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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 recites the limitation “with an opening with an opening.” Examiner recommends correction to “with an opening.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4-9, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2014113090 A) in view of Hirata et al. (WO 2017150086 A1), hereinafter Hirata.
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses an animal toilet comprising:
a body portion in which a grain for treating urine of an animal is laid, the body portion having a bottom face part and a side face part (Fig. 2 shows main body 40 has a bottom and side face parts); and
a urine collection tool (urine receptor 30; Fig. 1), wherein:
the side face part is provided with an opening height and an opening length for inserting the urine collection tool used for collecting the urine above the grain (Fig. 1 shows side face part has openings 44a, 44b, 44c with a height and length for the insertion of drawer part 10, drawer part 20, and urine receptor 30),
the urine collection tool includes a urine accumulation portion in which the urine accumulates, and a grip portion designed to be held by hand (Fig. 1 shows drawer part 10 is a urine accumulation portion, with handle 36 designed to be held by hand), and
the opening is sized to allow the urine accumulation portion to pass therethrough (Fig. 1),
Ito, however, fails to specifically disclose the opening does not allow the grip portion to pass therethrough because at least one of a height and a length of the grip portion is greater than a corresponding one of the opening height and the opening length of the opening.
Hirata is in the field of animal litter boxes and teaches the opening does not allow the grip portion to pass therethrough because at least one of a height and a length of the grip portion is greater than a corresponding one of the opening height and the opening length of the opening (Figs. 3 and 4 show transfer part 16 has a grip portion with a height and length that does not allow it to pass through the opening).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal litter boxes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito such that the opening does not allow the grip portion to pass therethrough because at least one of a height and a length of the grip portion is greater than a corresponding one of the opening height and the opening length of the opening, as taught by the grip and opening of Hirata. The grip and opening configuration would allow for the tool to be better secured within the litter box, improving the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses wherein the opening has a slit shape (Fig. 1 shows openings 44a, 44b, 44c have slit shapes).
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses wherein the opening has a horizontally long shape (Fig. 1 shows openings 44a, 44b, 44c have horizontally long shapes).
Regarding claim 5, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 4.
Ito discloses wherein with respect to left/right direction of the opening, the opening length of the opening is half or more of an inner size of the body portion (Fig. 1 shows openings 44a, 44b, 44c have lengths approximately the same width of the inner size of the body portion).
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 5.
Ito discloses wherein the opening length of the opening is four-fifths or more of the inner size of the body portion (Fig. 1 shows openings 44a, 44b, 44c have lengths approximately the same width of the inner size of the body portion).
Regarding claim 7, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 4, however, Ito fails to specifically disclose wherein upper ends of left and right end parts of the opening are located higher than an upper end of a middle part of the opening in a front view. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Ito such that upper ends of left and right end parts of the opening are located higher than an upper end of a middle part of the opening in a front view, in order to facilitate the insertion of tools with specific geometries. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 8, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 7.
Ito discloses wherein the opening extends horizontally in the middle part, and extends upward in the left and right end parts (Fig. 1 shows opening extending horizontally in the middle and upwards at the ends).
Regarding claim 9, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses wherein: the body portion includes the side face part with the opening (Fig. 1 shows side face part has openings 44a, 44b, 44c).
The modified reference, however, fails to specifically disclose a second side face part with a second opening on a side of the body portion opposite the side face part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ito in view of Hirata to include a second side face part with a second opening on a side of the body portion opposite the side face part to allow the urine collection tool to be inserted from either side of the device. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the urine collection tool is capable of being inserted in and extracted from the body portion through the opening without touching the side face part. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the size of the openings of the device of Ito such the urine collection tool is capable of being inserted in and extracted from the body portion through the opening without touching the side face part, in order to facilitate easier insertion. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 14, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses further comprising: the grain that is laid on the bottom face part, and has a water absorbing property (¶ 0031, lines 1-3, “An excrement treating material 70 is laid inside the urine receiver 30. The urine that falls into the lower space S3 through the hole 22a is absorbed by the excrement treating material 70”).
Regarding claim 15, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses wherein the grain includes a core portion formed in a granular shape, and a coating portion that contains an adhesive material and covers the core portion (¶ 0033, “Since the excrement treatment material 70 contains an adhesive material, the excrement treatment material 70 that has absorbed urine forms clumps. Therefore, from among the many excrement treating materials 70 laid inside the urine receiver 30, only the used ones can be easily removed. Furthermore, the content of adhesive material in the excrement treating material 70 is set to 5% by weight or less. By reducing the content of adhesive material as much as possible within the range in which the agglomeration function is obtained, the amount of relatively expensive adhesive material [polymer, etc.] used can be reduced, leading to a reduction in manufacturing costs”).
Regarding claim 17, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 1.
Ito discloses further comprising: a partition portion that has a through hole allowing the urine to pass therethrough, and divides an internal space of the body portion into an upper space and a lower space (partition plate 22, holes 22a; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 17.
Ito discloses further comprising: the grain that is laid in the upper space, and has a hydrophobic property (¶ 0023, line 1, “The excrement treatment material 50 is water permeable and absorbs very little moisture”).
Regarding claim 19, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 17.
Ito discloses wherein the partition portion is not fixed to the body portion (¶ 0014, line 1, “The partition plate 22 forms the bottom surface of the drawer section 20”).
Regarding claim 20, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 19.
Ito discloses wherein the body portion has a support part that projects from the side face part toward an inside of the body portion, and the partition portion is placed on the support part (extending ridge 45b; Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2014113090 A) in view of Hirata (WO 2017150086 A1), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Taylor (US 3908597 A).
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 2, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein an opening width of the opening is between 5 mm and 10 mm inclusive.
Taylor is in the field of animal litter boxes and teaches wherein an opening width of the opening is approximately in the millimeter range (Figs. 2-5 show that the entrance slot 22 is approximately in the millimeter range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal litter boxes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito in view of Hirata such that an opening width of the opening is approximately in the millimeter range, as taught by the opening dimensions of Taylor. The dimensions would facilitate the insertion of tools with smaller geometries, which would expand the use case of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the openings of the device of Ito in view of Hirata and Taylor such that a width of the opening is between 5 mm and 10 mm inclusive, in order to further facilitate the insertion of tools with smaller geometries. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2014113090 A) in view of Hirata (WO 2017150086 A1), as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Steckel (US 5655480 A).
Regarding claim 16, Ito in view of Hirata discloses the device of claim 14, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the grain contains an organic substance as a main material.
Steckel is in the field of animal litter boxes and teaches wherein the grain contains an organic substance as a main material (Col. 1, lines 37-39, “It is an object of the present invention to provide a light weight animal control litter that is organic and may be disposed of by flushing the litter down a commode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal litter boxes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ito in view of Hirata such that the grain contains an organic substance as a main material, as taught by the organic litter of Steckel. The organic litter would be lighter, which would facilitate the disposal process. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/2026 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.
Schneider, US 3100474 A, discusses a commode for pets.
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 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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642