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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 22, 24, 27-29, 31-34, 36-37, 40-42, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 209518062, as cited on applicant’s IDS) in view of Xie (CN 109601403 A, as cited on previous 892) and Yu (CN 110583495 A, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Jiang, Xie, and Yu, respectively.
Regarding claim 1:
Jiang discloses a litter device comprising:
A base (lower shell 47, Fig 1);
A waste bin removably located within the base (inner tub 28, Fig 7; Pg 4, lines 1-5; Pg 5, line 22; claim 1);
A chamber (separating mechanism accommodating chamber 26, Fig 2) with an entry opening (inlet 18, Fig 3), wherein the chamber is configured to retain a litter (litter 19, Fig 3), is rotatably supported by the base (Pg 4, lines 16-17), and is configured to come into fluid communication with the waste bin (via faecal opening 24, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 28-32);
wherein the chamber includes an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber being a single piece and the lower chamber being a single piece (see top and bottom hemispheres which form spherical chamber 26 in Fig 3), the upper chamber and the lower chamber mate together to form the chamber (see Fig 3), the entry opening is formed by both the upper chamber and the lower chamber (see Fig 1), and a waste opening is formed in the upper chamber (Faecal opening 24, Fig 2);
wherein the chamber is rotatable about an axis of rotation, and the axis of rotation is offset from both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane (axis of rotation 10, Fig 2; claim 3); and
wherein the entry opening lies in and forms an opening plane (see Fig 2);
A track which encircles an outside wall of the chamber (outer ring gear 13, Fig 2), wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by about 50% of a total length of the chamber (Fig 2), and wherein the track lies in a track plane which is normal to the axis of rotation and parallel to the entry opening (see Fig 2);
A drive source configured to rotate the chamber during a cleaning cycle of the litter device (drive motor 15, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 47-50), and wherein the drive source is configured to transfer an applied mechanical force to the chamber to rotate the chamber (Pg 4, lines 47-50).
Jiang fails to specifically disclose wherein the track is offset from a great circle of the chamber, wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by 70% or greater to 95% or less of a total length of the chamber, wherein the great circle is located about the widest diameter of the chamber and is substantially parallel to the opening plane; and wherein the drive source is manual.
Yu discloses a litter device with a track (roller gear 24, Fig 6) clearly distanced from an entry opening (connecting port 21, Fig 3) by over 70% and less than 100% (see Figs 2 and 6) of a total length of the chamber, and appears, based on Figure 2, to teach that the track is distanced from the entry opening by less than 95%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relocated the driven track of Jiang to the rear of the chamber, as in Yu, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide easier access for repair, or in order to reduce the required track size (given reduction in chamber diameter further from entry), so as to allow for a cheaper manufacture of a complex part, or to provide an appropriate gear ratio for the optimal rotation speed or based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber.
Further, in the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantages obtained having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically located the driven track of Jiang such that it was distanced between 70% and 95% the total length of the chamber, from the entry opening, in order to provide an appropriate gear ratio for optimal rotation speed, based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70), and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). The examiner notes, that there appears to be no criticality contemplated in the specification for the claimed range, and the applicant’s own specification alternatively contemplates positioning the track concentric with the great circle of the chamber (at 50% distance, which is shown in Jiang), and ranges of 45% or greater – 95% or less for distancing, no single position being discussed as more effective or superior.
Xie discloses a similar litter device with a rotating chamber with an external pinion and track system (see power gear 2 and driven teeth 4, Fig 1), where the drive source is not automatic, but rather manual, where a hand crank (rotating handle 13, Fig 1) is used to apply torque to the track through a series of interconnected gears to cause rotation of the chamber (see Fig 1; claims 1-2 and 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jiang to include a manual hand-crank drive to rotate the chamber through a series of interconnected gears, as in Xie, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to allow the litter device to remain operable during extended power outages; in order to reduce energy consumption/cost; or to allow the owner to have more direct control over the cleaning operation – if they notice a bad smell, they can clean the litter manually via the crank, rather than have to wait for the device to determine that cleaning is necessary.
Regarding claim 22:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the drive source includes a hand crank (from Xie: rotating handle 13, Fig 1), and wherein the drive source is in rotatable communication with one or more gears (drive gear 3, Fig 3, also gears 10 and 11 from Xie brought in with claim 1 modification in order to facilitate connection of gear to hand crank).
Regarding claim 24:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 22 above and further discloses wherein the one or more gears are engaged with the track (Fig 3 of Jiang; Fig 1 of Xie).
Regarding claim 27:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 24 above and further discloses wherein the track includes a gear, teeth, or both (see Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 28:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 27 above and further discloses wherein the hand crank is movably affixed to the base (crank must be moveably affixed given it must crank/move in order to impart motion on the track) and extends outward away from an interior of the base (Given that -- the track engaging gear is found in the base of Jiang; the handle driving assembly is located adjacent the track engaging pinion in Xie; the base of Jiang is stationary and has room for mechanics; and the crank could not serve to rotate the track of the chamber if affixed to the rotating chamber itself – a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably locate the hand crank such that it extends outward away from an interior of the base, when adding it to Jiang for the purposes of claim 1).
As above, it is contended that the hand crank location relative to the base is already taught by previous modifications. However, should the applicant disagree, the examiner asserts that, alternatively, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the hand crank such that it extended outward away from an interior of the base in order to provide a convenient access location for cranking, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, it being held that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 29:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 28 above and Xie further discloses wherein the hand crank is in rotatable communication with a drive shaft or includes the drive shaft; and wherein the drive shaft is in rotatable communication with the one or more gears (transmission rod 12, Fig 1; see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 31:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 29 above and further discloses wherein the one or more gears includes one or more pinion gears engaged with the track (gear 3 in Fig 3 is a pinion gear which drives the track).
Regarding claim 32:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 31 above and further discloses wherein the one or more gears includes a plurality of gears and the plurality of gears include the one or more pinion gears (plurality of gears is gear 3 in Fig 3; and gears 10/11 brought in with Xie in order to provide hand crank connection).
Regarding claim 33:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 29 above and further discloses wherein rotation of the hand crank is configured to transfer torque to the one or more gears, and the one or more gears are configured to then transfer torque to the track and result in rotation of the chamber such that a waste opening of the chamber aligns with the waste bin (see Fig 1 and claims 1-2 and 8 of Xie).
Regarding claim 34:
Jiang discloses a litter device comprising:
A base (lower shell 47, Fig 1);
A waste bin removably located within the base (inner tub 28, Fig 7; Pg 4, lines 1-5; Pg 5, line 22; claim 1);
A chamber (separating mechanism accommodating chamber 26, Fig 2) with an entry opening (inlet 18, Fig 3), wherein the chamber is configured to retain a litter (litter 19, Fig 3), is rotatably supported by the base (Pg 4, lines 16-17), and is configured to come into fluid communication with the waste bin (via faecal opening 24, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 28-32);
wherein the chamber includes an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber being a single piece and the lower chamber being a single piece (see top and bottom hemispheres which form spherical chamber 26 in Fig 3), the upper chamber and the lower chamber mate together to form the chamber (see Fig 3), the entry opening is formed by both the upper chamber and the lower chamber (see Fig 1), and a waste opening is formed in the upper chamber (Faecal opening 24, Fig 2);
wherein the chamber is rotatable about an axis of rotation, and the axis of rotation is offset from both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane (axis of rotation 10, Fig 2; claim 3); and
wherein the entry opening lies in and forms an opening plane (see Fig 2);
A track which encircles an outside wall of the chamber (outer ring gear 13, Fig 2), wherein the track lies in a track plane which is normal to the axis of rotation and parallel to the opening plane (see Fig 2); wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by about 50% of a total length of the chamber (Fig 2),
A drive source configured to rotate the chamber during a cleaning cycle of the litter device (drive motor 15 with gear 3, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 47-50), and wherein the drive source is configured to transfer an applied mechanical force to the chamber to rotate the chamber (Pg 4, lines 47-50), and wherein the drive source includes:
A motor (drive motor 15, not including its drive shaft, Fig 2)
One or more gears in rotatable communication with the motor and the track (gear 3, Fig 3)
A drive shaft between the motor and the one or more gears (see Fig 3).
Jiang fails to specifically disclose wherein the track is offset from a great circle of the chamber, wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by 70% or greater to 95% or less of a total length of the chamber, wherein the great circle is located about the widest diameter of the chamber and is substantially parallel to the opening plane; and wherein the drive source is manual and free of requiring an electronic power source, the drive source including: a hand crank moveably affixed to the base and extending outward away from an interior of the base; one or more gears in rotatable communication with both the hand crank and the track; and a drive shaft between the hand crank and the one or more gears.
Yu discloses a litter device with a track (roller gear 24, Fig 6) clearly distanced from an entry opening (connecting port 21, Fig 3) by over 70% and less than 100% (see Figs 2 and 6) of a total length of the chamber, and appears, based on Figure 2, to teach that the track is distanced from the entry opening by less than 95%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relocated the driven track of Jiang to the rear of the chamber, as in Yu, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide easier access for repair, or in order to reduce the required track size (given reduction in chamber diameter further from entry), so as to allow for a cheaper manufacture of a complex part, or to provide an appropriate gear ratio for the optimal rotation speed or based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber.
Further, in the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantages obtained having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically located the driven track of Jiang such that it was distanced between 70% and 95% the total length of the chamber, from the entry opening, in order to provide an appropriate gear ratio for optimal rotation speed, based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70), and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). The examiner notes, that there appears to be no criticality contemplated in the specification for the claimed range, and the applicant’s own specification alternatively contemplates positioning the track concentric with the great circle of the chamber (at 50% distance, which is shown in Jiang), and ranges of 45% or greater – 95% or less for distancing, no single position being discussed as more effective or superior.
Xie discloses a similar litter device with a rotating chamber with an external pinion and track system (see power gear 2 and driven teeth 4, Fig 1), where the drive source is not automatic, but rather manual, where a hand crank (rotating handle 13, Fig 1)is used to apply torque to the track through a series of interconnected gears to cause rotation of the chamber (see Fig 1; claims 1-2 and 8), and the drive source includes:
a hand crank moveably affixed to a base and extending outward away from an interior of the base (rotating handle 13, Fig 1);
one or more gears (see gears 10, 11, and 2, Fig 1) in rotatably communication with both the hand crank and a track (driven teeth 4, Fig 1); and
a drive shaft between the hand crank and the one or more gears (transmission rod 12, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jiang to include a manual hand-crank drive to rotate the chamber through a hand crank, drive shaft, and series of interconnected gears, as in Xie, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to allow the litter device to remain operable during extended power outages; in order to reduce energy consumption/cost; or to allow the owner to have more direct control over the cleaning operation – if they notice a bad smell, they can clean the litter manually via the crank, rather than have to wait for the device to determine that cleaning is necessary.
The examiner notes, that the hand crank location affixed to the base, and extending outward away from an interior of the base is taught through modification. Given that -- the track engaging pinion is found in the base of Jiang; the handle driving assembly is located adjacent the track engaging pinion in Xie; the base of Jiang is stationary and has room for mechanics; and the crank could not serve to rotate the track of the chamber if affixed to the rotating chamber itself – a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably locate the hand crank such that it extends outward away from an interior of the base, when adding it to Jiang for the purposes of claim 1.
Should the applicant disagree, the examiner further asserts that, alternatively, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the hand crank such that it extended outward away from an interior of the base in order to provide a convenient access location for cranking, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, it being held that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 36:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 34 above and further discloses wherein the one or more gears includes one or more pinion gears engaged with the track (gear 3, Fig 3, which drives the track is a pinion gear).
