DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The arguments filed 8/21/2026 has been entered: Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application. Claims 1-6 and 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration and claims 7-12 are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reservoir is coupled to a docking station and is not supported on the same portable cart. However, Reasoner explicitly teaches a configuration in which the docking station and collection unit are combined into a single unit (i.e. during docking). The fact that there is a separated configuration does not detract from this teaching, nor would the device of Reasoner be expected to always be separated. When combined, the reservoir would thus be supported on the portable cart (Fig. 6).
In response to applicant's argument regarding the limitations of the reservoir configured to store liquid on the portable cart when positioned away from the docking station, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In the instant case, “away” is a highly broad term, without further specificity, would appear to be met by Reasoner (e.g. the collection unit is spaced away via the receiver/docking system interface).
Applicant argues against interpreting the entire system as a single portable cart. However, the language of merely being “supported” is broad, and thus when the docking station and collection unit are combined (and fluidly connected), the docking station may be interpreted as being supported by the portable carty, and subsequently the reservoir may be interpreted as being supported on said portable cart.
Applicant further argues the different architecture of Nord would prevent an obvious incorporation of the features of Nord as set forth in the rejection below. Examiner disagrees as, despite their difference configurations, both Reasoner and Nord are directed to surgical waste management, and thus are clearly in the same field of endeavor. Applicant’s own IDS cites mounted systems (e.g. Wildman US 6,770,061 B2 and Holland, Jr. et al. US 6,045,596 A).
Applicant also argues the claimed reservoir is not a mere obvious duplication of parts. Although the combination does not rest on such reasoning, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s disclosure may demonstrate the different purposes between waste containers, relevant limitations are not recited in the claims.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reasoner et al. (US 2005/0187529 A1) in view of Nord et al. (US 2005/0209585 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Reasoner teaches a waste collection unit for collecting waste material during a medical procedure ('portable waste collection unit 12', fig.1, ¶ 21),
wherein the waste collection unit 12 is configured to be removably coupled with a docking station ('docking station 14', fig.1, ¶ 21), the waste collection unit 12 comprising:
a portable cart ('carrier 21', fig.1, ¶ 22);
a first waste container 20 supported on the portable cart 21 ("the carrier 21 includes a base 21a and support tower 21b to support the canister 20", ¶ 22; fig.1);
a vacuum source ('vacuum housing 26', fig.2, ¶ 24) supported on the portable cart 21 and in communication with the first waste container 20 and configured to draw the waste material into the first waste container 20 ("The medical waste is drawn into the canister 20 through the manifold and filter system 32 and the inlet 22 by a vacuum, which is applied through a vacuum housing 26", ¶ 24);
a reservoir (cleaner 64 ', fig.6, ¶ 36) supported on the portable cart 21 and in fluid communication with the first waste container 20, the reservoir 64 configured to store a liquid on the portable cart 21 when positioned away from the docking station 14 (¶ 36-37); and
a prefill pump ('offloading pump P', fig.6, ¶ 36) supported on the portable cart 21 and in fluid communication with the first waste container 20 and operable to convey the liquid from the reservoir 64 to the first waste container 20 ("the control unit 100 is programmed for filling the canister 20 with the cleaning agent to a level L above the float 77 and draining the cleaning agent from the canister 20 after the float 77 is submersed such that the float 77 is further cleaned. The control unit 100 utilizes the offload pump P and cleaning system of the docking station 14 via the slave controller 102 to perform these functions", ¶ 40).
Reasoner fails to teach a second waste container supported on the portable cart; and a transfer valve disposed in fluid communication with the first and second waste containers and operable to transfer of the waste material from the first waste container to the second waste container. Nord teaches a second waste container ('holding chamber 10', fig.2, ¶ 67); and a transfer valve ('solenoid valve 11', fig.2, ¶ 67) disposed in fluid communication with the first and second waste containers 10 and operable to transfer of the waste material from the first waste container to the second waste container 10 (¶ 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the waste collection unit of Reasoner such that a second waste container would be supported on the portable cart; and a transfer valve would be disposed in fluid communication with the first and second waste containers and operable to transfer of the waste material from the first waste container to the second waste container as taught by Nord, in order to evacuate gases from the first chamber before transferring the liquid into the second chamber (¶ 67).
Regarding Claim 8, Reasoner teaches the prefill pump P is further operable to convey a predetermined amount of the liquid from the reservoir 64 to the first waste container 20 (¶ 26; Claim 8, 18, 27) as measured by a fluid measuring system to provide an initial lifting from a bottom of the first waste container 20 to a zero-point level after the waste material is transferred from the first waste container 20 (¶ 36, 39-40, 42; Claim 56-57).
Reasoner fails to teach the second waste container and the transfer valve. Nord teaches the second waste container 10 and the transfer valve 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the waste collection unit of Reasoner to include the second waste container and the transfer valve as taught by Nord, in order to evacuate gases from the first chamber before transferring the liquid into the second chamber (¶ 67).
Regarding Claim 9, Reasoner teaches a first supply line ('conduit 81', fig.6, ¶ 33) in fluid communication with the first waste container 20, wherein the prefill pump P is coupled to the first supply line 81.
Regarding Claim 10, Reasoner teaches a second supply line ('line 68', fig.6, ¶ 37),
wherein each of the first supply line 81 and the second supply line 68 is split from a main supply line (lines composed of water W and drain D, fig.6, ¶ 33) configured to receive the liquid from the docking station 14.
Reasoner fails to teach the second waste container. However, Nord teaches the second waste container 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the waste collection unit of Reasoner to include the second waste container as taught by Nord, in order to evacuate gases from the first chamber before transferring the liquid into the second chamber (¶ 67).
Regarding Claim 11, Reasoner teaches a valve coupled to the first supply line 81 and configured to control flow of the liquid into the reservoir 64 ("The cleaning system comprises a 12V solenoid valve 107 used to selectively open and close the water line 60 and an injector pump 108 used to inject a cleaner 64 into the water line 60", ¶ 36).
Regarding Claim 12, Reasoner teaches a controller ('controller 102', fig.6, ¶ 36) in electronic communication with the valve 107 and configured to open the valve 107 for a predetermined period of time based on a preprogrammed cleaning cycle of the waste collection unit ("Once empty, as detected by a float switch 106, the control unit 100 instructs the controller 102 to activate a cleaning system of the docking station 14. The cleaning system comprises a 12V solenoid valve 107 used to selectively open and close the water line 60 and an injector pump 108 used to inject a cleaner 64 into the water line 60", ¶ 36).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights