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 Amendment
The indicated allowability of claims 1-3, 12-14, 16 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Greene (CA 2712784). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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) 1-3, 12-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (CA 2712784, provided herein) in view of Kraus et al. (US 8141695, hereafter referred to as Kraus).
For claim 1, Greene teaches a method for pet waste removal (abstract and figs.), comprising:
installing a pad on a surface of a platform (see Figs. 10 and 13, pad 203/507 installed on the conveyor 260);
receiving pet waste on the pad, wherein a portion of the pad receiving the pet waste defines a soiled portion of the pad;
capturing one or more images of the pad,
detecting a type of pet waste on the pad or an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad (page 16, “the image may be obtained prior to the collection of the fecal sample from the flooring of the excrement sample collection area. The image of the fecal matter may be reviewed for stool quality such as firmness and liquidity. In an embodiment, the fecal matter may be classified as runny, loose, firm, or dry.”
Greene is silent about wherein the one or more captured images are compared to a reference image; and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image detecting the waste type.
Kraus teaches a method of pet waste removal wherein the one or more captured images are compared to a reference image; and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image detecting the waste (Col. 5, lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the method of Greene compare a reference image to a captured image, as taught by Kraus, in order to allow for comparative determination of the waste as is known in image analysis.
For claim 2, modified Greene further teaches wherein the type of pet waste is detected, and wherein the type of pet waste comprises a solid waste, a liquid waste, or a combination thereof (page 16 of Greene).
For claim 3, modified Greene further teaches after detecting the type of pet waste, differentiating the type of pet waste between solid waste and liquid waste (page 16 of Greene).
For claim 12, modified Greene further teaches after capturing the one or more images, determining a cleanliness of the pad or an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad (see page 16 of Greene, Col. 5, lines 50-65 of Kraus).
For claim 13, Greene teaches a method for pet waste removal (abstract and figs.), comprising:
installing a pad on a surface of a platform (see Figs. 10 and 13, pad 203/507 installed on the conveyor 260);
receiving pet waste on the pad, wherein a portion of the pad receiving the pet waste defines a soiled portion of the pad;
capturing one or more images of the pad,
detecting a type of pet waste on the pad or an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad, wherein the type of pet waste comprises a solid waste, a liquid waste, or a combination thereof, (page 16, “the image may be obtained prior to the collection of the fecal sample from the flooring of the excrement sample collection area. The image of the fecal matter may be reviewed for stool quality such as firmness and liquidity. In an embodiment, the fecal matter may be classified as runny, loose, firm, or dry.”
detecting an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad (page 16, based on weight).
Greene is silent about wherein the one or more captured images are compared to a reference image; and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image detecting the waste type, and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image, detecting an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad.
Kraus teaches a method of pet waste removal wherein the one or more captured images are compared to a reference image; and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image detecting the waste and based on the one or more captured images being compared to the reference image, detecting an amount of pet waste on the soiled portion of the pad. (Col. 5, lines 50-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the method of Greene compare a reference image to a captured image, as taught by Kraus, in order to allow for comparative determination of the waste as is known in image analysis.
For claim 14, modified Greene further teaches differentiating the type of pet waste (page 16 of Greene).
For claim 16, modified Greene further discloses after differentiating the pet waste, determining a cleanliness of the pad (Col. 5, lines 55-60 of Kraus).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 15, 17-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest advancing the pad across the platform until the captured image matches the reference image. Greene does not teach the reference image and Kraus fails to teach advancing the roll until a captured image matches a reference image, as Kraus teaches activating a cleaning system with a sprayer instead.
The prior art of record further fails to teach markings along a length of the pad, and wherein the method further comprises, after capturing images of the pad, reading the markings with a mark sensor to determine a position of the soiled portion of the pad. While the prior art of record Axelrod (US 7958846) does teach markings on a waste pad and advancing such a pad, Axelrod fails to teach the imaging or the step of reading the markings after capturing the image.
Conclusion
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