Regarding claim 37:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 36 above and further discloses wherein the one or more gears includes a plurality of gears and the plurality of gears includes the one or more pinion gears (plurality of gears is track engaging pinion gear 3, shown in Fig 3, and gears 10/11 brought in with Xie in order to provide hand crank connection).
Regarding claim 40:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 32 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of gears further includes one or more other gears and the one or more other gears are located between the one or more pinion gears and the drive shaft (gears 10/11 in Xie, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 41:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 40 above and further discloses wherein the one or more other gears include one or more bevel gears, one or more stepped gears, or both (per Xie, 10 and 11 are bevel gears).
Regarding claim 42:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 37 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of gears further includes one or more other gears, and the one or more other gears are located between the one or more pinion gears and the drive shaft (gears 10/11 in Xie, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 48:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the drive source engages the track at a rear portion of the chamber (given the driven track is moved to the rear of the chamber for the rejection of claim 1 above, this would be an inherent result).
Regarding claim 49:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the litter device includes a bezel encircling the entry opening, the bezel configured to seal off one or more pinch points at the entry opening, around the entry opening, or both at and around the entry opening (see annotated Fig 1 below; functionally capable of sealing off pinch points around the entry opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Yu, and Xie, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Baxter (US 20140245960, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Baxter.
Regarding claim 46:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the entry opening includes a length and a width, the length being measured from the top of the entry opening to the bottom of the entry opening and the width being perpendicular to the length and at a widest portion of the entry opening (inherent to the entry opening structure shown in Fig 1); and
Jiang as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the ratio of the length to the width is 1:1.1 or greater to 1.1:1 or less (the opening of Jiang looks rectangular).
Baxter discloses a similar litter device where it is alternatively contemplated that the chamber entry opening may be non-symmetrical or symmetrical, as a square (¶0053; a square entry opening having a length to width ratio as claimed of 1:1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the entry opening of Jiang as a square, as contemplated by Baxter, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more aesthetically pleasing/symmetrical opening, or to allow for cats of certain shapes to more easily or less nervously pass through. Further the equivalence of a non-symmetrical rectangular and symmetrical square opening in their ability to allow feline entry is known in the art, as evidenced by Baxter, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of a rectangle for a square would have yielded the predictable results of continued functionality and enter-ability. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Additionally, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Yu, and Xie, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Brokaski (US 20050235920), hereinafter referred to as Brokaski
Regarding claim 47:
Jiang as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above
Jiang as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the entry opening has a cross-sectional area of 1,100cm^2 or greater to 3,000 cm^2 or less.
Brokaski discloses a similar rotating cat litter device with an entry opening (cat opening 38, Fig 2) and contemplates a range of entry opening dimensions (¶0032: 9-11inches diameter) which would result in a range of cross-sectional areas from approximately 410 and 612cm^2.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantages obtained having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the dimension of the opening of Jiang, variation contemplated by Brokaski, so as to provide a cross sectional area of 1,100cm^2 or greater to 3,000 cm^2 or less, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for better access to the interior of the chamber for monitoring and cleaning, or to allow for use of the box by multiple animals, or of animals of different sizes, with predictable results. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The examiner notes that there appears to be no criticality contemplated in the specification for the claimed range, and the applicant’s own specification alternatively contemplates entry opening areas between 300cm^2 and 5000cm^2 , no single value/range being discussed as more effective or superior, only that the opening may be sufficiently large to comfortably accommodate an animal entering and exiting the chamber while maintaining litter and waste within the chamber.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Yu, Baxter, Brokaski, and Xie.
Regarding claim 50:
Jiang discloses a litter device comprising:
A base (lower shell 47, Fig 1);
A waste bin removably located within the base (inner tub 28, Fig 7; Pg 4, lines 1-5; Pg 5, line 22; claim 1);
A chamber (separating mechanism accommodating chamber 26, Fig 2) with an entry opening (inlet 18, Fig 3), wherein the chamber is configured to retain a litter (litter 19, Fig 3), is rotatably supported by the base (Pg 4, lines 16-17), and is configured to come into fluid communication with the waste bin (via faecal opening 24, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 28-32);
wherein the chamber includes an upper chamber and a lower chamber, the upper chamber being a single piece and the lower chamber being a single piece (see top and bottom hemispheres which form spherical chamber 26 in Fig 3), the upper chamber and the lower chamber mate together to form the chamber (see Fig 3), the entry opening is formed by both the upper chamber and the lower chamber (see Fig 1), and a waste opening is formed in the upper chamber (Faecal opening 24, Fig 2);
wherein the chamber is rotatable about an axis of rotation, and the axis of rotation is offset from both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane (axis of rotation 10, Fig 2; claim 3); a
wherein the entry opening lies in and forms an opening plane (see Fig 2);
wherein the entry opening includes a length and a width, the length being measured from the top of the entry opening to the bottom of the entry opening and the width being perpendicular to the length and at a widest portion of the entry opening (inherent to the entry opening structure shown in Fig 1);
A bezel encircling the entry opening configured to seal off one or more pinch points at the entry opening, around the entry opening, or at and around the entry opening (see annotated Fig 1 below; functionally capable of sealing off pinch points around the entry opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A track which encircles an outside wall of the chamber (outer ring gear 13, Fig 2), wherein the track lies in a track plane which is normal to the axis of rotation and parallel to the opening plane (see Fig 2); wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by about 50% of a total length of the chamber (Fig 2),
A drive source configured to rotate the chamber during a cleaning cycle of the litter device (drive motor 15 with gear 3, Fig 2; Pg 4, lines 47-50), and wherein the drive source is configured to transfer an applied mechanical force to the chamber to rotate the chamber (Pg 4, lines 47-50), and wherein the drive source includes:
A motor (drive motor 15, not including its drive shaft, Fig 2)
One or more gears in rotatable communication with the motor and the track (gear 3, Fig 3)
A drive shaft between the motor and the one or more gears (see Fig 3).
Jiang fails to specifically disclose wherein the track is offset from a great circle of the chamber, wherein the track is distanced from the entry opening by 70% or greater to 95% or less of a total length of the chamber, wherein the great circle is located about the widest diameter of the chamber and is substantially parallel to the opening plane; wherein the ratio of the length to the width is 1:1.1 or greater to 1.1:1 or less; wherein the entry opening has a cross-sectional area of 1,100 cm2 or greater to 3,000 cm2 or less; and wherein the drive source is manual and free of requiring an electronic power source, the drive source including: a hand crank moveably affixed to the base and extending outward away from an interior of the base; one or more gears in rotatable communication with both the hand crank and the track; and a drive shaft between the hand crank and the one or more gears.
Yu discloses a litter device with a track (roller gear 24, Fig 6) clearly distanced from an entry opening (connecting port 21, Fig 3) by over 70% and less than 100% (see Figs 2 and 6) of a total length of the chamber, and appears, based on Figure 2, to teach that the track is distanced from the entry opening by less than 95%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relocated the driven track of Jiang to the rear of the chamber, as in Yu, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide easier access for repair, or in order to reduce the required track size (given reduction in chamber diameter further from entry), so as to allow for a cheaper manufacture of a complex part, or to provide an appropriate gear ratio for the optimal rotation speed or based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber.
Further, in the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantages obtained having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically located the driven track of Jiang such that it was distanced between 70% and 95% the total length of the chamber, from the entry opening, in order to provide an appropriate gear ratio for optimal rotation speed, based on the torque capability of the drive source, or in order to optimize energy transfer between the drive source and the chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70), and that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). The examiner notes, that there appears to be no criticality contemplated in the specification for the claimed range, and the applicant’s own specification alternatively contemplates positioning the track concentric with the great circle of the chamber (at 50% distance, which is shown in Jiang), and ranges of 45% or greater – 95% or less for distancing, no single position being discussed as more effective or superior.
