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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 5/6/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629).
Regarding claim 1, Fridman teaches a deodorant device for a pet litter box, the device comprising: - a suction body (14) having at least one inlet opening (30) and at least one outlet opening (38), the at least one inlet opening being in fluid communication with the at least one outlet opening to allow the passage of an airflow to be processed through the suction body (30, and 38 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 68); - an odor eliminating device activatable on the airflow to be processed at least to eliminate an odor present therein (14, 28, 29, 41, and 42 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 68), generating a processed airflow (Paragraph 68); - a suction fan (27) at least partly housed in the suction body (14, and 27 as seen in figure 3), the suction fan being operatively associated with the suction body so as to draw in from the pet litter box the airflow to be processed through the at least one inlet opening and emit said processed airflow through the at least one outlet opening (27, 30, and 38 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 66, and 68); - at least one presence sensor (36, and Paragraph 66) configured to detect the presence of a pet inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66) and generate a presence signal representative of the presence of the pet inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); - a control unit operatively associated with the at least one presence sensor (Paragraph 66), the control unit being configured to perform at least one of: activate the suction fan as a function of the presence signal indicating that the pet has come out of the pet litter box (Paragraph 66), or to deactivate the suction fan as a function of said presence signal to prevent the operation of the suction fan while a pet is present inside the pet litter box.
Regarding claim 2, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is operatively associated with the at least one presence sensor so as to determine an entry of the pet into the pet litter box and an exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); and wherein the control unit is configured to bring about a timed activation and/or deactivation of the suction fan according to a preset time interval starting from the entry and exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 6, Fridman teaches the deodorant device in accordance with claim 1, wherein said odor eliminating device comprises at least one anti-odor portion made at least partially of a material capable of eliminating odors (29, and Paragraph 68), the anti-odor portion at least partly defining the at least one inlet opening and/or the at least one outlet opening (29, and 38 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the charcoal filter is located downstream of the rest of the internal elements of the of the system and help to define the outlet portion of the system).
Regarding claim 8, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, comprising a battery configured to power the suction fan (Paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 9, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, comprising at least one odor sensor (Paragraph 66) configured to detect the presence of odors inside the pet litter box and to generate an odor signal representative of the presence of an odor inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); and wherein the control unit is operatively associated with the at least one odor sensor and configured to activate and/or deactivate the suction fan as a function of the odor signal (Paragraphs 66, and 77, for the signal generated by the sensor to activate and instruct the fan there must inherently be a controller connecting the fan to the sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Fridman teaches a method of eliminating odors for a pet litter box comprising the steps of: - detecting, using at least one presence sensor (Paragraph 66), a presence of a pet inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); - preventing a first airflow to be drawn inside the pet litter box while the pet is present inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66);- detecting, using the at least one presence sensor (Paragraph 66), exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); and - generating, by means of a suction fan (27, the examiner does not believe that this use of “:means” invokes 112(f) as there is sufficient structure in the means term) placed inside the pet litter box (1, and 14 as seen in figure 1, and 14, and 27 as seen in figure 3) and after detection of the exit of the pet from the pet litter box to prevent operation of the suction fan while the pet is present inside the pet litter box (Paragraphs 42, 66, and 67), a second airflow inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66), thereby eliminating at least one odor which is present inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 11, Fridman teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising maintaining the airflow generated by the suction fan for a predetermined time interval controlled by a control unit starting from the exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraph 66, for the signal generated by the sensor to activate the fan there must inherently be a controller connecting the fan to the sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Fridman teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising detecting the presence of an odor inside the pet litter box and activating the airflow by the suction fan while the pet is absent from the litter box (Paragraphs 66, and 77).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629) in view of Walter (PGPub #2012/0080537).
Regarding claim 3, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 2, wherein the suction body is fixed to at least one wall of the pet litter box (14, and 25 as seen in figure 3); but does not teach that the body is fixed by a magnetic fixing device.
However, Walter does teach that the body is fixed by a magnetic fixing device (144 as seen in figure, and the abstract). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body fixed by a magnetic system because Fridman and Walter are both mounted odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having the body fixed by a magnetic system is that it allows the body to be easily removed and reattached to the system while also creating a secure attachment when the system is installed.
Regarding claim 4, Fridman as modified by Walter teaches the deodorant device of claim 3, but Fridman does not teach that said magnetic fixing device comprises a first fixing element connected to the suction body and a second fixing element connectable by magnetic interaction to the first fixing element so that, during a condition of the suction body being fixed to the litter box, one wall of the litter box is at least partly interposed between the first fixing element and said second fixing element. However, Walter does teach that said magnetic fixing device comprises a first fixing element (144) connected to the suction body (128, and 144 as seen in figure 2) and a second fixing element (126) connectable by magnetic interaction to the first fixing element (Paragraph 42) so that, during a condition of the suction body being fixed to the litter box, one wall of the litter box is at least partly interposed between the first fixing element and said second fixing element (Paragraphs 35, and 42, this teaches that the second fixing element, 126 is located within the wall that the body is attached to, which results in a part of the wall being interposed between the two magnetic elements). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first magnet in the body and a second magnet arranged so that when the box is fixed to the wall a portion of the wall is between the magnets because Fridman and Walter are both mounted odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having a first magnet in the body and a second magnet arranged so that when the box is fixed to the wall a portion of the wall is between the magnets is that it creates a secure connection with the wall for the body and helps to protect the magnets by having the walls of the litterbox and body act as a buffer.
Regarding claim 5, Fridman as modified by Walter teaches the deodorant device of claim 4, but Fridman does not teach that the suction body comprises an anchoring portion comprising a plurality of anchorage portions adapted to enable a reversible connection with the first fixing element, the anchorage portions being configured to create a form-fitting coupling with the first fixing element. However, Walter does teach that the suction body comprises an anchoring portion comprising a plurality of anchorage portions (608 as seen in figure 26, as can be seen the body has four connected flanges that extend from the body) adapted to enable a reversible connection with the first fixing element (128, and 608 as seen in figure 26, and Paragraph 53), the anchorage portions being configured to create a form-fitting coupling with the first fixing element (Paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of anchor points on the body used to reversibly secure the first fixing element because Fridman and Walter are both mounted odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having a plurality of anchor points on the body used to reversibly secure the first fixing element is that it allows the fixing element and the body to be securely joined while still allowing the system to be disassembled for easier packaging and maintenance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629) in view of Zirkiyev (PGPub #2013/0276715).
Regarding claim 7, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the odor eliminating device comprises a body with added activated carbon (Paragraph 68), but Fridman does not teach that the body is a spongy body, and the spongy body being adapted to be soaked with oils and/or fluids adapted to eliminate and/or absorb and/or mask at least one odor.
However, Zirkiyev does teach that the body is a spongy body (Paragraph 45), and the spongy body being adapted to be soaked with oils and/or fluids adapted to eliminate and/or absorb and/or mask at least one odor (Paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body be a spongy body that can absorb liquid because Fridman and Zirkiyev are both air filtering systems for litter boxes. The motivation for having the body be a spongy body that can absorb liquid is that it helps add an additional odor neutralizing element to the odor eliminator which helps to improve the effectiveness of the odor eliminating device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629) in view of Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830).
Regarding claim 13, Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the odor eliminating device comprises an anti-odor portion made of polymeric materials to which activated carbon, microcapsules, or enzymes is added. However, Fritter does teach that the odor eliminating device comprises an anti-odor portion made of polymeric materials to which activated carbon, microcapsules, or enzymes is added (Paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-odor portion be made of a polymeric material with the activated carbon added because Fridman and Fritter are both pet litter boxes with fans that can be activated by a signal from a presence sensor. The motivation for having the anti-odor portion be made of a polymeric material with the activated carbon added is that it can help to improve the airflow through the carbon to help improve the effectiveness of the carbon.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830) in view of Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629).
Regarding claim 1, Fritter teaches a deodorant device for a pet litter box, the device comprising: - a suction body (10) having at least one inlet opening (20) and at least one outlet opening (24), the at least one inlet opening being in fluid communication with the at least one outlet opening to allow the passage of an airflow to be processed through the suction body (Paragraph 7); - an odor eliminating device activatable on the airflow to be processed at least to eliminate an odor present therein (Paragraph 7, the activated carbon works to clean the air and eliminate odors), generating a processed airflow (Paragraph 7); - a suction fan (28) at least partly housed in the suction body (28 as seen in figure 2), the suction fan being operatively associated with the suction body so as to draw in from the pet litter box the airflow to be processed through the at least one inlet opening and emit said processed airflow through the at least one outlet opening (Paragraph 7); - at least one presence sensor (Paragraph 8) configured to detect the presence of a pet inside the pet litter box and generate a presence signal representative of the presence of the pet inside the pet litter box (Paragraphs 8, and 25); and - a control unit operatively associated with the at least one presence sensor (Paragraph 25, for the signal generated by the sensor to activate the fan there must inherently be a controller connecting the fan to the sensor). But Fritter does not teach that the control unit being configured to perform at least one of: activate the suction fan as a function of the presence signal indicating that the pet has come out of the pet litter box, or to deactivate the suction fan as a function of said presence signal to prevent the operation of the suction fan while a pet is present inside the pet litter box.
However, Fridman does teach that the control unit being configured to perform at least one of: activate the suction fan as a function of the presence signal indicating that the pet has come out of the pet litter box (Paragraph 66), or to deactivate the suction fan as a function of said presence signal to prevent the operation of the suction fan while a pet is present inside the pet litter box. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller activate the fan when the pet leaves the box because Fritter and Fridman are both pet litter boxes with fans that can be activated by a signal from a presence sensor. The motivation for having the controller activate the fan when the pet leaves the box o is that it helps to keep the fan from scaring the pet or creating a distraction.
Regarding claim 2, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is operatively associated with the at least one presence sensor so as to determine an entry of the pet into the pet litter box and an exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraphs 8, and 25 of Fritter); and wherein the control unit is configured to bring about a timed activation and/or deactivation of the suction fan according to a preset time interval starting from the entry and exit of the pet from the pet litter box (Paragraphs 8, and 25 of Fritter).
Regarding claim 6, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein said odor eliminating device comprises at least one anti-odor portion made at least partially of a material capable of eliminating odors (The abstract, and paragraphs 7, and 26 of Fritter), the anti-odor portion at least partly defining the at least one inlet opening and/or the at least one outlet opening (32 as seen in figure 1B, and Paragraph 26 of Fritter, as can be seen the structure that is used to hold the anti-odor material is also used to form the outlet opening).
Regarding claim 8, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, comprising a battery configured to power the suction fan (Paragraph 7 of Fritter).
Regarding claim 9, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, but Fritter does not teach at least one odor sensor configured to detect the presence of odors inside the pet litter box and to generate an odor signal representative of the presence of an odor inside the pet litter box; and wherein the control unit is operatively associated with the at least one odor sensor and configured to activate and/or deactivate the suction fan as a function of the odor signal. However, Fridman does teach at least one odor sensor (Paragraph 66) configured to detect the presence of odors inside the pet litter box and to generate an odor signal representative of the presence of an odor inside the pet litter box (Paragraph 66); and wherein the control unit is operatively associated with the at least one odor sensor and configured to activate and/or deactivate the suction fan as a function of the odor signal (Paragraphs 66, and 77, for the signal generated by the sensor to activate and instruct the fan there must inherently be a controller connecting the fan to the sensor). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an odor sensor that detects an odor and provides a signal to the controller to activate the fan because Fritter and Fridman are both cat litter boxes with odor eliminating devices with sensors to help detect when they should activate.
