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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 13 requires grasping by a single hand which would require a human user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 depends on 3 which is cancelled thus the scope of claim 4 is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Flynn (US 5816195).
For claim 1, Flynn discloses a method for emptying litter from a litter box (abstract, figs., claim 10), comprising:
grasping the litter box (tray pan 14, is a box and contains and collects litter) by elastically and elastomerically (Col. 4, lines 49-50, rubber pan 14) deforming an upright wall (22 in front with spout 20) of the litter box (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10), the upright wall defining a cavity (30) of the litter box, to bring a pair of flaps (left and right sides 22, fig. 2 are considered flaps) of the litter box together from an open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10), a spout (20) being defined at an edge of the litter box (see fig. 2),
pouring litter out of the litter box via the spout during the grasping (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10); and
allowing the litter box to return to the open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10).
For claim 4, Flynn further discloses wherein allowing the litter box to return to the open ended molded shape includes allowing a biasing force to return the litter box to the open ended molded shape (rubber of Flynn will do this).
For claim 6, Flynn further discloses including filling the litter box with litter (as the litter comes off the cats paws it fills the pan 14).
For claim 7, Flynn further discloses wherein pouring the litter out of the litter box includes pouring the litter out of the litter box via the spout defined in a peripheral edge delimiting a top of the open ended molded shape (see fig. 2, spout 20).
For claim 9, Flynn further discloses wherein elastically deforming the upright wall of the litter box includes elastically deforming the flaps (deformation of 22).
For claim 11, Flynn discloses a method for emptying litter from a litter box (abstract, figs., claim 10), comprising:
grasping the litter box (tray pan 14, is a box and contains and collects litter) by elastically (Col. 4, lines 49-50, rubber pan 14) deforming an upright wall (22 in front with spout 20) of the litter box (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10), the upright wall made of a flexible elastomeric material (Col. 4, lines 49-50, rubber pan 14) and defining a cavity (30) of the litter box to bring a pair of flaps (22, left and right sides, fig. 2) of the litter box together from an open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10),
a spout (20) being defined by the upright wall at an edge of the litter box (see fig. 2),
pouring litter out of the litter box via the spout formed by the upright wall during the grasping; and allowing the litter box to return to the open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Pierson et al. (US 5488929, hereafter referred to as Pierson)
For claim 2, Flynn is silent about wherein grasping the litter box by bringing a pair of flaps of the litter box together includes grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps.
Pierson teaches a litter box and method of emptying including grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps (flaps 40, see fig. 5, including handles 60, 61, see fig. 5, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include handles on the litter box of Flynn, as taught by the handles of Pierson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help bring opposing sides of the box together easily and neatly.
For claim 10, Flynn is silent about wherein grasping the litter box to bring the pair of flaps of the litter box together includes bringing the pair of flaps into contact with one another.
Pierson further teaches a litter box and method of emptying including grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps (flaps 40, see fig. 5, including handles 60, 61, see fig. 5, and 10) wherein grasping the litter box to bring the pair of flaps of the litter box together includes bringing the pair of flaps into contact with one another (see fig. 10 of Pierson).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further bring the flaps of Flynn in contact with one another, as taught by the handles of Pierson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help bring opposing sides of the box together and allow for disposal of litter.
For claim 12, Flynn is silent about wherein grasping the litter box includes grasping a pair of handles formed into the flaps by manipulation to elastically deform the upright wall.
Pierson teaches a litter box and method of emptying including grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps (flaps 40, see fig. 5, including handles 60, 61, see fig. 5, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include handles on the litter box of Flynn, as taught by the handles of Pierson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help bring opposing sides of the box together easily and neatly.
For claim 13, modified Flynn further teaches wherein grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps includes grasping the handles with a single hand to elastically and elastomerically deform the upright wall (can be grasped by a single hand of a human user).
For claim 14, Flynn teaches a method for emptying litter from a litter box (abstract, figs., claim 10), comprising:
grasping the litter box (tray pan 14, is a box and contains and collects litter) a pair of flaps (left and right walls 22) of a flexible elastomer (Col. 4, lines 49-50, rubber pan 14) upright wall (22) of the litter box to elastically deform the flexible elastomer upright wall (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10), the flexible elastomer upright wall defining a cavity (30) of the litter box, to bring the pair of flaps together from an open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10), a flexible elastomer spout (Col. 4, lines 49-50, rubber pan 14, spout 20) being defined by the flexible elastomer upright wall at an edge of the litter box (see figs.),
pouring litter out of the litter box via the flexible elastomer spout during the grasping; and allowing the litter box to return to the open ended molded shape (Col. 4, lines 41-60, claim 10).
Flynn is silent about a pair of handles.
Pierson teaches a litter box and method of emptying including grasping the litter box by handles formed into the flaps (flaps 40, see fig. 5, including handles 60, 61, see fig. 5, and 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further include handles on the litter box of Flynn, as taught by the handles of Pierson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help bring opposing sides of the box together easily and neatly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/17/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of all claims under Janecek in view of Pierson and Fountoulakis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Flynn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights