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) because they fail to show the driving mechanism as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 § 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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang (US 12324407).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a quick-assembly structure, comprising: a base (base 2, col. 4, ll. 47-48, fig. 4); and a cat litter bin (drum 1, col. 4, ll. 40-42, fig. 4); wherein central shafts are disposed on two sides of the cat litter bin (support shafts 13, col. 8, ll. 3-5, fig. 4), and the base comprises upper hole portions (upper groove portion of support grooves 24, col. 8, ll. 1-5) and lower hole portions (lower groove portion of support grooves 24, fig. 4); wherein the lower hole portions are disposed on the base (fig. 4), each of the upper hole portions is detachably assembled with a corresponding one of the lower hole portions (fig. 4), and when each of the upper hole portions is assembled with the corresponding one of the lower hole portions, the upper hole portions are respectively connected to the lower hole portions to form central holes (fig. 7); wherein the central holes are respectively configured to accommodate the central shafts (col. 8, ll. 3-5), and when each of the upper hole portions is separated from the corresponding one of the lower hole portions, the central shafts are respectively detached from the lower hole portions on the base (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Tang discloses wherein a driving mechanism is disposed inside the base (drive component 51, col. 5, ll. 53-54, fig. 4), an output end of the driving mechanism is a first gear (driving gear 512, col. 7, ll. 57-,58, fig. 4), a second gear is disposed on one of the central shafts (drive gear 513, col. 7, ll. 57-58, fig. 4), and the second gear is engaged with the first gear (col. 7, ll. 61-67).
Regarding claim 9, Tang discloses wherein support feet are extended from two sides of the base (support legs 6, fig. 1 and 2), the support feet are respectively configured to support the central shafts, each of the lower hole portions is disposed on a top portion of a corresponding one of the support feet (fig. 22).
Regarding claim 10, Tang discloses a cat litter box, comprising: the quick-assembly structure according to claim (collection box 3, col. 4, ll. 49-50, fig. 7).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang.
Regarding claim 7, Tang discloses wherein spacing portions are defined on an inner wall of each of the lower hole portions (first rollers 241, col. 8, ll. 5-7, fig. 4), and the spacing portions are configured to reduce a friction between each of the central shafts, a corresponding one of the upper hole portions and a corresponding one of the lower hole portions (col. 8, ll. 5-7) but fails to teach spacing portions being defined on an inner wall of each of the upper hole portions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have first rollers on the inner wall of each of the upper hole portions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Having rollers in the upper hole portions would further improve the transmission efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are 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. The limitation of first fastening portions are disposed on an upper portion of each of the upper covers, second fastening portions are disposed on an upper side of each of the lower seats, and a lower portion of each of the upper covers is rotatably connected to a lower portion of a corresponding one of the lower seats; wherein when the upper covers are rotated to enable the first fastening portions being fastened to the second fastening portions, the upper hole portions and the lower hole portions are assembled together as claimed in claim 1 is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record, in the examiner’s opinion.
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