Regarding claim 13, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the odor eliminating device comprises an anti-odor portion made of polymeric materials to which activated carbon, microcapsules, or enzymes is added (Paragraph 32 of Fritter).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830) as modified by Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Walter (PGPub #2012/0080537).
Regarding claim 3, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 2, wherein the suction body is fixed to at least one wall of the pet litter box (10 as seen in figure 3 of Fritter); but does not teach that the body is fixed by a magnetic fixing device.
However, Walter does teach that the body is fixed by a magnetic fixing device (144 as seen in figure, and the abstract). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body fixed by a magnetic system because Fritter and Walter are both detachable odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having the body fixed by a magnetic system is that it allows the body to be easily removed and reattached to the system while also creating a secure attachment when the system is installed.
Regarding claim 4, Fritter as modified by Fridman, and Walter teaches the deodorant device of claim 3, but Fritter does not teach that said magnetic fixing device comprises a first fixing element connected to the suction body and a second fixing element connectable by magnetic interaction to the first fixing element so that, during a condition of the suction body being fixed to the litter box, one wall of the litter box is at least partly interposed between the first fixing element and said second fixing element. However, Walter does teach that said magnetic fixing device comprises a first fixing element (144) connected to the suction body (128, and 144 as seen in figure 2) and a second fixing element (126) connectable by magnetic interaction to the first fixing element (Paragraph 42) so that, during a condition of the suction body being fixed to the litter box, one wall of the litter box is at least partly interposed between the first fixing element and said second fixing element (Paragraphs 35, and 42, this teaches that the second fixing element, 126 is located within the wall that the body is attached to, which results in a part of the wall being interposed between the two magnetic elements). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first magnet in the body and a second magnet arranged so that when the box is fixed to the wall a portion of the wall is between the magnets because Fritter and Walter are both detachable odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having a first magnet in the body and a second magnet arranged so that when the box is fixed to the wall a portion of the wall is between the magnets is that it creates a secure connection with the wall for the body and helps to protect the magnets by having the walls of the litterbox and body act as a buffer.
Regarding claim 5, Fritter as modified by Fridman, and Walter teaches the deodorant device of claim 4, but Fritter does not teach that the suction body comprises an anchoring portion comprising a plurality of anchorage portions adapted to enable a reversible connection with the first fixing element, the anchorage portions being configured to create a form-fitting coupling with the first fixing element. However, Walter does teach that the suction body comprises an anchoring portion comprising a plurality of anchorage portions (608 as seen in figure 26, as can be seen the body has four connected flanges that extend from the body) adapted to enable a reversible connection with the first fixing element (128, and 608 as seen in figure 26, and Paragraph 53), the anchorage portions being configured to create a form-fitting coupling with the first fixing element (Paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of anchor points on the body used to reversibly secure the first fixing element because Fritter and Walter are both detachable odor eliminating systems. The motivation for having a plurality of anchor points on the body used to reversibly secure the first fixing element is that it allows the fixing element and the body to be securely joined while still allowing the system to be disassembled for easier packaging and maintenance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830) as modified by Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zirkiyev (PGPub #2013/0276715).
Regarding claim 7, Fritter as modified by Fridman teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the odor eliminating device comprises a body with added activated carbon (Paragraphs 22, and 23 of Fritter), but Fritter does not teach that the body is a spongy body, and the spongy body being adapted to be soaked with oils and/or fluids adapted to eliminate and/or absorb and/or mask at least one odor.
However, Zirkiyev does teach that the body is a spongy body (Paragraph 45), and the spongy body being adapted to be soaked with oils and/or fluids adapted to eliminate and/or absorb and/or mask at least one odor (Paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body be a spongy body that can absorb liquid because Fritter and Zirkiyev are both air filtering systems for litter boxes. The motivation for having the body be a spongy body that can absorb liquid is that it helps add an additional odor neutralizing element to the odor eliminator which helps to improve the effectiveness of the odor eliminating device.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has amended the rejection of the claims to show how the examiner believes that the prior arts of record teach the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights