DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 and 14-16 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2163152 to Unicharm (“Unicharm”)1.
Regarding claim 1, Unicharm discloses a system toilet for a pet, comprising: an excretion container (10), having a liquid-permeable bottom surface portion (13, 17), that stores toilet litter; a tray (30), disposed below the excretion container, that stores an absorbent sheet (31) that absorbs liquid that has passed through the liquid-permeable bottom surface portion; a lower container (20) that holds the tray; and an upper container (40) disposed above the excretion container and having an opening portion (43) on an upper side for a pet to enter and exit, wherein the upper container has: a pair of sidewall portions (42) disposed to face each other on both sides in a width direction of the opening portion and extending in a front-rear direction that is a depth direction of the upper container; and a rear wall portion (FIGS. 1, 6) facing the opening portion in the front-rear direction, and a height of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions is higher than a height of the highest portion in the rear wall portion (FIGS. 2, 3, 6); wherein the upper container further has a sidewall extension portion: extending downward and inward in the width direction from an upper end portion of the pair of sidewall portions, and disposed in an upper end portion of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions (FIG. 2; note the claim language “portion” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation); wherein the upper container further has a rear-wall extension portion: extending downward and forward in the front-rear direction from an upper end portion of the rear wall portion, and disposed in an entirety of an area of the rear wall portion, the sidewall extension portion is: disposed in an entirety of an area of the pair of sidewall portions, and continuous with the rear-wall extension portion (FIG. 2; note the claim language “portion” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation); and wherein the upper container further has: a sidewall interception portion on the sidewall extension portion extending between the sidewall extension portion and the pair of sidewall portions; and a rear-wall interception portion on the rear-wall extension portion extending between the rear-wall extension portion and the rear wall portion (FIG. 2; note the claim language “portion” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 2, Unicharm discloses wherein in the front-rear direction, the upper container is equally divided into an entrance-side area, an intermediate area, and a depth-side area in this order from a front side of the upper container, and the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions is in an area of the pair of sidewall portions excluding the deepest portion of the depth-side area (FIGS. 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Unicharm discloses wherein the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions is in the pair of sidewall portions in the intermediate area (FIGS. 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Unicharm discloses wherein a height of the pair of sidewall portions in the entrance-side area and a height of the pair of sidewall portions in the depth-side area are lower than a height of the pair of sidewall portions in the intermediate area (FIGS. 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Unicharm discloses wherein the upper container further has a hook that is: disposed in a lower end portion of the pair of sidewall portions in the intermediate area, and coupled to a coupling portion of the lower container (FIGS. 1-3, 6).
Regarding claim 14, Unicharm discloses wherein the sidewall interception portion and the rear-wall interception portion are disposed at predetermined intervals on the sidewall extension portion and the rear-wall extension portion (FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 15, Unicharm discloses wherein the pair of sidewall portions has a curved surface projecting downward and outward in the width direction from an upper end portion of the pair of sidewall portions (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Unicharm discloses wherein the pair of sidewall portions has an inflection portion on a lower end side of the pair of side wall portions (FIG. 6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unicharm, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Unicharm teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the lowest portion in the rear wall portion is equal to or less than 90% of the height of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system toilet of Unicharm so that a height of the lowest portion in the rear wall portion is equal to or less than 90% of the height of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions, in order to make it more comfortable for the pet.
Regarding claim 7, Unicharm teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein a height of the pair of sidewall portions is equal to or more than 60% of the height of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions in an area equal to or more than 80% in the front-rear direction.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system toilet of Unicharm so that a height of the pair of sidewall portions is equal to or more than 60% of the height of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions in an area equal to or more than 80% in the front-rear direction, in order to make it more comfortable for the pet.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unicharm, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,487,989 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 8, Unicharm teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein in the width direction, the rear wall portion is equally divided into a rear-wall central portion and two rear-wall end portions between which the rear-wall central portion is, a height of the rear-wall central portion is lower than a height of the rear-wall end portions, and a partial area of the rear-wall central portion has the lowest portion in the rear wall portion.
Yamamoto teaches a system toilet, wherein in the width direction, the rear wall portion is equally divided into a rear-wall central portion and two rear-wall end portions between which the rear-wall central portion is, a height of the rear-wall central portion is lower than a height of the rear-wall end portions, and a partial area of the rear-wall central portion has the lowest portion in the rear wall portion (FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system toilet of Unicharm so that in the width direction, the rear wall portion is equally divided into a rear-wall central portion and two rear-wall end portions between which the rear-wall central portion is, a height of the rear-wall central portion is lower than a height of the rear-wall end portions, and a partial area of the rear-wall central portion has the lowest portion in the rear wall portion, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to allow the cat to enter from either the front or rear end.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Unicharm and Yamamoto teaches each and every element of claim 8, as discussed above, and the combination teaches wherein an upper end portion of the lowest portion in the rear wall portion is in a rearmost position in the front-rear direction (Yamamoto at FIG. 2; Unicharm at FIGS. 1-3, 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Unicharm and Yamamoto teaches each and every element of claim 8, as discussed above, and the combination teaches wherein in the rear wall portion, an area having a higher height is more inclined frontward in the front-rear direction (Yamamoto at FIG. 2; Unicharm at FIGS. 1-3, 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, Unicharm discloses each and every element of independent claim 1, including wherein the upper container further has a sidewall extension portion: extending downward and inward in the width direction from an upper end portion of the pair of sidewall portions, and disposed in an upper end portion of the highest portion in the pair of sidewall portions (FIG. 2); wherein the upper container further has a rear-wall extension portion: extending downward and forward in the front-rear direction from an upper end portion of the rear wall portion, and disposed in an entirety of an area of the rear wall portion, the sidewall extension portion is: disposed in an entirety of an area of the pair of sidewall portions, and continuous with the rear-wall extension portion (FIG. 2); and wherein the upper container further has: a sidewall interception portion on the sidewall extension portion extending between the sidewall extension portion and the pair of sidewall portions; and a rear-wall interception portion on the rear-wall extension portion extending between the rear-wall extension portion and the rear wall portion. The claim language “portion” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 A copy of the foreign reference was provided by applicant on 09/26/2025.
Prosecution Insights