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 sensing system; water level monitor, control panel and a limit boss 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 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 1-20 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 1 recites “a potty is disposed outside the toilet housing” in line 2, it is unclear how the potty is disposed outside of the housing. The drawings discloses potty 5 being disposed within housing 1 (see figure 3) thus it is unclear how the portable toilet would work with the potty being disposed outside the toilet housing. Also, the claim recites “a sensing system…controlled to be connected to the clean water delivery system” the claim limitation is unclear.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balada (EP 2801251).
Regarding claim 1, Balada discloses a portable smart pet toilet, comprising: a toilet housing (side walls 2, 3, 4, 5, and base B, para. 0027), wherein a potty is disposed inside the toilet housing (surface 8, para. 0032, fig. 2), and a first communicating hole is formed in a bottom of the potty (opening 10, para. 0032); a clean water tank (first container 6, para. 0037) wherein the clean water tank is disposed inside the toilet housing and configured to store clean water (fig. 3); a clean water delivery system (nozzles 12 and line 21, para. 0040), wherein the clean water delivery system is configured to deliver clean water in the clean water tank into the potty (para.0039 and 0040); a waste water tank (second tank 7), wherein the waste water tank is disposed inside the toilet housing (second tank 7 is located within housing, fig. 3) and is in communication with the potty by using the first communicating hole (para. 0041); and a sensing system (sensors 14), wherein the sensing system is disposed in the toilet housing and controlled to be connected to the clean water delivery system, and the sensing system is configured to sense a pet located in the potty (para. 0034, fig. 3) but fails to teach the potty is disposed outside the toilet housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the potty disposed outside the toilet housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balada in view of Martinez Lema (WO 2005/101962).
Regarding claim 6, Balada teaches the invention substantially as claimed and further teaches wherein a top of the clean water take is open (fig. 2) but fails to teach the water tank is in lap joint with a top cover. However, Martinez Lema teaches a water tank being in lap joint with a top cover (cistern 3, fig.2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balada’s container with a lid as taught by Martinez Lema to prevent unwanted cross contamination between the containers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balada in view of Brewer (US 2008/0178817).
Regarding claim 10, Balada teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach wherein a partition plate configured to support a pet is mounted in the potty, a plurality of discharge holes are formed in the partition plate, and sizes of the plurality of discharge holes gradually increase from an outside of the partition plate to a center of the partition plate. However, Brewer teaches a partition plate configured to support a pet is mounted in the potty, a plurality of discharge holes are formed in the partition plate (para. 0090, fig. 13D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Balada’s container with a platform as taught by Brewer to allow animals of various sizes to use the waste system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 9am -5pm EST.
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 5712726909. 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.
/EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights