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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant is thanked for their November 17, 2025 response to the Office Action filed July 16, 2025. In particular, Applicant is thanked for their amendments to Claim 18, rendering the previous 35 U.S.C. §112(b) indefiniteness rejection moot. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the 35 USC §102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 – 3, 7, 17, 18, and 20 as being unpatentable by Ball (US 6,227,147), Applicant remarked (inter alia) that: Ball fails to teach or suggest at least "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top of a litter box enclosure that is situated in a room of a building" or an "exhaust fan mechanism that is located remotely from the litter box enclosure above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building," as required by claim 1. Moreover, Ball also fails to teach or suggest "equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the litter box enclosure" and "drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to the exhaust exit point via the operational exhaust fan mechanism, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors," as further required by claim 1.
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top”, “an operational exhaust fan mechanism …located … above a ceiling”, “one or more sensors” “activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism… by the one or more sensors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 6,227,147), in view of Miksitz (US 5,044,325) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that “Miksitz does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claim 1 and claim 4 in view of Ball… Miksitz fails to teach or suggest "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top of a litter box enclosure, equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors," or the " fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors," as required by claim 1.”
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top”, “an operational exhaust fan mechanism …located … above a ceiling”, “one or more sensors”, “activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism… by the one or more sensors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 6,227,147), in view of Wang (CN 110622870) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that “Wang does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claim 1 and claim 6 in view of Ball… Wang fails to teach or suggest at least an "exhaust fan mechanism that is located…above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building,", "equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors," or " wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors," as required by claim 1.
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top”, “an operational exhaust fan mechanism …located … above a ceiling”, “one or more sensors”, “activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism… by the one or more sensors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 8 – 10 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 6,227,147), in view of Kiera (US 5,655,478) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that “Kiera does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claim 1 and claims 8-10 in view of Ball... Kiera fails to teach or suggest at least an "exhaust fan mechanism that is located … above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building," "equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors," or "wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors," as required by claim 1.
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top”, “an operational exhaust fan mechanism …located … above a ceiling”, “one or more sensors”, “activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism… by the one or more sensors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claims 11 – 15 as being unpatentable over Miksitz (US 5,044,325) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that Miksitz fails to teach or suggest at least "a litter box enclosure having an opening …wherein the opening is on a top " or " wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors…wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building," as required by claim 11.
The examiner respectfully notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "an enclosure having an opening on a top " or " wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors…wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 16 as being unpatentable over Miksitz (US 5,044,325) in view of Kiera (US 5,655,478) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that “Kiera does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claim 11 and claim 16 in view of Miksitz… . Kiera fails to teach or suggest at least an "an exhaust fan mechanism having an intake port and an output port, wherein the intake port is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the litter box enclosure, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building," as required by claim 11.
The examiner respectfully notes that that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., " wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling,") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPG2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of claim 19 as being unpatentable over Ball (US 6,227,147) in view of Geer et al (US 2007/0215057) Applicant remarked (inter alia) that Ball fails to teach or suggest at least "an animal enclosure having an opening in a cover of the animal enclosure, wherein the opening is on a top of the animal enclosure; a duct conduit that is configured to mate a first end of the duct conduit to the opening on the top of the animal enclosure" or "an exhaust fan mechanism having an intake port and an output port, wherein the intake port is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the animal enclosure, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building," as required by claim 19. Further, Geer does not remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of claim 19.
The examiner respectfully notes the following:
Regarding claims 18 and 19, it appears that Applicant amended the claims filed May 24, 2023, not the claims filed August 11, 2023.
Regarding claim 19, as the amendments were provided on claim limitations that were previously removed by Applicant, the arguments drawn to claim 19 are moot.
Clarification to Amendments filed November 17, 2025
It is respectfully noted that the claim amendments filed November 17, 2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR §1.121.(c) Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application.
In re Claims 18 – 20: on January 21, 2026, the examiner contacted Applicant as it appears that, in response to the office action filed July 16, 2025, they amended the claim set filed May 24, 2023, not the claim set filed August 11, 2023. In particular:
Claim 18 filed November 17, 2025 was amended to include the limitations that were removed from the claims filed August 11, 2023.
Claim 19 filed November 17, 2025 is now an independent claim. However, Claim 19 filed August 11, 2023 was a claim dependent on claim 17, and Claim 19 filed May 24, 2023 was an independent claim. It appears that Claim 19 filed November 17, 2025 amended the claim filed May 24, 2023.
Claim 20 filed November 17, 2025 was amended into an apparatus claim, dependent on claim 19. However, Claim 20 filed August 11, 2023 was a method claim dependent on claim 17 .
The examiner recommended that the amended claims 18 – 20 be examined as they were filed on November 17, 2025, despite which claim set was amended. Applicant agreed with the examiner’s request.
Claim Objections
In re Claims 1 and 17, lines 10 and 10 respectively: unclear antecedence has been provided for the limitation “the additional duct conduit”. It is noted that in line 10, the limitation “coupling additional duct conduit” lacks an indefinite article. When claiming a structure of an apparatus, the first recitation of the structure is accompanied by an indefinite article (“a, an”) such that subsequent recitation of the same structure is accompanied by a definite article (‘the”), indicating that the identity of the structure is known.
For purposes of examination, lines 10 and 10 have been understood as if to read, “coupling an additional duct conduit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
In re Claims 1 – 3 and 17, the limitations:
drawing odors from the litter box enclosure
directing odors from the litter box enclosure
have been interpreted as:
drawing air containing odors from the litter box enclosure
directing air containing odors from the litter box enclosure
In re Claim 10, the limitation “a ceiling” has been interpreted to be a different “a celling” than is disclosed in Claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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 - 41, and 7 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Miksitz (US 5,044,325), in view of Kiera (US 5,655,478).
In re Claims 1, 3, and 9, Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2) discloses a method of implementing a litter box exhaust system comprising:
coupling a duct conduit (“a hose connection”: col 4, lns 43 – 45) to an opening of a litter box enclosure that is situated in a room of a building;
routing the duct conduit (via an air filter (60)) to an intake opening of an operational exhaust fan mechanism (78) that is located remotely from the litter box enclosure;
equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors (col 4, lns 13 – 17) that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the litter box enclosure; and
drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to an exhaust exit point (col 5, lns 1 – 3) via the operational exhaust fan mechanism, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors.
Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2) lacks the steps of:
coupling the duct conduit to an opening on a top of a litter box;
wherein the operational exhaust fan mechanism (78) is located remotely from the litter box enclosure above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building;
coupling an additional duct conduit to an output opening of the exhaust fan mechanism; and
routing the additional duct conduit to an exhaust exit point that is outside of the room of the building.
Miksitz (embodiment of figure 3) teaches a method of implementing a litter box exhaust system comprising:
coupling a duct conduit (92) to an opening (90) of a litter box enclosure that is situated in a room of a building;
routing the duct conduit (92) to an intake opening of an operational exhaust fan mechanism (94) that is located remotely from the litter box enclosure;
coupling an additional duct conduit to an output opening (as seen in fig 3) of the exhaust fan mechanism;
routing the additional duct conduit to an exhaust exit point that is outside of the room of the building (col 5, lns 42 - 43);
wherein the exhaust exit point comprises an air vent opening within the building (as seen in fig 3) that leads to an exterior of the building (col 5, lns 39 - 43), the method further comprising directing odors from the litter box enclosure to pass through the air vent opening2; and
drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to the exhaust exit point (col 5, lns 43 – 53) via the operational exhaust fan mechanism, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors (col 8, lns 4 – 6 ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Miksitz (embodiment of figure 1) as taught by Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2), such that the method comprises:
coupling an additional duct conduit to an output opening of the exhaust fan mechanism; and
routing the additional duct conduit to an exhaust exit point that is outside of the room of the building
such that the exhaust air may be vented outdoors or to another remote location (col 6, lns 9 – 10), for the benefit of an alternative method providing installation flexibility.
Kiera teaches a method of implementing a litter box exhaust system comprising:
coupling a duct conduit (14) to an opening (30) on a top of a litter box enclosure that is situated in a room of a building;
coupling the duct conduit (14) to an output opening of an exhaust fan mechanism (34);
routing the duct conduit to an exhaust exit point (fig 6: (100/102)) that is outside of the room of the building (apparent);
wherein the duct conduit is routed behind a wall (fig 6; col 7, lns 38 – 41) in the room where the litter box enclosure is situated3; and
drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to the exhaust exit point (100/102) via the operational exhaust fan mechanism (col 7, lns 39 – 46);
wherein the odors are forcefully delivered to an outer wall or to the roof of a building, so that the odors can be routed to an out of doors location (col 1, lns 63 – 67); “by means of a flexible hose or tube through an outside wall of a home, or the roof of an apartment, condominium or the like” (col 2, lns 19 – 22);
“piping them directly through an outer wall, as well as a ventilation system usable in apartment houses, condominia and the like, where the foul odors are directed upward through an interior wall to the roof of the building” (col 2, lns 25 – 30 ); and
force such air out through a flexible duct connected to an outside wall, or to the roof of a building.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Kiera, such that the method comprises coupling the duct conduit to an opening on a top of a litter box, in lieu of an opening on a side of a litter box, and further comprises routing the duct conduit behind a wall, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
While the method comprises an exhaust fan mechanism, wherein the duct conduit is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building, it lacks wherein “an operational exhaust fan mechanism is located …above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building”.
However, it would have been obvious to try locating the operational exhaust fan mechanism above a ceiling or behind a wall of a building, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
It is respectfully noted that in a review of the disclosure (specification paragraphs [0009, 0014, and 0015], criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation.
The proposed method would yield:
coupling a duct conduit to an opening on a top of a litter box enclosure that is situated in a room of a building;
routing the duct conduit to an intake opening of an operational exhaust fan mechanism that is located remotely from the litter box enclosure above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building;
equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the litter box enclosure;
coupling an additional duct conduit to an output opening of the exhaust fan mechanism;
routing the additional duct conduit to an exhaust exit point that is outside of the room of the building; and
drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to the exhaust exit point via the operational exhaust fan mechanism, wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors.
Regarding Claim 1 (and the claims dependent therefrom), under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
In re Claim 2, Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2) discloses wherein the method comprises an air filter (fig 2: (70)), the method further comprising directing odors from the litter box enclosure to pass through an air filter (60).
As discussed in Claim 1 above, the proposed method in view of Miksitz (embodiment of figure 3) comprises directing odors from the litter box enclosure through an additional duct conduit.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Miksitz (embodiment of figure 3), such that the method comprises an air filter that is coupled to the additional duct conduit, the method further comprising directing odors from the litter box enclosure to pass through the air filter, to include a step of deodorizing the air before venting the air (Abstract, col 2, lns 28 – 32), reducing waste odors.
In re Claim 4, the proposed method has been discussed, Miksitz disclosing further comprising setting the exhaust fan mechanism (78) to operate in accordance with a schedule set by a user (col 4, lns 9 - 11).
Claim 5 has been cancelled by Applicant.
In re Claim 7, the proposed method has been discussed, Miksitz disclosing further comprising wherein the duct conduit includes a flexible conduit (col 4, lns 42 – 44).
In re Claim 8, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Kiera teaches the duct conduit includes a rigid conduit (figs 5, 6), but Kiera is silent as to whether the rigid conduit is a rigid metal conduit.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the material of the rigid conduit is a rigid metal conduit, 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. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the intention was held to be obvious). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs [0010], Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In re Claim 10, the proposed method has been discussed (In re Claim 1. above), comprising routing the duct conduit to an intake opening of an operational exhaust fan mechanism that is located a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building.
Although Kiera does not explicitly state that the duct conduit is routed into a ceiling of the building”, Kiera teaches drawing odors from the litter box enclosure to the exhaust exit point (100/102) via the operational exhaust fan mechanism (col 7, lns 39 – 46), wherein the odors are forcefully delivered to an outer wall or to the roof of a building, so that the odors can be routed to an out of doors location (col 1, lns 63 – 67); where the foul odors are directed upward through an interior wall to the roof of the building” (col 2, lns 25 – 30).
While it has been understood that, as the operational exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building, the duct conduit is routed into a ceiling of the building, it would have been obvious to route the duct conduit into a ceiling of the building, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claims 11 and 12, Miksitz discloses a litter box exhaust system (embodiment of figure 2), comprising:
a litter box enclosure (col 2, ln 67 – col 3, ln 32) having an opening in a cover (30) of the litter box enclosure, wherein the opening is on a side of the litter box enclosure;
a duct conduit (“a hose connection”: col 4, lns 43 – 45) that is configured to mate a first end of the duct conduit to the opening on the side of the litter box enclosure;
an exhaust fan mechanism (78) having an intake port and an output port (apparent), wherein the intake port is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors (col 4, lns 8 – 17) that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the litter box enclosure , wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors (col 4, lns 14 – 17); and
an air filter (60) having an intake opening that is configured to mate with a second of the two ends of the duct conduit;
wherein the air filter (60) comprises a carbon filter (col 5, lns 4 – 9: an activated charcoal filter has been understood to be a carbon filter)4.
Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2) lacks:
wherein the opening is on a top of the litter box enclosure;
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism (78) is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building;
an additional duct conduit having two ends, wherein a first of the two ends is configured to mate with the output port of the exhaust fan mechanism (78); and
wherein the air filter (60) having the intake opening that is configured to mate with a second of the two ends of the additional duct conduit.
Miksitz (embodiment of figure 3) teaches a litter box enclosure, comprising:
a duct conduit (92) that is configured to mate a first end (at (90)) of the duct conduit to an opening on an outer wall of the litter box enclosure;
an additional duct conduit (fig 3, connected with fan (94) output port and a wall) having two ends, wherein a first of the two ends is configured to mate with the output port of the exhaust fan mechanism (col 5, lns 39 – 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Miksitz (embodiment of figure 2) as taught by Miksitz (embodiment of figure 3), such that the system comprises an additional duct conduit having two ends, wherein a first of the two ends is configured to mate with the output port of the exhaust fan mechanism, for the benefit of venting the exhaust air to a remote location.
Regarding the limitation wherein the air filter is configured to mate with a second of the two ends of the additional duct conduit, it would have been obvious to try locating the filter at the second of the two ends of the additional duct instead of locating it upstream of the additional duct conduit, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
Kiera teaches a litter box exhaust system (figs 1 – 5), comprising:
a litter box enclosure having an opening (30) in a cover of the litter box enclosure, wherein the opening is on a top of the litter box enclosure (as seen in figs 1 – 5);
an exhaust duct conduit (14) that is configured to mate with the opening (30);
wherein the conduit comprises a cylindrical conduit (col 5, lns 43 – 56); and
wherein the conduit is routed behind a wall ((fig 6) col 2, lns 27 – 29, col 7, lns 38 – 41) of a room where the litter box enclosure is situated;
wherein it is routed through an exterior wall via an outlet duct (fig 5: (80)), to an exhaust exit point (90) that is outside of the room of the building (col 7, lns 37 – 43: “(U)pwardly extending duct or pipe (102) located between walls (86) and (88). This arrangement serves to deliver foul odors from the litter box to the roof”) Please note that as Kiera teaches routing a duct conduit between walls to deliver foul odors to the roof, it has been understood to disclose routing a duct conduit above a ceiling.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system, as taught by Kierra, such that the system comprises:
a litter box enclosure having an opening on a top of the litter box enclosure, and
the conduit is routed behind a wall,
for the benefit of minimizing the floor area occupied by the litter box enclosure and its attached exhaust duct, as well as providing an arrangement that serves to deliver odors from the litter box to a roof of the house, without the need for passing through an exterior wall (col 7, lns 37 – 43).
While the system comprises an exhaust fan mechanism, wherein the duct conduit is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building, it lacks “wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building”.
However, it would have been obvious to try locating the exhaust fan mechanism above a ceiling or behind a wall of a building, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
It is respectfully noted that a review of the disclosure (specification paragraphs [0009, 0014, and 0015], criticality has not been provided for the claimed limitation.
In re Claim 13, the proposed system has been discussed wherein the duct conduit comprises a cylindrical conduit (as seen in the figures), but Miksitz/Kiera are silent as to whether the cylindrical conduit has a 4 inch diameter. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try a 4 inch diameter cylindrical conduit, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
In re Claim 14, see above In re Claim 7, wherein the duct conduit includes a flexible conduit.
In re Claim 15, see above In re Claim 8, wherein the duct conduit includes a rigid metal conduit.
In re Claim 16, the system of Miksitz has been discussed, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is programmable to operate at predetermined and periodic intervals, and at two speeds (on/off) (col 4, lns 8 – 11). However, it is known in the art to operate fans at different speeds.
Kiera teaches a system for ventilating litter box enclosures (50/54), wherein a multi-position electric switch (fig 1: (20)) enables a user to turn on or off an electrically powered ventilator fan (fig 2 (34)), wherein the fan may have either two speeds, high or low, or three speeds, low, medium or high (col 3, ln 64 - col 4, ln 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system as taught by Kiera, such that the exhaust fan mechanism is programmable to operate at different speeds, providing the user with greater system control.
