, which sleeve can be considered a rear flange projecting from the base member 32a); and wherein the entry barrier is affixed to the bezel such that the base member is adjacent to the inner flange and the rear flange abuts to a rear edge of the inner flange (fig. 3 shows the hinge connection and base member 32a is adjacent to various inner flanges as shown below in the examiner’s illustration, and the rear flange or the tubular sleeve abuts to the rear edge of at least the top inner flange as shown below and in fig. 3).
For claim 70, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first barrier portion has a circular cross- section (the hinge connection with tubular sleeve is circular, which is conventional for a hinge with sleeve and pin as relied on with Ahn as shown in the zoomed in illustration of fig. 3 above).
For claim 71, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the one or more mating features include one or more retention tabs (the hinge connection with tubular sleeve can be considered as tabs as shown in the zoomed in illustration of fig. 3 above of Ahn).
PNG
media_image2.png
497
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-5,72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loctin (FR 2584568 A1).
For claim 2, Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the litter device includes one or more controllers, and optionally, one or more sensors; wherein either or both the one or more controllers and the one or more sensors are configured to sense one or more conditions; and wherein the entry barrier includes one or more drive sources in communication with the one or more controllers and which are configured to automatically open at least a portion of the entry barrier to expose the entry opening, configured to automatically close the at least the portion of the entry barrier to at least partially cover the entry opening, or both based upon the one or more sensors, the one or more controllers, or both sensing the one or more conditions.
Loctin teaches a litter device comprising one or more controllers (32), and optionally, one or more sensors (8,24); wherein either or both the one or more controllers and the one or more sensors are configured to sense one or more conditions (present of the animal in the enclosure by the sensor 24 is considered to be a condition); and wherein an entry barrier (6) includes one or more drive sources (7) in communication with the one or more controllers and which are configured to automatically open at least a portion of the entry barrier to expose the entry opening (5), configured to automatically close the at least the portion of the entry barrier to at least partially cover the entry opening, or both based upon the one or more sensors, the one or more controllers, or both sensing the one or more conditions (page 4 of the translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sensors and controller as further taught by Loctin in the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz and Ahn in order to provide automated control of entry of the door and cleaning the device based on conditions from the sensors reading.
For claim 3, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 2, (emphasis on Loctin since he was relied on for the sensor features) wherein the litter device includes the one or more sensors (8,24 of Loctin) which are configured to detect the one or more conditions (translation states: “A volumetric detector (24), capable of detecting the presence of an animal in the enclosure (4)”); and wherein the one or more conditions include an absence and/or a presence of the animal within proximity of the litter device, initiation and/or ending of the cleaning cycle, the presence of one or more litter conditions within the litter device, or any combination thereof.
For claim 4, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 2, (emphasis on Loctin since he was relied on for the sensor features) wherein the litter device includes the one or more sensors (8,24 of Loctin) which are configured to detect the one or more conditions (translation states: “A volumetric detector (24), capable of detecting the presence of an animal in the enclosure (4)”); and wherein the one or more conditions include the one or more animals entering a sensing field, the one or more animals leaving the sensing field, one or more identification tags entering the sensing field, the one or more identification tags leaving the sensing field, or a combination there (as stated in the excerpt above, the detector 24 of Loctin detects the animal in the enclosure and leaving the enclosure so that cleaning can start).
For claim 5, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 2, (emphasis on Loctin since he was relied on for the sensor features) wherein the controller (32 of Loctin) is configured to detect the one or more conditions and wherein the one or more conditions include a predetermined amount of time; and wherein the predetermined amount of time is an amount of time elapsed after the animal has exited the chamber, an amount of time prior to the cleaning cycle being initiated, an amount of time after the cleaning cycle has ended, or any combination thereof (translation states: “The device comprises an electrical control box (32), placed for example in its upper part above the wall (1). The control box (32) is connected, by a first series of electrical connections (33, 34, 35, 36), to the various detectors, namely: the contact (8) for detecting the closing of the door (6), the float contact (17) associated with the grinder (15), the contact (23) cooperating with the float (20) linked to the shutter (18), and the volumetric detector (24). Furthermore, the box (32) is connected, by electrical supply wires (37, 38, 39, 40), respectively to the motor (7) controlling the door (6), to the grinder (15), to the first solenoid valve (29) and to the second solenoid valve (31). The electrical control box (32) controls the automatic operation of the device, which is described below: The device, being powered up and connected to the water network, is usually in the waiting position, in which the shutter (18) closes the evacuation hole (13), while the door (6) remains open and leaves free access to the enclosure (4) through the opening (5).”.
For claim 72, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 4, but is silent about wherein the sensing field includes an area external to the litter device. In addition to the above, Reitz teaches a sensor (114) with a sensing field that includes an area external to the litter device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include another sensor as further taught by Reitz that is mounted outside so as to have a sensing field that include an area external to the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin in order to detect the animal’s motion on the outside as it approaches the litter device.
Claims 36,52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin as applied to claims 1,2,4 above, and further in view of Triener (US 20120299731 A1).
For claim 36, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 4, wherein the litter device includes the one or more sensors, but is silent about wherein the one or more sensors include one or more identification sensors configured to sense the one or more identification tags within a proximity of the litter device.
Triener teaches a litter device comprising one or more identification sensors (102) configured to sense the one or more identification tags within a proximity of the litter device (para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more identification sensors as taught by Triener configured to sense the one or more identification tags within a proximity of the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin in order to detect the animal so as to activate the device and to monitor the animal’s waste habit.
For claim 52, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin teaches the litter device of claim 2, wherein the litter device includes the one or more sensors but is silent about the one or more sensors includes one or more image sensors.
In addition to the above, Triener also teaches the litter device includes one or more image sensors (para. 0042, the photographic cameras, video cameras, etc. for sensor 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more image sensors as taught by Triener in the device of Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Loctin in order to monitor the animal with real life images so as to activate the device and to monitor the animal’s waste habit.
Claims 45,46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn as applied to claims 1,44 above, and further in view of Noh (KR 20180010459 A).
For claim 45, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn teaches the litter device of claim 44, but is silent about wherein the litter device is integrated into a network.
Noh teaches a litter device that is integrated into a network (translation: “Various kinds of information about pets stored in the memory 187 can be transmitted to the outside through the communication unit 192. The communication unit 192 may utilize various wireless communication methods capable of communicating with the outside such as a Wi-Fi network. Various information such as weight information, petition amount, defecation time, defecation time, etc. transmitted to the pet through the communication unit 192 can be received and stored by the pet management server. Thus, the information stored in the server can be confirmed by the user through the personal portable terminal, thereby allowing the user to manage the pets more efficiently.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the litter device of Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn be integrated into a network as further taught by Noh in order to allow the user to communicate with the litter device remotely so as to control the operation of the device.
For claim 46, Jeon as modified by Reitz, Ahn and Noh teaches the litter device of claim 45, wherein the network includes a smart home system (the communication unit 192, wireless communication method, and Wi-Fi network as taught by Noh per claim 45 above are considered to be a smart home system).
Claims 65-66,68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (as above) in view of Reitz (as above), Ahn (as above) and Loctin (as above).
For claims 65-68, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
On p. 3, the Office Action alleges that Jeon teaches a rotating drum and a bezel encircling about the entry opening which is affixed to the base and the bonnet. However, Applicant submits that while Jeon may mention the rotation of a drum, the Office Action does not present evidence or reasoning as to how Jeon teaches or even suggests how to have the drum rotate while cooperating with a fixed bezel affixed to a base and bonnet.
As stated in the rejection, the bezel is the frame member of refs. 110,120, and ref. 110 can be considered as the bonnet, and ref. 120 can be considered as the base. Thus, it is clear the drum 200 rotate while cooperating with the fixed bezel that is affixed to the base 110 and the bonnet 120.
In other words, the Office Action presents evidence Jeon teaches for the drum to be functional and cooperate with the other components in the assembly, the drum remains static in the lower case. The Office Action does not present evidence or sufficiently articulated rationale as to where Jeon teaches or suggests how the drum 200, 220 could rotate while being coupled to the lower case 120, maintaining the required stability since the drum 200, 220 would be floating without it.
As stated in the translation of Jeon, Jeon clearly indicated that “A drum 200 installed at an inner side of the case 100 so as to be able to separate the defecation material including the cat excrement and the sand while being rotated by the driving force of the motor 510”, and “The upper case 110 includes a first locking member 112 having an inlet 111 formed on the front surface thereof and formed in a semicircular shape and provided with locking projections 112-1 on both sides thereof to be coupled to the lower case 120 Upper reinforcing protrusions (not shown) are formed in a lattice shape so as to maintain the shape of the inner side. The upper reinforcing protrusions are formed so as not to interfere with the rotation of the drum 200.”
While it is unclear what the Office Action is specifically equating to the space, Applicant has amended the claim to specify that the bezel conceals a gap formed between the chamber and the bonnet and another gap formed between the chamber and the base, without acquiescing and solely in the interest of expediting prosecution.
Applicant’s amending the limitation from “space” to “gap” is the same thing because both are merely open areas. Gaps or spaces exist between refs. 110,120 and refs. 210,220 because refs. 110,120 cover the outer surfaces of refs. 210,220. From the figures, the bezel on refs. 110,120 overlay the frame opening of refs. 210,220 and there is a gap because there is a rim on refs. 210,220 and the rim or bezel of refs. 110,120 just covers the rim. Otherwise, how would the drum 200 rotate if the bezel on refs. 110,120 is tightly fit thereon at the opening? Also, fig. 3 of Jeon shows where ref. 121 is pointing at, there is an angle for the bezel, thus, when overlaying the frame opening of refs. 210,220 it will not be flush because, again, the drum 200 would not be able to rotate if that is the case.
Accordingly, the Office Action presents evidence Jeon does not teach a gap formed between the drum and the upper casing and between the drum and the lower casing, as the flange of the drum itself protrudes outward to the upper and lower casings. Furthermore, the Applicant submits that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to remove the flanges of the drum to create a gap, as this would render their function to support the LED lamp 661 non-operable.
As stated in the above, the drum is designed to rotate, thus, the bezel of refs. 110,120 cannot tightly fit on the opening frame member of refs. 210,220 because this will prevent the drum from rotation. Thus, it is clear from Jeon that there exists a gap or space or an open area so that the drum can rotate inside refs. 110,120.
In addition, the bezel cannot be tightly fit so that there is no gap because then the LED lamp 661 will be completely covered and non-operable. There are thicknesses on the opening frame members of refs. 210,220 and the angled thickness of the bezel of refs. 110,120, thus, they are not tightly fit that there is absolutely no gap whatsoever. From figs. 2,3 of Jeon, one can see where ref. 121 is pointing at, once this is fitted over refs. 210,220 and fig. 4 shows refs. 210,220 with the thickness flange at the opening, there will be gaps or spaces or open areas.
Furthermore, Applicant submits that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to include a separate bezel by modifying the frame or otherwise, as the provided flange provides for the inner drum 200 to abut the outer case 100, making any additional bezel-like structures unnecessary and redundant.
It is not clear as to what applicant is arguing here because the examiner does not include a separate bezel by modifying the frame as stated. Jeon teaches a bezel surround the opening of refs. 110,120 so that is what the examiner is relying on for the bezel. There is no other separate bezel being relied on in Jeon.
However, Ahn actually teaches that frame 31 is only affixed to the cover 20 and not attached to the main body 10 or the multifunction filter unit 40 (Fig. 1, and translation: "the door connection frame 31 is detachably coupled to the doorway 21 of the cover 20 as shown in FIG. 1" (emphasis added)). In other words, the Office Action only presents evidence Ahn teaches the frame 31 being affixed to a single component and not two components, such as a base and a bonnet.
As stated in the rejection, Ahn was relied on for having a bezel that is separated and not integral formed with the cover or main body. The bezel of Jeon already affixed to two components such as the base and the bonnet so as combined with Ahn’s teaching of having the bezel separately made and not integrally made, one skill in the art having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have the bezel of Jeon as modified by Reitz be separated from and affixed to the base and the bonnet as taught by Ahn in order to provide for assemblage and dis-assemblage of the litter device for ease of shipment and/or storage.
