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 .
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 features of claims 1-10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). There are no drawings showing the claimed subject matter and related structure which are required for a full understanding of the invention and proper examination. Photographs from a product website are not sufficient- drawings must include line drawings labeled with reference numbers of each element with a corresponding description of each labeled element in the specification. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As mentioned above, the drawings and specification do not provide sufficient detail with regards to the structural elements of the invention, which are essential for a complete understanding of the invention and its functionality, and therefore the claims do not have sufficient support or explanation as to how the invention operates.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “make the opening correspond to a position of a discharge outlet of the cleaning device.” As discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement. Applicant asserts that, based on a general knowledge of automated litter box systems, it is assumed that the garbage bag is in a waste bin area, in which case the discharge outlet would be moving to the garbage bin opening area, the opening of the garbage bag itself would not be moving. However, as discussed below, paragraphs 0091-0103 of the specification state that the garbage bag moves. Claim 9 is likewise rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 1 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the term “cleaning work region.” It is unclear if this is the area around the discharge outlet that is movable or the garbage bag area. The specification para 0143 states the cleaning work region “can be all regions and spaces where feces and feces clumps are separated from the cleaning device.” However, this description is not adequately specific, given the use of the language “can be.” Additionally, as discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 1 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “plane feces clumps coordinates of a plane” in line 26. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim with this limitation. Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 3 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the weighing steps. As discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement. It is unclear whether “a last weighing data before entry of the exogenous foreign object” is a weight of the empty litter box area or a weight of the animal at the end of the prior weighing operation. The limitations “based on the first benchmark data and the first measured weight data, determining a first weight change data within the first preset time range; when the weight change data is not less than a first preset weight threshold, determining the current state is a state where toileting is performing;” and “based on the second measured weight data and the first benchmark data, determining a second weight change data within the second preset time range; and
when the second weight change data is not greater than a second preset weight threshold, determining the current state is the state where toileting is completed” are further unclear and not adequately described in the specification. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 5 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “acquiring an outlet information of the discharge outlet in the monitoring image, wherein the outlet information comprises an area size of a region of the discharge outlet and current contour coordinates of the discharge outlet.” If the discharge outlet itself is moving, it may be in a different position but itself is still the same size. Additionally, paragraphs 0091-0103 of the specification state that the bag moves, whereas claim 5 states that the outlet moves. Further, as discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claim 7 is rejected for lack of clarity in regards to the limitation “controlling the storage bin to smooth the cat litter therein.” According to the specification, there is a smoothing device such as a scraper or roller, and therefore it is apparent that the storage bin itself does not smooth the cat litter. Is the scraper or roller attached to the storage bin and the storage bin has an actuator that operates the smoothing device? As discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, in regards to the drawings, Applicant argues that the current drawings and the link provided illustrate the invention corresponding to the claims. The Office respectfully disagrees. There are no drawings showing the claimed subject matter and related structure which are required for a full understanding of the invention and proper examination. Photographs from a product website are not sufficient- drawings must include line drawings labeled with reference numbers of each element with a corresponding description of each labeled element in the specification.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over the 112(b) rejections, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection regarding the language “make the opening
correspond to a position of a discharge outlet of the cleaning device,” and asserts that the specification and general knowledge of litter boxes provide enough description. The Office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, “general knowledge” and assumptions are not sufficient description of the claimed invention. Additionally, Applicant states that “based on general knowledge of automated litter box systems, it is assumed that the garbage bag is in a waste bin area, in which case the discharge outlet would be moving… not the opening of the bag.” However, Applicant also references paragraphs 0091-0103 of the specification which says the garbage bag is moved along a slide rail system which is contradictory.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 in regards to the last weighing data
limitations. Applicant argues that the benchmark data is described sufficiently in the specification, and while paragraphs 0123-0128 do describe the steps of determining the weighing data to an extent, it is still unclear whether the “last weighing data” that is used as benchmark data is taken the last time a pet was in the box at the conclusion of toileting or taken while the box is empty.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 4 (now in claim 1) in regards to the
cleaning work region. Applicant points to specification paragraph 0143, which states the cleaning work region “can be all regions and spaces where feces and feces clumps are separated from the cleaning device.” However, this description is not adequately specific, given the use of the language “can be.” Additionally, as discussed above, the lack of drawings or details in the specification regarding the structural elements of the invention fails to comply with the enablement requirement.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 5 in regards to the discharge outlet
monitoring image information. Applicant points to specification paragraphs 0155-0158, which state that the position of the discharge outlet will change with the rotation of the spherical bin, and that the image system confirms when the discharge outlet had entered the cleaning work region. Firstly, these paragraphs state the “for example, there is a spherical bin in the middle on the market…. position of the discharge outlet will change with the rotation of the spherical bin.” It is improper to use general descriptions of current products on the market to discuss the specific elements of an instant invention. The specification must discuss the specific structural elements of the instant invention. Additionally, if the discharge outlet is moving, its outlet is still the same size, it just might not be fully aligned with the garbage bag. Additionally, paragraphs 0091-0103 state that the garbage bag moves, whereas claim 5 and specification paragraphs 0155-0158 state that the discharge outlet moves to the garbage bag.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 6 in regards to the reset switch state.
While the specification does state that it is a physical switch, there is not adequate description of how the switch and electronics system monitor and obtain the working current in order to conduct the screening and cleaning process.
Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 7 in regards to the litter smoothing
device. According to the specification, there is a smoothing device such as a scraper or roller, and therefore it is apparent that the storage bin itself does not smooth the cat litter. Is the scraper or roller attached to the storage bin and the storage bin has an actuator that operates the smoothing device?
In regards to Applicant’s arguments over the prior art, Applicant must have properly written claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and include sufficient description of their invention in both a properly written specification with details regarding both the structural components and method steps, with adequately specific accompanying drawings.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 1. To solve the odor control and environmental sanitation problems in the prior art and improve the overall experience of pet care) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Wei (US 12457990 B2) which discloses an automatic litter box with a sealing plate and a sliding rail for the garbage bag, and Lin (CN 115568423 A), which discloses an automatic cat litter box with a data processing and control module.
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 KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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 at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights