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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some of the drawings are too small to adequately depict the structures. For example, Figs. 26-27 limit the amount of structural detail shown due to the tiny font and drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 217. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: claim 12 recites the limitation, “substrate separator”, which is not described in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims appear to be written in a foreign patent format. Some of the informalities that should be corrected to conform to current US practice include:
Claim 1, change “Automatic electromechanical device for collecting, processing, and storing animal feces and urine using recoverable substrate, characterized in that it comprises” to – An automatic electromechanical device for collecting, processing, and storing animal feces and urine using recoverable substrate comprising:”
Claims 2-16 change “Automatic electromechanical device” to --The automatic electromechanical device--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8, 11-13, and 15-16 (as well as dependent claims 7-10 and 14 due to dependency) 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the loading transfer duct" and “the load classifier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the organic load". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the lower shell of the unit” and "unit control panel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the wheel position sensor”, "the waste cartridge position sensor", “the main electric motor”, and “the UV germicidal unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the exit of the slot". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the air system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the elevator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the reservoir". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “air conditioner” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a drying and deodorizing unit for feces,” while the accepted meaning is “a machine that is used to cool and dry the air in a building, room, etc. (Merriam-Webster).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the air conditioner to be a device which blows air.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a drying, grinding, and cleaning unit, an air conditioning unit” which is vague and indefinite since it appears as though the dryer from the cleaning unit and the air conditioner are the same structure. This appears to be a double inclusion of the blowing element. The specification states, “the drying and deodorization of the feces (603) is achieved by the passage of air from the air conditioning unit (301)”. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the cleaning unit to include the air conditioner.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, a magnetic mat is located at the exit of the slot, which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear if the structure is positively required or not in view of the or limitation of claim 4. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation to be optional.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “connected at one end to the cam” which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear which cam is in connection with the bellows. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the cam to be the air system cam.
Claim 11 recites the limitation, “expiration valves” which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear what is expiring about the structure of the valves.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “the mouth may have an activated carbon filter; this waste collection unit may be made of biodegradable material” which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation positively requires the elements. For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the limitations to be optional.
Claims 15-16 recite optional language, which does not appear to be required by the claim, such as, “may be (…)”, which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the structures are positively required by the claims. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitations to be optional, not required.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant’s assistance is required in determining all of the errors and inconsistencies with the claims. In light of the rejections, the claims are interpreted as best understood.
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.
16. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon, Tal et al. (US 20030051672 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Gordon discloses an automatic electromechanical device for collecting, processing, and storing animal feces and urine using recoverable substrate (title); (abstract), characterized in that it comprises a loading tray (Fig. 4B; 114), a drying, grinding, and cleaning unit (Fig. 8; 246), an air conditioning unit (Fig. 16; 422); [0138], a recovered substrate reservoir (494); [0151], a waste collection unit (Fig. 11C; 318, 370), and the substrate or granules (3).
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) 1-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon; Tal et al. (US 20070125309 A1), in view of in view of SCHENK MONA (WO 2015067679 A1; see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1 Gordon discloses an automatic electromechanical device for collecting, processing, and storing animal feces and urine using recoverable substrate (title); (abstract), characterized in that it comprises a loading tray (Fig. 1; 34), a drying, grinding, and cleaning unit (Fig. 4); [0042-0043], an air conditioning unit (Fig. 2; 60); [0040], a waste collection unit (Fig. 5E; 64), and the substrate or granules (14).
Gordon does not disclose a recovered substrate reservoir (107). Schenk teaches a recovered substrate reservoir (Fig. 2; 5); (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Gordon to include a recovered substrate reservoir, as taught by Schenk, in order to add more litter to the device automatically as needed.
Regarding claim 2 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon further discloses the loading tray (34) is attached to an electro-vibrator [0056] that, through its action, drives the substrate (14) and organic load (99) through the loading transfer duct (66) to the load classifier (78).
Regarding claim 3 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon the load classifier a descending duct (76) on one of its sides for the passage of the substrate and the organic load [0042].
Gordon in view of Schenk does not explicitly disclose a grid on one side. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a grid in order to filter unwanted materials from entering.
Regarding claim 4 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon further discloses the loading tray (34) is positioned on the lower shell of the unit (indirectly positioned on lower shell in Fig. 6A; 15); this shell (15) has an attached electronic unit (Fig. 1; 20); [0032] on one of its sides, and houses a pet entry sensor [0051]; in addition, the shell (15) can support a dome or a litter retention bib [0029]; said dome may house the unit control panel, and has a slot on one of its sides (since a litter retention bib is disclosed by the prior art, this limitation is considered optional in view of the or limitation).
Gordon does not disclose the sensor on its upper part. 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 sensor of Gordon to be on its upper part in order to efficiently monitor the location of the cat, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Gordon does not explicitly disclose a power supply. Schenk teaches a power supply (Fig. 2; 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Gordon to include a power supply, as taught by Schenk, in order to power the device.
Regarding claim 5 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon further discloses the electronic unit is connected to the main electric motor [0032], the loading tray electro-vibrator, the entry sensor, the wheel position sensor, the waste cartridge position sensor, the UV germicidal unit, and the unit control panel [0046].
Regarding claim 6 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Gordon further discloses a magnetic mat is located at the exit of the slot (this is an optional limitation in view of the 112b above).
Regarding claim 12 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon in view of Schenk discloses the recovered substrate reservoir comprises a substrate separator (Schenk; Fig. 2) that removes the substrate from the elevator, has an upper opening for substrate replenishment (6), a substrate level sight glass (29), and a bottom opening (12) for discharging the substrate to the tray, sealed by the substrate discharge gate (13); said gate is connected to an actuator, mechanically dependent on the cams (page 6).
Regarding claim 13 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon further appears to disclose the waste collection unit comprises a collection mouth for the reservoir, a urine evaporator, and an air outlet through the mouth, and has a waste reservoir at its bottom; said air outlet through the mouth may have an activated carbon filter; this waste collection unit may be made of biodegradable material (Fig. 6A); [0060].
Regarding claim 14 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon further appears to disclose the waste collection unit includes a waste cartridge position sensor; said sensor is located near the drying, grinding, and cleaning unit [0051].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon; Tal et al. (US 20070125309 A1), in view of SCHENK MONA (WO 2015067679 A1; see attached translation), further in view of Gordon; Tal (US 6138609 A; hereinafter ‘609).
Regarding claims 15-16 Gordon in view of Schenk, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Gordon in view of Schenk does not disclose the substrate or granules with a diameter ranging from 1 to 10 mm.
Gordon teaches the substrate or granules with a diameter ranging from 1 to 10mm (Col. 9, lines 59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the litter of Gordon in view of Schenk to be from 1 to 10 mm as taught by ‘609, in order to effectively filter the excrement (Col 9, lines 51-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 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.
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm PST.
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 at 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 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