The Office Action goes on to allege that it would be obvious to have the bezel of Jeon be separate from and affixed to the base and the bonnet as taught by Ahn in order to provide for assemblage and disassembly of the litter device for ease of shipment and/or storage. Applicant submits that it is unclear how the ease of shipment and/or storage is predicated on the door frame 31 being separately, as opposed to integrally, formed from the cover 20. The Office Action does not present sufficiently articulated rationale with rational underpinning as to why or how artisan would modify Jeon to make the frame a separate component, as contrarily, this would make shipping and storage more difficult with additional components to manage, store, and assemble.
To some users, it would be easier to assemble and disassemble parts of an invention versus leaving all the parts integrally attached, and then again, to some users, it would be better to leave the parts attached or assembled. The examiner’s rationale is proper because why would one have parts disassembled? The only reason is for ease of shipping and storage because if the parts where not made separate and allow to be disassembled, then it would take up more space to store the package. In addition, as combined with Ahn, there is a door or barrier portion so perhaps that is another reason why one would rationale that it would be better to make separate components to be assembled in order to save storage space and ease of shipping.
Lastly, Applicant submits that one skilled in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success. The Office Action does not explain how Ahn's hinged door assembly would be mounted such that it remains affixed to the alleged bezel while also allowing Jeon's alleged chamber to rotate about an axis extending through the entry opening. Additionally, there is no explanation of how the modified device would avoid interference between the added entry barrier and Jeon's alleged rotating drum during cleaning.
The hinge door assembly as taught by Ahn and combined with Jeon would be mounted to the outer members 110,120 bezel and not the inner members 210,220. That is common sense because why would one mount the hinge and door on the frame members of refs. 210,220 because how would the drum be able to rotate?
On p. 7, when discussing claim 23, the Office Action further states that hinge connections typically include a tubular sleeve and rod configuration. Applicant submits that given the nature of a hinge, the hinge identified in Ahn could not reasonably be statically fixed and still function as intended. Put another way, if a hinge connection were statically fixed, the tubular sleeve would be precluded from rotating, thereby preventing a hinging motion, and the door 32 of Ahn would be statically fixed, preventing the movement of the door and/or the odor management function of the door, as taught by Ahn.
The hinge assembly of Ahn would be mounted on the outside members 110,120 because common sense would not lead one to mount the hinge assembly on the drum because how would the drum be able to rotate? The hinge assembly as relied on with Ahn would be fixed on the bezel of Jeon on the outer member 110 and the user can mount the barrier portions or doors 32 of Ahn thereon.
Even further, there is simply no evidence of a statically fixed barrier portion in Ahn. The Office Action presents evidence Ahm teaches a first door 32a hinged to the door connecting frame 31 (p. 6), but does not identify any component in Ahn which is statically fixed to provide for the first barrier portion. The Office Action presents evidence the hinge formed on a top edge of the door 32a would rotate with the door and act as the knuckle or tubular sleeve, but there is no evidence presented as to a static member separate from the frame 31, such as a pin or a rod (See FIG. 2 of Ahn below). Why or how would a skilled artisan understand Ahn as teaching another member between the frame 31 and the door 32a when the door 32a could be directly attached and hinged to the frame 31 and there is no teaching or suggestion otherwise?
As stated in the rejection, the hinge assembly can be considered a first barrier portion and it is fixed on the bezel 31 in Ahn (which would be as modified to Jeon, the bezel on ref. 110). The other part 32 is considered to be the second barrier portion or the door that rotates relative to the hinge assembly or the first barrier portion which is fixed to the bezel. The tubular sleeve of the hinge assembly is static and fixed on the bezel and does not move. It is the door or second barrier portion that moves.
Claims 6, 14, 15, 23, 27, 31, 44, 63, and 69: Applicant traverses the rejection of these claims at least because of their dependency from claim 1, which is believed to be allowed for the reasons stated above…The Office Action does not provide sufficiently articulated rational with rational underpinning as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious, but merely alleges that the cited references teach certain elements without explaining why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make such a modification. Accordingly, the Office Action has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. As such, any subsequent Office Action should not be marked as final.
The examiner provided proper rationale for all the above claims as stated in the rejection above. Thus, the rejection is not merely allegation without any explanation as alleged by applicant. Please see above rejection for the rationale provided by the examiner.
For claim 14: Therefore, if the door 32a moves, the tubular sleeve portion of the hinge must move with it, and Ahn cannot reasonably teach that the door 32a rotates while the hinge remains fixed and the Office Action does not present evidence of Ahn teaching any further static components aside from the frame 31.
As stated in the above, the hinge connection includes the tubular sleeve and the pin so that the tubular sleeve can rotate. The pin is static because it is the sleeve that moves or rotates around the pin as applicant stated. Thus, the pin is considered to be the first barrier portion that remains statically fixed relative to the bezel as claimed.
Claim 15: Without acquiescing and solely in the interest of expediting prosecution, Applicant has amended the claim to specify that the first barrier portion has a cross-sectional shape which is reciprocal to the cross-sectional shape of the entry opening, the bezel, or both. Given that the first barrier portion is being equated to a hinge connection, there is no teaching that the hinge has a cross-sectional shape reciprocal to the doorway 21.
The doorway 21 has a hinge cross-section cut out on the top edge so that the hinge assembly can fit therein, thus, it is clear that the two components are reciprocal so that they can fit together. In addition, the claimed limitation states “a cross-sectional shape” which can be any area of the hinge assembly that fits inside the doorway.
Claim 23: On p. 7, the Office Action alleges that Ahn teaches one or more frames which affix the entry barrier to the bezel and equates the one or more frames to the hinge connection. First, Applicant submits that it is unclear how the Office Action can equate both the first barrier portion, which is part of the entry barrier, and the frame to the hinge when the frame, as claimed, affixes the entry barrier to the bezel. Second, one skilled in the art would not equate a hinge to a frame given the plain meaning and general understanding of the two components.
The claimed limitation is broad and merely calls for “portions”, thus, any of the entry barrier taught in Ahn can be “portion”. Applicant defined the entry barrier as having one or more mating features and one of the one or more entry barrier portions, so one mating features can be the tubular sleeve, one entry barrier portion is the pin, another entry barrier portion is the door 32. Thus, the examiner is not considering one component for multiple components because applicant is merely claiming one portion or one feature.
First, Fig. 1 is an exploded view. Applicant submits that an exploded view alone cannot reasonably teach parts being removably affixed to one another, absent such a disclosure in the specification. Second, the Office Action continuously assumes that the hinge connection includes a tubular sleeve and a rod. However, there is no evidence presented that the identified hinge in Ahn includes a separate rod. The specification appears silent to any hinge, let alone the specific components of one, and furthermore, there does not appear to be any depiction of a separate hinge component in any of the drawings, including Fig. 1.
The drawings are part of the invention and if it is clearly shown a conventional hinge assembly with tubular sleeve and pin, then the specification does not have to describe it. From fig. 3 of Ahn, it is very clear that the hinge assembly is a typical or very well-known hinge configuration where there is a tubular sleeve and a pin is inserted therein through the door and the tubular sleeve so as to allow rotation of the door. How else would the tubular sleeve as shown on ref. 32a be attached to ref. 31 and to cover 20?
Furthermore, as the Office Action correlates the door 32a to the second entry barrier portion, an unsubstantiated hinge to the first entry barrier portion, and the frame 31 to the bezel, the Office Action does not present evidence or reasoning how the Ahn teaches the hinge can be both a frame and a first entry barrier portion as claimed simultaneously.
As stated in the above, applicant is claiming “portions” so the hinge assembly is made of various components such as the sleeve and the pin. As stated in the above, applicant defined an entry barrier having one or more mating features, one of the one or more entry barrier portions, the one or more entry barrier portions include a first barrier portion a second barrier portion. One mating features can be the tubular sleeve, one entry barrier portion is the pin, another entry barrier portion is the door 32. Thus, there is no simultaneously claimed elements.
Claim 31: On p. 8, the Office Action alleges that Ahn teaches "wherein the one or more frames have a shape substantially reciprocal to a shape of the entry opening, the bezel, or both (as shown in figs. 1,3, the hinge connection matches "a" shape of the bezel)." First, it is unclear what the Office Action is equating to "'a' shape." Second, the claim requires, inter alia, that the frame, which is being equated to the hinge connection, have a cross-sectional shape substantially reciprocal to a cross-sectional shape of the entry opening, the bezel, or both. There is no evidence presented that the hinge is substantially reciprocal with the frame 31 or the opening in which the frame 31 sits.
Applicant is claiming “a cross-sectional shape”, thus, “a shape” can be a portion or the whole shape or ¾ of the shape of the item, etc. On top of this, applicant also claimed “one or more frames” so it can be one frame, two frames, etc. In another word, applicant’s claimed limitation is broad, so “a cross-sectional shape” can be any shape on the frame. Given this, the whole shape of ref. 32 in Ahn is made reciprocal to the opening 21 and the bezel 31 as shown in fig. 1. Even if one cut a cross-section somewhere on these members, they will reciprocate because they are clearly matching shape as shown.
However, the Office Action appears to be inconsistently mapping claim elements to the cited references. When discussing the rejection of claim 1, the Office Action equated 210 with the bonnet and defined the chamber as being "the interior space surrounded by ref. 220." Now, the Office Action is equating 210 to the chamber as well as 220. Additionally, the Office Action merely alleges that portions of the defecation bin 250 are below the second drum 220, but has not identified which portions are being referred to. Fig. 7 appears to show the defecation bin 250 adjacent to the second drum. Additionally, Jeon teaches the pedestal 222 as part of the second drum 222, and there is no evidence presented that the defecation bin 250 is located below the pedestal 222.
The rejection did not limit to 210,220,etc. because it was clearly stated that the base can be ref. 120 or ref. 220 or both, the bonnet (110 or 210 or both), etc., thus, it was never limited to 210,220,222,etc. ONLY. In addition, Reitz is now relied on for the waste drawer so Reitz teaches the drawer to be below the chamber as shown.
Lastly, there is simply no evidence of a waste drawer removably located within the base and removable from a front of the litter device below the bezel. Even assuming waste receptacle 250 somehow qualifies as a waste drawer, the Office Action identifies no teaching that the receptacle is removable from a front of the device and below a bezel, such as the alleged frame.
Since applicant amended the claim to state “drawer”, Reitz is relied on for this feature as explained in the above rejection, thus, please see above.
For claim 5: However, the claim requires, inter alia, that the one or more conditions include a predetermined amount of time. While the citation discusses a controller, contacts, and detectors, there is no discussion of time.
As stated in MPEP 2141.02 VI states “Prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims”. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied or not applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The translation of Loctin stated: “The device can thus be ready to operate at any time, without human intervention and in complete safety: the door usually remains permanently open to allow entry of the animal, whose presence in the enclosure is detected, so that at the exit of the animal, and in pre-preferably seeing a certain time delay to ensure that the animal is not locked in, the cleaning cycle is automatically triggered; this cycle begins with the closing of the door which temporarily blocks access to the appliance, and continues with the rinsing of the side walls.”, “The presence of the animal in the enclosure (4) is sensed by the volumetric detector (24), which then blocks the entire progress of the device cleaning sequence. When the animal leaves, the detector (24) remains on standby for a predetermined period, for example of approximately one minute, constituting a safety delay making it possible to ascertain the absence of the animal.”, ” After this safety period, the door (6) closes under the action of its control motor (7); arriving in the closed position, the door (6) abuts against the closing contact (8) which de-energizes the detector author (24) and authorizes the sequence of the actual cleaning. At this time, the solenoid valve (31) is open to admit water, through the circuit branch (28), into the spray bars (9), which then send jets of water for rinsing the walls side (2). A fraction of the water flow also comes, through the tubing (22), to fill the float (21) of the float device which controls the turator (18).” Thus, it is clear from these excerpts of the translation that time is considered as a factor for the controller to operate the device.
For claims 36,45,46,52,65-68, since applicant did not argued separately in detailed for these claims and it appears that applicant is reiterating the same argument for the independent claims, the response is the same as above for the independent claim.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights