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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The examiner noticed that there does not appear to be a power of attorney document present in the file wrapper, despite it appearing as if the applicant is being represented by a power of attorney in prosecution. The examiner requests that the applicant submit a power of attorney with their response. The examiner notes that, without a power of attorney on record, the examiner is unable to discuss details of the case over the phone with anyone other than the named applicant(s) on the application. See MPEP 402 for guidance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification lacks antecedent basis for “an upper aspect”, “central aperture”, that the outer casing surrounds the inner casing, the new matter regarding the position of the soap being between the bristles and the filter, and the intended use language, that the soap stays “in a fixed position” on the tray.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 8: “disposed between a between” should read –disposed between—
Line 15: “the solid” should read –the solid soap—
Line 17: “the device is configured so after use” should read –the device is configured such that, after use,--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as amended, in line 8, recites that the soap provided in solid form is disposed “between the plurality of bristles and the filter”. This limitation appears to constitute new matter as it does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05). Based on the drawings (see Figs 2-3), and the corresponding labeling and description in the specification, both the soap (20) and the tray (22) are clearly below both the filter (18) and the bristles (161). Neither the specification nor the drawings adequately discuss an alternative embodiment that provides support for the claimed limitation. Similarly, the applicant introduces new matter in lines 18-19, when they say that the soap is on the tray “between the plurality of bristles and the filter.” Support for the amended limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitations are supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
Claim 1, as amended, in lines 18-19, recites that “the device is configured so after use the water can be discarded while the remainder of the solid soap stays in a fixed position on the tray between the plurality of bristles and the filter”. This limitation appears to constitute new matter as it does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05). Particularly, although the specification mentions that “after use, the water is discarded but the remainder of the solid soap stays within the receptacle,” the disclosure does not adequately support that the solid soap “stays in a fixed position on the tray between the plurality of bristles and the filter.” Support for the amended limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitations are supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
Claim 1, as amended, in lines 20-22, recites that “the device is configured to be disassembled by the outer casing being removable from the device when the soap is completely dissolved so a new bar can be placed on the tray.” This limitation appears to constitute new matter as it does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05). Particularly, although the specification mentions that “a new bar can be placed on the tray in the container” the disclosure does not adequately support that the device is configured to be disassembled by the outer casing being removable from the device. Support for the amended limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitations are supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
It is not wholly clear, given the lack of discussion in the specification, and the 112(b) whether the applicant has support to bring in the language ‘an upper aspect’ into the claim. Support for the amended limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitations are supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04). The examiner asks that the applicant point out support for this limitation for clarity of the record.
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation "the paw cleaner" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the inner casing having a plurality of bristles on an upper aspect extending inward from walls of the inner casing.” It is unclear whether it is the bristles or upper aspect that need extend inward from walls of the inner casing, particularly, because it is unclear what the applicant considers the upper aspect.
Claim 1 recites “a tray for the soap provided in solid form disposed between a between the plurality of bristles and the filter.” It is unclear whether the applicant is requiring that the tray be disposed between the bristles and the filter, or that the soap be disposed between the bristles and the filter.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plummer (US 20140326193, as cited on previous 892) in view of Logan (US 3973286, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Plummer and Logan, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112 issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Plummer discloses an animal paw washing device (system 1, Fig 2; Abstract) comprising:
an inner casing (side walls of brush 8 supporting side bristles 8B, Figs 3-4A) configured to hold water when water is added to the device (see Fig 4, water held between walls when water added to device), the inner casing having a plurality of bristles on an upper aspect extending inward from walls of the inner casing (see annotated Fig 4 below);
A filter for collecting debris (see annotated Fig 4 below – bottom extensions of base brush portion; can act as a filter, as it has holes through which water could flow – see arrows – capable of collecting debris therein);
A tray capable of having solid soap placed thereon (see annotated Fig 4 below; top of base brush portion with bristles thereon), the tray disposed between the plurality of bristles and the filter (see Fig 4);
an outer casing surrounding and providing a housing for the inner casing (Container 2, Fig 4);
a cover fitting on top of the outer casing (cleaning lid 3, Fig 3), having a central aperture configured to receive an animal paw (see Figs 3-4);
wherein:
the device is configured so after use the water can be discarded (inherent property, given water can be added through opening in cover, it can also be discarded therethrough)
the device is configured to be disassembled by the outer casing being removable from the device (¶0029 says brushes are removably retained in container 2) after a period of time (which could correspond with a soap dissolution time – intended use) so a new bar can be placed on the tray (intended use: one could place a bar of soap on the tray).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Plummer also discloses the use of a cleaning solution (cleaning solution 6, Fig 4) within the inner casing, discusses that the use of soapy water in pet foot cleaning is known (¶0006), and that the device “may be used with any cleaning solution, soap, detergent, germicidal or antiseptic for dispersion or surface scrubbing known within the surgical or veterinarian arts without departing from the scope and spirit of the present invention” (¶0039).
Plummer fails to specifically disclose wherein soap in solid form is provided as a part of the device, wherein a portion of the soap provided in solid form is dissolvable to form a solution in the inner casing when water is added; wherein when water is placed into the paw cleaner some percentage of the solid soap dissolves putting soap into solution in the water; wherein the device is configured so after use the water can be discarded while the remainder of the solid soap stays in a fixed position on the tray between the plurality of bristles and the filter.
Logan teaches a foot cleaning apparatus where a cleaning solution for foot washing may be a liquid soap, or alternatively may be formed by mixing water with bar or powdered soap (solid soap) (Col 1, line 60 – Col 2, line 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 provided a bar or powdered (solid) soap in the interior of the device of Plummer, prior to adding water therein, such that at least a portion of the soap provided in solid form may dissolve to form the cleaning solution in the inner casing when water is added, as suggested by Logan, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to create a cleaning solution that fits soaping needs of the animal to be washed, or the preference of the owner. Further, the equivalence of solid soap and liquid soap in their ability to form a cleansing solution for foot washing is known in the art, as evidenced by Logan, and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, their substitutions having predictable results. Also, solid soap that may be formed into a liquid cleansing solution with the addition of water more desirable than a pre-made/packaged fluid cleansing solution, because solid soap is far easier/cheaper to store, and ship due its reduced volume.
The examiner notes that the addition of soap to the device of Plummer, with Logan, would result in a device that is inherently capable of fulfilling the functional language mentioned in lines 15-19 of the claim: as evidenced by Logan (“aqueous solution” – Col 4, lines 50-55), when water is added to the soap, the soap is configured such that some percentage of the soap may dissolve and be put into solution in the water; further, the resultant device would be configured such that, after use, the water can be discarded while the remainder of the solid soap stays in a fixed position on the tray (the device may inherently be used as such given the amount of water added or soap added would determine the amount of soap that dissolves and what remains; soap that remains could stay in a fixed position during water removal, because water could be removed via suction pump, that does not agitate the soap or cause motion; that, or, the soap could get stuck between the bottom bristles on the tray, which would prevent it from moving while water is poured out of the opening).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheung (US 2022/0000072) is relevant to the present disclosure, further contemplating the equivalency of solid and liquid soap in animal cleansing.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642