Baxter discloses a similar litter device where it is alternatively contemplated that the chamber entry opening may be non-symmetrical or symmetrical, as a square (¶0053; a square entry opening having a length to width ratio as claimed of 1:1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the entry opening of Jiang as a square, as contemplated by Baxter, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more aesthetically pleasing/symmetrical opening, or to allow for cats of certain shapes to more easily or less nervously pass through. Further the equivalence of a non-symmetrical rectangular and symmetrical square opening in their ability to allow feline entry is known in the art, as evidenced by Baxter, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the simple substitution of a rectangle for a square would have yielded the predictable results of continued functionality and enter-ability. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Additionally, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Brokaski discloses a similar rotating cat litter device with an entry opening (cat opening 38, Fig 2) and contemplates a range of entry opening dimensions (¶0032: 9-11inches diameter) which would result in a range of cross-sectional areas from approximately 410 and 612cm^2.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantages obtained having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have varied the dimension of the opening of Jiang, variation contemplated by Brokaski, so as to provide a cross sectional area of 1,100cm^2 or greater to 3,000 cm^2 or less, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to allow for better access to the interior of the chamber for monitoring and cleaning, or to allow for use of the box by multiple animals, or of animals of different sizes, with predictable results. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The examiner notes that there appears to be no criticality contemplated in the specification for the claimed range, and the applicant’s own specification alternatively contemplates entry opening areas between 300cm^2 and 5000cm^2 , no single value/range being discussed as more effective or superior, only that the opening may be sufficiently large to comfortably accommodate an animal entering and exiting the chamber while maintaining litter and waste within the chamber.
Xie discloses a similar litter device with a rotating chamber with an external pinion and track system (see power gear 2 and driven teeth 4, Fig 1), where the drive source is not automatic, but rather manual, where a hand crank (rotating handle 13, Fig 1)is used to apply torque to the track through a series of interconnected gears to cause rotation of the chamber (see Fig 1; claims 1-2 and 8), and the drive source includes:
a hand crank moveably affixed to a base and extending outward away from an interior of the base (rotating handle 13, Fig 1);
one or more gears (see gears 10, 11, and 2, Fig 1) in rotatably communication with both the hand crank and a track (driven teeth 4, Fig 1); and
a drive shaft between the hand crank and the one or more gears (transmission rod 12, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jiang to include a manual hand-crank drive to rotate the chamber through a hand crank, drive shaft, and series of interconnected gears, as in Xie, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to allow the litter device to remain operable during extended power outages; in order to reduce energy consumption/cost; or to allow the owner to have more direct control over the cleaning operation – if they notice a bad smell, they can clean the litter manually via the crank, rather than have to wait for the device to determine that cleaning is necessary.
The examiner notes, that the hand crank location affixed to the base, and extending outward away from an interior of the base is taught through modification. Given that -- the track engaging pinion is found in the base of Jiang; the handle driving assembly is located adjacent the track engaging pinion in Xie; the base of Jiang is stationary and has room for mechanics; and the crank could not serve to rotate the track of the chamber if affixed to the rotating chamber itself – a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably locate the hand crank such that it extends outward away from an interior of the base, when adding it to Jiang for the purposes of claim 1.
Should the applicant disagree, the examiner further asserts that, alternatively, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the hand crank such that it extended outward away from an interior of the base in order to provide a convenient access location for cranking, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, it being held that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of pending claims over Baxter have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Arguments which have been determined to be applicable to the new grounds of rejection will be addressed below.
On page 4 last ¶, the applicant contends that the roller gear (track) of Yu is located at the furthest end of the litter roller 2, and distanced from the communication port 21 by 100% of the length of the litter roller.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and refers to Fig 2, attached below for convenience, which clearly shows that the spherical chamber extends in length past the position of the track. Further, more generally, given the chamber is spherical, the track could not possibly be at a 100% distance, because the furthest distance on the sphere would simply be a single point, and a point could not contain a track as discussed.
PNG
media_image2.png
525
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reitz (US 20020139312 A1, as cited on applicant’s IDS) mentions forming a spherical chamber by bolting two hemispherical plastic pieces together.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642