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 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the suction body comprises 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 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 uses the term “an odor eliminating means”, and the specification states “the odor eliminating means 9 can comprise at least one anti-odor portion made at least partially of a material capable of eliminating odors”, and the limitation will be examined in this manner.
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 5, and 7 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 5 states “wherein the suction body comprises 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.”, it is not clear to the examiner what is intended to be claimed with this limitations, the examiners initial interpretation of this limitation is that there are a plurality of discrete mounting surfaces on the body that allows first fixing element to be attached to different portions of the body and can allow the orientation of the body relative to the wall to be reversed, however there does not appear to be any support for this interpretation in the drawing as all of the figures clearly show just one interface on the body and the specification does not appear to provide any additional structure. An alternative interpretation of the limitation is that the first fixing element is detachably connected to the body and that the body has a plurality of elements that are used to hold the first fixing element to the body at a single interface and that the first fixing element can subsequently be detached and reattached to the body, the examiner does believe that there is support for this interpretation and the claim will be examined in this manner.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the odor eliminating device" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830).
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 (F1) through the suction body (Paragraph 7); - an odor eliminating means activatable on the airflow to be processed (F1) 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 (F2) (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 (Fl) through the at least one inlet opening and emit said processed airflow (F2) 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), the control unit being configured to perform at least one of: activate the suction fan as a function of the presence signal (Paragraph 25) and deactivate the suction fan as a function of said presence signal (Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 2, Fritter 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); 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).
Regarding claim 6, Fritter teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein said odor eliminating means 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), 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, 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 teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, comprising a battery configured to power the suction fan (Paragraph 7).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fridman et al. (PGPub #2022/0323629).
Regarding claim 10, Fridman teaches a method of eliminating odors for a pet litter box comprising the steps of: - detecting 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 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), 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 Fritter et al. (PGPub #2010/0180830) in view of Walter (PGPub #2012/0080537).
Regarding claim 3, Fritter 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); 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 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 Walter teaches the deodorant device of claim 4, but Fritter does not teach that the suction body comprises 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 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) in view of Zirkiyev (PGPub #2013/0276715).
Regarding claim 7, Fritter teaches the deodorant device of claim 1, wherein the odor eliminating device comprises a body with added activated carbon (Paragraphs 22, and 23), 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, Fritter 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.
Conclusion
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