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 .
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 3-7 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.
The term “tightly” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bottom portion of the sealing flange" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4 and are subsequently rejected.
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) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan US 2023/0103710 in view of Oliveri US 12,495,762.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Fan discloses a cat litter bin of a cat litter box (10), comprising: a main bin body (29); a bin bottom shell (28, 27); and a bin (21); wherein an opening (14) is defined in a bottom portion of the main bin body, the bin bottom shell comprises a cover (25), a sealing flange extending out of the bin along an edge of the bin (Fan, Figure 2), the bin being disposed on the bin bottom shell (Fan, Figure 1A), side walls of the cover of the bin bottom shell abutting against a bottom portion of the sealing flange (Fan, Figure 12A), and when the bin bottom shell covers the opening (Fan, Figure 1A), a top portion of the sealing flange abuts against side walls of the opening (Fan, Figure 1A).
Fan disclose the bin being of non-stick material (Fan, ¶0046) but fails to disclose the bin being made of silicone.
Oliveri teaches a bin of a cat litter bin comprising silicone (Oliveri, column 5: lines 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the bin of Fan to made of silicone, as taught by Oliveri, as silicone is a well-known nonstick material. The silicone bin would allow for the litter bin to be easily cleaned.
Regarding claim 8, Fan in view of Oliveri further discloses the bin bottom shell covering the opening of the main bin body, wherein an inner wall of the silicone bin does not protrude from an inner wall of the main bin body (Oliveri, Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Fan in view of Oliveri further discloses the inner wall of the silicone bin being flush with the inner wall of the main bin body, so that the inner wall of the main bin body smoothly transitions with the inner wall of the silicone bin (Oliveri, Figure 1A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed cat litter bin with the opening comprises a first plugging flange extending toward the sealing flange, with the sealing flange comprising a first plugging groove corresponding to and plugging into the first plugging flange, or a sealing ring on a bottom side of the flange.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant' s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant' s identified material and Examiner' s discovered references concerning Applicant' s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
CN 107205360 discloses a cat litter box comprising a main bin body with a bottom opening; a bin bottom shell; and bin having a flange. CN 107205360 fails to disclose a cover or the bin being made of silicone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights