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 § 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.
Claims 51-53, 61 and 69 are 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.
In claims 51-53, 61 and 69, the phrase “and/or” is in an alternative form and it is unclear what “and/or” is intended to encompass.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 51-64 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxter et al. (US 8757094) in view of CA 1198638 (CA’638).
For claims 1, 51, and 69, Baxter et al. teach an automated litter device having: a) a base (100); b) a chamber (20) configured for retaining a litter and rotatably supported by the base, wherein the chamber is configured to rotate during a cleaning cycle, wherein the chamber includes: i) an entry opening (22) so that an animal can enter and exit the chamber; and ii) a waste opening (24) configured so that during the cleaning cycle animal waste passes through the waste opening into a waste receptacle (150) upon rotation of the chamber.
Baxter et al. disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning a litter dispenser configured to retain a clean and unused litter, wherein the litter dispenser is in communication with the chamber to transfer some of the clean and unused litter to the chamber and wherein the litter dispenser is affixed to one or more components of the automated litter device which house and/or support the chamber.
CA’638 teaches that it is old and well known in the art of animal litter device to provide a litter dispenser (1) configured to retain a clean and unused litter, wherein the litter dispenser is in communication with the chamber (2) to transfer some of the clean and unused litter to the chamber and wherein the litter dispenser is affixed to one or more components of the automated litter device (3,4) which house and/or support the chamber (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Baxter et al. so as to include the use of a litter dispenser, in a similar manner as taught in CA’638, so as to retain a clean and unused litter and transfer the clean and unused litter to the chamber of the litter device.
For claim 52, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on Baxter et al.) further teach wherein the automated litter device includes a bonnet (80) which is located over and/or about a least a portion of the chamber; and wherein the litter dispenser is affixed to the bonnet.
For claim 53 Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on CA’638) further teach wherein the litter dispenser (1) is affixed to the base (3,4).
For claim 54, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on CA’638) further teach wherein the litter dispenser (1) is in fluid communication with an interior of the chamber (2).
For claim 55, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on Baxter et al.) further teach wherein the chamber includes an opening (24) configured to receive the clean and unused litter from the litter dispenser.
For claim 56, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on Baxter et al.) further teach wherein the opening (24) is in a rear of the chamber, opposite the entry opening, or both (see Figures 4-6).
For claim 57, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on Baxter et al.) further teach wherein a limiting wall (82) of the chamber partially conceals the opening.
For claim 58, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on Baxter et al.) further teach wherein the chamber includes a rotational axis about which the chamber rotates during the cleaning cycle (see Figures 3A, 3B, 4, and 5).
For claim 59, as described above, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning
wherein the clean and unused litter enters the chamber in a rear of the chamber in proximity the rotational axis. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 so as to have the clean and unused litter enters the chamber in a rear of the chamber in proximity the rotational axis, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 60, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on CA’638) further teach wherein a chute (9) is located at a rear of the chamber for transferring the clean and unused litter from the litter dispenser into the chamber.
For claim 61, as described above, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning
wherein the chute is aligned with and/or intersects the rotational axis of the chamber. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 so as to have the chute is aligned with and/or intersects the rotational axis of the chamber, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 62, as described above, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning
wherein the litter dispenser is located generally opposite the entry opening. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 so as to have the litter dispenser is located generally opposite the entry opening, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 63, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on CA’638) further teach wherein the litter dispenser includes one or more dispensing devices (9) which are configured to retain the clean and unused litter within the litter dispenser during a resting mode.
For claim 64, Baxter et al. as modified by CA’638 (emphasis on CA’638) further teach wherein the one or more dispensing devices (9) are configured to transfer a portion of the clean and unused litter within the litter dispenser to the chamber during a refill cycle of the litter dispenser.
Claims 65-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 63 above, and further in view of FR 2687285 (FR’285).
For claim 65, as described above, the references as applied to claim 63 above disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the one or more dispensing devices include one or more paddles configured to rotate during a refill cycle to transfer the litter.
FR’285 teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide a littler dispensing device include one or more paddles (4) configured to rotate during a refill cycle to transfer the litter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of the references as applied to claim 63 above so as to include the use of paddles in litter dispensing device, in a similar manner as taught in FR’285, in order to rotate during a refill cycle to transfer the litter.
For claim 66, the references as applied to claim 63 above as modified by FR’285 (emphasis on FR’285) further teach wherein the one or more paddles include a plurality of fins (4) radially projecting from a hub (14).
For claim 67, the references as applied to claim 63 above as modified by FR’285 (emphasis on FR’285) further teach wherein the one or more paddles (4) are in communication with one or more drive sources (140.
For claim 68, as described above, the references as applied to claim 63 above as modified by FR’285 disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the one or more drive sources includes a motor. However, an Official Notice is taken that using a motor as a drive source is a well known technique used in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of the references as applied to claim 63 above as modified by FR’285 so as to include the use of a motor, in light of the Official Notice taken, so as to automatically control the rotation of the paddles during the transfer of litter.
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644