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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 19/256,783 filed on July 01, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters "26" and "106" have both been used to designate “reciprocal wall” in paragraph [0047].
Reference characters "108" and "110" have both been used to designate “support surface” in paragraphs [0042] and [0051], respectively.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 2-3, it is suggested to amend the phrase “of the base of a litter device” to --of the base of the litter device--, as the limitation “litter device” has been previously introduced in claim 1, line 1.
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 17-19 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 17, lines 1-2, recites wherein “the support is free of additional attachment mechanisms to be affixed to the litter device”. However, no “attachment mechanisms” have been previously recited, thus it is unclear how the device can be without “additional attachment mechanisms”. This ambiguity makes it further unclear as to how the claimed support is configured to be attached to the litter device. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 18, line 1, recites “wherein the support is affixed to a base of the litter device”. However, in claim(s) on which claim 18 is dependent, the litter device itself is only claimed in terms of functional language and is not positively claimed (e.g., from claim 1, “support is configured to prevent tipping over of the litter device”). It is thus unclear whether claim 18 positively requires the litter device and its associated base, and the scope of the claim is therefore rendered indefinite. Claim 19 is similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 18.
Claim 19, line 1, recites “wherein the support is affixed on a rear of the litter device”. However, in claim(s) on which claim 19 is dependent, the litter device itself is only claimed in terms of functional language and is not positively claimed (e.g., from claim 1, “support is configured to prevent tipping over of the litter device”). It is thus unclear whether claim 19 positively requires the litter device and its associated rear, and the scope of the claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asquith et al. (AU 2020101777 A4), hereinafter Asquith.
Regarding claim 1, Asquith discloses a support for a litter device (tip inhibiting device 2, device 2 is capable of use with a litter device) comprising:
a) an interface portion (rearward portion 15) configured to engage with the litter device (furniture 1; fig. 1-2) and including one or more engagement features (protrusion 16) for engaging with a bottom of a base of the litter device (bottom edges 11 of furniture 1; fig. 1 and 4a-4b); and
b) a base portion (forward portion 19) adjacent to the interface portion configured to extend away from the litter device and provide distribution of a weight of the litter device (fig. 2 and 4); and
wherein the support is configured to be located at least partially between the base and a support surface the litter device rests upon and the support is configured to prevent tipping over of the litter device (fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more engagement features includes one or more retention clips, one or more hub inserts1 (protrusion 16; fig. 2 and 4, protrusion 16 is capable of being inserted into a hub), or both.
Regarding claim 6, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 2, and further discloses wherein the support (tip inhibiting device 2) includes a bottom flange (base surface 10) formed in the interface portion (rearward portion 15; fig. 2) and wherein the one or more engagement features (protrusion 16) project upward from the bottom flange (fig. 2); and
wherein the one or more engagement features are located between a front surface of the bottom flange and a reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) of the interface portion (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the interface portion (rearward portion 15) includes a reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) which is configured to have a portion of the base of the litter device (bottom edge 11 of furniture 1) resting thereon (fig. 4);
wherein the base portion (forward portion 19) projects away from the reciprocal wall (fig. 2); and
wherein the reciprocal wall has a shape reciprocal the portion of the base (bottom edge 11) which is to rest thereon (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 7, and further discloses wherein a front surface of the reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) is at least partially concave (fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the support (tip inhibiting device 2) is a one-piece component (fig. 2 and 4, device 2 is a unitary piece) and the support is free of additional attachment mechanisms to be affixed to the litter device (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (US 2020/0060221 A1), hereinafter Fan.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fan Fig. 3, Focus View of Lower Base 33 (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 20, Fan discloses an assembly (title; abstract) comprising:
a) a litter device (litter collection device 1) including: a base (upper base 32); a chamber (portion of chamber 10 in front of partition 20) configured for retaining a litter (fig. 3, portion of chamber 10 in front of partition 20 is capable of retaining litter), and configured for allowing an animal to enter and exit to eliminate a waste (fig. 3, portion of chamber 10 in front of partition 20 is capable of allowing entry/exit via chamber opening 14); wherein the chamber is rotatably supported on a base (abstract); and wherein the litter device is an automated litter device (para [0001]);
b) a litter dispenser (partition 20; para [0069], filtered litter is dispensed out of partition 20 to be used again “when chamber 10 is rotated back to the stand-by position”) affixed to a rear of the litter device and in fluid communication with the chamber (fig. 3, partition 20 is affixed to an inner rear of device 1 and allows fluid communication with portion of chamber 10 in front of partition 20 via screen section 21); wherein the litter dispenser is configured to automatically dispense a portion of the litter into the chamber (para [0068]-[0069]); and
c) a support (lower base 33) at a rear of the litter device and affixed to a bottom of the base (fig. 3, lower base 33 is located at least partially at a rear of device 1 and is affixed to bottom of upper base 32); wherein the support projects away from the base and is located underneath the litter dispenser (fig. 3, lower base 33 projects downwardly away from upper base 32 and is located underneath partition 20); wherein the support is configured to prevent tipping over of the litter device due to a weight of the litter dispenser (fig. 1-2); and wherein the support includes:
i) an interface portion engaged with the base of the litter device (annotated fig. 1, engaged at least via connecting columns 46), wherein the interface portion is located between a support surface on which the litter device rests and a bottom of the base of the litter device (annotated fig. 1; fig. 3); wherein the interface portion includes one or more engagement features (connecting columns 46) which are engaged with the bottom of the base of the litter device such as to affix the support to the base (para [0055]); and
ii) a base portion configured to provide distribution of a weight of the litter device (annotated fig. 1; fig. 3), wherein the base portion extends away from the base of the litter device (annotated fig. 1, base portion extends downwardly away from upper base 32); and wherein the base portion is integrally formed with the interface portion (annotated fig. 1).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (AU 2020101777 A4), hereinafter Asquith, in view of Bliven et al. (US 2012/0120628 A1), hereinafter Bliven.
Regarding claim 3, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 2, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more engagement features include the one or more retention clips which are configured to engage with one or more fastener openings of the base of a litter device.
However, Bliven is in the field of supports (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the one or more engagement features include the one or more retention clips (resilient elongated clips 135a,b) which are configured to engage with one or more fastener openings of the base of a litter device (“two holes on rear housing 110”, para [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support with engagement features of Asquith to have made the engagement features as retention clips as taught by Bliven with a reasonable expectation of success to easily and reversibly secure the support to a corresponding supported device, thereby increasing overall structural stability of the device (para [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 3, and further discloses wherein the one or more retention clips (from Bliven, resilient elongated clips 135a,b) are configured to be removable from the one or more fastener openings (from Bliven, para [0023]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (AU 2020101777 A4), hereinafter Asquith, in view of Galjour (US 11,378,117 B1), hereinafter Galjour.
Regarding claim 5, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 2, and further discloses wherein the one or more engagement features include the one or more hub inserts (protrusion 16), wherein the one or more hub inserts are configured to nest within one or more cavities (recess 21) formed in the base of the litter device (bottom edge 11 of furniture 1; fig. 4).
Asquith does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more hub inserts include one or more pass- throughs formed therein.
However, Galjour is in the field of supports (see “Field of the Invention” section) and teaches wherein the one or more hub inserts (plate 36A, inserted via studs 38) include one or more pass- throughs2 (mounting holes 54) formed therein (fig. 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support with hub insert of Asquith to incorporate the pass-through as taught by Galjour with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for fixation by screws or other fixation mechanisms, thereby more effectively securing the support to a corresponding supported device (col 3, line 60-col 4, line 20).
Claim(s) 9-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (AU 2020101777 A4), hereinafter Asquith.
Regarding claim 9, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 7, and further discloses wherein a front surface of the reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) is either sloped or a line tangent to the front surface of the reciprocal wall is sloped (fig. 2 and 4, line tangent to front surface of curved wall 17 is sloped).
Asquith does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a slope of the front surface or the line is about 40 degrees to about 80 degrees.
The Examiner notes that it while appears that the slope of the line tangent to the front surface of the reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) appears to be about 45 degrees (fig. 4), the exact slope is not explicitly disclosed. 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 made the slope of the line tangent to the front surface of the reciprocal wall within a range of about 40 degrees to about 80 degrees, with the motivation of fitting the support to different shaped devices, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the slope is taken at a mid-height of the front of the reciprocal wall and wherein the slope is about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees.
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 made the slope of the line tangent to the mid-height of the front of the reciprocal wall within a range of about 50 degrees to about 70 degrees, with the motivation of fitting the support to different shaped devices, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the reciprocal wall (curved wall 17) is located between the base portion (forward portion 19) and the one or more engagement features (protrusion 16; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the base portion (forward portion 19) includes an upper surface which slopes down toward a rearmost surface of the support (fig. 4, shortest side of forward portion 19 is considered “rearmost”, as device 2 may be oriented in any direction relative to user).
Asquith does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a slope of the upper surface is about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees.
The Examiner notes that it while appears that the slope of portions of the upper surface of the base portion (forward portion 19) appears to be about 30 degrees (fig. 4), the exact slope is not explicitly disclosed. 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 made the slope of the upper surface of the base portion within a range of about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees, with the motivation of more effectively propping up the weight of the supported device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the slope is about 15 degrees to about 35 degrees.
The Examiner notes that it while appears that the slope of portions of the upper surface of the base portion (forward portion 19) appears to be about 30 degrees (fig. 4), the exact slope is not explicitly disclosed. 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 made the slope of the upper surface of the base portion within a range of about 15 degrees to about 35 degrees, with the motivation of more effectively propping up the weight of the supported device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 12, and further discloses wherein the base portion (forward portion 19) is solid or includes one or more voids (fig. 4a, forward portion 19 includes a void).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Asquith discloses the support of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the support (tip inhibiting device 2) is affixed to a base of the litter device (bottom edge 11 of furniture 1; fig. 1-2 and 4, affixed via protrusion 16).
Asquith does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the support has a length which is about 15% to about 35% relative to a length of the base; and
wherein the support has a height which is about 2% to about 15% relative to an overall height of the litter device.
The Examiner notes that it while appears that the support (tip inhibiting device 2) appears to have a length which is about 33% relative to a length of the base (bottom edge 11; fig. 1), and the support has a height which is about 10% relative to an overall height of the device (furniture 1; fig. 1), exact lengths and heights are not explicitly disclosed.
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 made the length of the support within a range of about 15% to about 35% relative the length of the base, and the height of the support within a range of about 2% to about 15% relative to the overall height of the device, with the motivation of more effectively supporting the weight of the device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 18, and further discloses wherein the support (tip inhibiting device 2) is affixed on a rear of the litter device (furniture 1; fig. 1, device 2 is capable of being affixed at least indirectly to a rear of a litter device);
wherein the litter device includes a litter dispenser at the rear of the litter device and above the support (fig. 1, device 2 is capable of being positioned under a litter dispenser at the rear of the litter device); and
wherein the support (tip inhibiting device 2) provides additional stability to the litter device (furniture 1) to avoid tipping over due to the weight of the litter dispenser (abstract).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Asquith et al. (AU 2020101777 A4), hereinafter Asquith, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2018/0347822 A1), hereinafter Jang.
Regarding claim 15, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 14, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the base portion is formed by two opposing arms connected together by a connection arm.
However, Jang is in the field of supports (para [0002]) and teaches wherein the base portion is formed by two opposing arms (sides of connecting portion 115) connected together by a connection arm (front of connecting portion 115; fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support with base portion of Asquith as modified to incorporate the opposing arms and connection arm as taught by Jang with a reasonable expectation of success to create a hollow, lightweight structure with greater contact surface area between the support and a support surface, thereby improving overall stability of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Asquith as modified discloses the support of Claim 15, and further discloses wherein the two opposing arms (from Jang, sides of connecting portion 115) include the upper surface of the base portion (from Jang, inclined portion 113, insertion portion 114, connecting portion 115) and are sloped downward toward the connection arm (from Jang, fig. 5); and
wherein the two opposing arms form two opposing sides of the support (from Jang, fig. 5).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claims 1 and 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 The Examiner notes that no explicit definition for the term “hub insert” appears to be provided in the instant disclosure. Thus, the term “hub insert” may be broadly interpreted under its plain meaning as anything capable of being inserted into a “hub”. In the instant case, protrusion 16 of Asquith is capable of being inserted into a hub on a corresponding supported device.
2 The Examiner notes that no explicit definition for the term “pass-through” appears to be provided in the instant disclosure. Thus, the term “pass-through” may be broadly interpreted under its plain meaning as anything allowing another element to pass therethrough. In the instant case, mounting holes 54 of Galjour allow fasteners 52 to pass therethrough.