In re Claims 17 – 20, the claims are directed towards an animal enclosure exhaust system and method for its implementation, and not a litter box enclosure exhaust system as disclosed in claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16, and 20. However, the following is respectfully noted:
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
Additionally, has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus (an enclosure exhaust system) is intended to be employed (for a litter box, for an animal) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Further, “a litter box enclosure” is also “an animal enclosure” when the litter box enclosure is enclosing an animal.
Lastly, Kiera teaches wherein the animal enclosure exhaust system “may be used with containers other than a litter box” (col 4, lns 19 – 21).
Accordingly:
In re Claim 17, see above In re Claims 1, wherein the proposed method comprises a method of implementing an animal enclosure exhaust system comprising:
coupling a duct conduit to an opening of an animal enclosure that is situated in a room of a building, wherein the opening is on a top of the animal enclosure;
routing the duct conduit to an intake opening of an operational exhaust fan mechanism that is located remotely from the animal enclosure at a location above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building;
equipping the operational exhaust fan mechanism to one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the animal enclosure;
coupling additional duct conduit to an output opening of the exhaust fan mechanism;
routing the additional duct conduit to an exhaust exit point that is outside of the room of the building; and
drawing odors from the animal enclosure to the exhaust exit point via the operational fan mechanism,
wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors.
In re Claim 18, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Miksitz discloses that their invention is directed to “an animal litter box” (col 1, ln 6), as “many domestic pets… are often kept indoors and require that a suitable litter box or container be available for use by the animal” (col 1, lns 14 – 16). While Miksitz does not explicitly state that the “animal enclosure comprises an aquarium, a terrarium, a bird cage, or a dog house”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (a litter box exhaust system for a litter box enclosure compared to an exhaust system for an animal enclosure) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
In re Claim 19, see above In re Claim 17, wherein the proposed combination discloses an animal enclosure exhaust system comprising:
an animal enclosure situated in a room of a building, the animal enclosure having an opening in a cover of the animal enclosure, wherein the opening is on a top of the animal enclosure;
a duct conduit that is configured to mate (couple) a first end of the duct conduit to the opening on the top of the animal enclosure;
an exhaust fan mechanism having an intake port and an output port (apparent), wherein the intake port is configured to mate (couple) with a second end of the duct conduit,
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is equipped with one or more sensors that are configured to detect motion of an animal into and out of the animal enclosure,
wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors,
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall of the building;
an additional duct conduit having two ends, wherein a first of the two ends is configured to mate (couple) with the output port of the exhaust fan mechanism; and
an air filter having an intake opening that is configured to mate with a second of the two ends of the additional duct conduit.
In re Claim 20, see above, In re Claim 18.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Miksitz (US 5,044,325), in view of Kiera (US 5,655,478), and further in view of Fridman et al (US 2022/0323629).
In re Claim 6, the proposed method has been discussed, but lacks a step further comprising setting the exhaust fan mechanism to further adjust its operation based on an amount of odors sensed by a sensor positioned near the litter box enclosure.
Fridman et al teaches a method of implementing a litter box exhaust system (Abstract), comprising:
a litter box enclosure (fig 1: (34)), an operational exhaust fan mechanism (figs 1, 3: (14)); and a sensor [0065 - 0097]
wherein the motorized fan is configured to operate at different speeds and/or for different durations based on respectively different signals from the sensor.[0011]
wherein a fan setting of High/Medium/Low can be provided, such that, in such instances a high odor would initiate operation within a shorter amount of time than a medium or low setting and/or operate for a longer duration. [0066]
wherein a larger animal may create greater amounts of odors and so the fan may operate at a faster rate, it may operate for a longer period, the plasma generator may run for a longer time or at a higher power as compared to a smaller animal. [0077]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Fridman et al, such that the method comprises setting the exhaust fan mechanism to further adjust its operation based on an amount of odors sensed by a sensor positioned near the litter box enclosure, to provide the owner with a method for an improved fan operational control, relieving the owner from unpleasant odors [0004].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Miksitz (US 5,044,325), in view of Kiera (US 5,655,478), and further in view of Glover, Sr (US 2021/0357470).
In re Claim 21, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Kiera teaches wiring the exhaust fan mechanism into household wiring of the building, via a conventional wall socket (col 3, lns 56 – 61). However, the proposed method lacks hardwiring the exhaust fan mechanism, and wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is controllable via a wireless handset or a smart phone.
Glover Sr. teaches a smart exhaust (“vacuuming”) system (fig 32: (94)) comprising:
a cat litter box, an exhaust fan (14), wherein the exhaust system is activated or deactivated by a cat litter box motion sensor (96), and/or a remote control, and/or motion sensors [0025],[0156]
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is controllable via a wireless handset (fig 21: (84)) or a smart phone (fig 28: (94)) [0150]
PNG
media_image1.png
476
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Communications electronics may also allow smart toilet system 10 to communicate with a wireless networking device (e.g., a wireless router, cell phone, wireless-enabled computer, laptop, tablet, or other wireless device) or a wired networking device (e.g., via an Ethernet cable, a SATA cable, USB cable, or other physical data connection”) [0150]
wherein a primary power source (fig 28: (141)) for the system is a wired connection to an external power source (interpreted as hardwired), or may be plugged into a standard residential electrical outlet
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Glover Sr, such that the method comprises hardwiring the exhaust fan mechanism into household wiring of the building, wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is controllable via a wireless handset or a smart phone, for improved user system control.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Of particular relevance is Hayashi et al (JP 2002142600) who discloses a litter box exhaust system (figs 1 – 4) comprising:
a litter box enclosure (12) having an opening (12c) in a cover of the litter box enclosure, wherein the opening is on a top of the litter box enclosure;
PNG
media_image2.png
398
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a duct conduit fitting (16a) that is configured to mate a first end of the duct conduit fitting to the opening (12c) on the top of the litter box enclosure;
an exhaust fan mechanism (16) having an intake port and an output port (as seen in the figures),
wherein the intake port is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit fitting (16a),
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism (16) is equipped with one or more sensors (24) that are configured to detect motion of an animal (“sensor detects a cat”) into and out of the litter box enclosure, and
wherein activation of the operational exhaust fan mechanism is triggered by the one or more sensors (“the exhaust fan 16 is set to start operating at the same time as the sensor 24 detects a cat”).
Of particular relevance is Ciotic et al (US 9,504,2528), who discloses a litter box exhaust system (figs 1A, 8A, 10, 13, 16, 25) comprising:
a litter box enclosure (fig 1A :(20)) having an opening (at (44)) in a cover of the litter box enclosure;
a duct conduit (41) that is configured to mate a first end (49) of the duct conduit to the opening (at (44)) in the litter box enclosure;
an exhaust fan mechanism (54) having an intake port (at (44)) and an output port (at (47)),
wherein the intake port is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit (41) (as seen in detail view of fig 1A),
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism (54) is equipped with one or more sensors (fig 4: motion detector (63)) that are configured to detect motion of an animal (col 9, lns 25 – 28) into and out of the litter box enclosure,
wherein activation (fig 4) of the operational exhaust fan mechanism (54) is triggered by the one or more sensors (63[Wingdings font/0xE8]54),
wherein the exhaust fan mechanism is located above a ceiling of the building or behind a wall (fig 1A: (34)) of the building; and
an additional duct conduit (45) having two ends, wherein a first (47/49) of the two ends is configured to mate with the output port of the exhaust fan mechanism (col 7, lns 5 – 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
347
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Of particular relevance is Shartell (US 2004/0094097) who discloses a litter box exhaust system (Title) comprising:
a litter box enclosure (11) having an opening (fig 7) in a cover of the litter box enclosure, wherein the opening is on a top of the litter box enclosure ([0021] “A hole is drilled in the center upper rear area of the litter box.”);
a duct conduit (fig 7: (23)) that is configured to mate a first end of the duct conduit (as seen in fig 7) to the opening on the top of the litter box enclosure;
an exhaust fan mechanism (fig 4: (27)) having an intake port (16) and an output port (20) [0017], wherein the intake port (16) is configured to mate with a second end of the duct conduit (as seen in fig 6); and
an additional duct conduit (figs 1, 2: (7/8/9)) having two ends, wherein a first (7) of the two ends is configured to mate with the output port (20) of the exhaust fan mechanism
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on Tu-Th; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.270.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Claim 5 has been cancelled by Applicant
2 Claim 3
3 Claim 9
4 Claim 12