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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10-12, 14-17, and 22-23 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 22-23 are new.
Claims 7-9, 13, and 18-21 are withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed on 09/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant provided amendments to the independent claim which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot. Specifically, Alex (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2002/033200 A1) is introduced as a new secondary reference in the present rejection for disclosing and rendering obvious the new limitations presented via the amendments. Yao ‘356 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0038356 A1), McNeil (U.S. Patent No. 4,551,141), Kuntz (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0065471 A1), Moehring (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2021/0020072 A1), Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1), Yao ‘050 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2014/0352050 A1), and Harvie (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0154360 A1) are reintroduced as primary and secondary references in the present rejection for disclosing and rendering obvious a majority of the claimed structure.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10-11, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘356 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0038356 A1), in view of Alex (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2002/0033200 A1), further in view of Moehring (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2021/0020072 A1), and further in view of Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao ‘356 teaches: A fluid collection system (Abstract), comprising:
a fluid collection device (see drain pan 2 at least in Figs. 3-4) configured to receive fluid discharged from a user (see at least para. [0020]);
a fluid collection container (51) including an interior region (at least inherent) in fluid communication with the fluid collection device configured to collect the fluid (see para. [0023]);
However, Yao ‘356 fails to explicitly teach an external catheter, a compressible suction device solely responsive to mechanical actuation, a first tube in fluid communication with the external catheter and an interior region of the suction device, a second tube in fluid communication between the interior region of the suction device and the interior region of the fluid collection container, an actuator operably coupled to the suction device, or an operator electrically coupled to an actuator, as required by the claim.
Alex teaches an analogous manually operative siphoning pump apparatus for transferring liquid from one container to another (see Abstract) comprising:
a suction device (see siphon pump apparatus 1 at least in Fig. 2) comprising an inlet located on a proximal end (such as at check valve 16 in Fig. 3 and para. [0018]) and an outlet located on a distal end (such as at check valve 15 in Fig. 3 and para. [0018]), the suction device including an interior region (see pump body 8 in Fig. 3 and para. [0018]) in fluid communication with a fluid collection device (see CL in Fig. 6) and a fluid collection container (see CS in Fig. 6), the interior region positioned between the inlet and outlet along a fluid flow path extending from the inlet to the outlet (see para. [0018 and 0045]), wherein at least a portion of the suction device is compressible (see Figs. 3 and 4 showing compression of bellows 4) and configured to draw fluid from the fluid collection device into the fluid collection container solely responsive to mechanical actuation of the suction device (see para. [0020 and 0029]).
a first tube connected to the interior region of the suction device at the inlet (see tube T1 in Fig. 2 and para. [0017]), the first tube configured to receive fluid from the fluid collection device (see for example Fig. 6), and a second tube connected to the outlet of the suction device and the interior region of the fluid collection container (see Fig. 6);
an actuator (see lever arm 5 in Fig. 1 and para. [0017]) operably coupled to the suction device (see at least Fig. 1), the actuator configured to apply a compression force on an exterior of the suction device and release compression force to enable decompression of the suction device (see at least para. [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Yao ‘356 to incorporate the teachings of Alex by including a suction device that comprises an inlet located on a proximal end and an outlet located on a distal end and by making a first tube be in fluid communication with the external catheter and the interior region of the suction device and a second tube to be in fluid communication between the interior region of the suction device and the interior region of the fluid collection container at least because it is old and well known in the art to utilize a piston device to facilitate the siphoning action to transfer liquid from one container to another container, as taught by Alex (see para. [0004]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an actuator (such as lever arm 5 of Alex) at least in order to manually control the squeezing of the bellows, as taught by Alex (see Abstract). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stagger the heights of the fluid collection device and the fluid collection container such that the fluid collection device is at a higher elevation than the fluid collection container at least in order for the siphon action to work, as taught by Alex (see para. [0029]), which would allow fluid to move between the fluid collection device and the fluid collection container, as taught by Alex (see para. [0029]).
However, neither Yao ‘356 nor Alex explicitly teach an external catheter or an operator electrically coupled to the actuator, as required by the claim.
Moehring teaches an analogous medical device comprising an external air pump 672 that may comprise a squeeze bulb with a bulb compressor 670 and control 674 (see at least Fig. 6 and para. [0138]). Moehring further teaches that the bulb compressor 670 may comprise a solenoid that that moves to compress the bulb 672 and that a processor can be configured to control the operation of moving the solenoid 670 to compress the bulb 672 (see at least para. [0140]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Yao ‘356 in view of Alex to incorporate the teachings of Moehring by including an operator electrically coupled to the actuator for selective control of the actuator by the user at least because applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). In the instant application, Moehring teaches that an external air pump device that comprises a bulb, a bulb compressor, a control, and a processor that controls the movement of the solenoid/bulb compressor to compress the bulb. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combined device of Yao ‘356 in view of Alex can be improved by including the bulb, bulb compressor, control, and processor of Moehring to yield a predictable result of fully automating the suction device thereby resulting in an improved system that is fully automated and yet mimics the action of a manually controlled pneumatic air pump, as taught by Moehring.
However, neither Yao ‘356, Alex, nor Moehring explicitly teach that the fluid collection device includes an external catheter configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user, as required by the claim.
Sanchez teaches an analogous system for collecting and transporting urine away from a user (see at least Abstract) comprising an external catheter configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user (see at least para. [0010]). Sanchez further teaches that the external catheter can be coupled to an apparatus occupied by a user, such as a bed or wheelchair, to stabilize the position of the external catheter relative to a user’s urethral opening and/or the area surrounding the urethral opening (see para. [0124]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Yao ‘356, in view of Alex, further in view of Moehring to incorporate the teachings of Sanchez by including an external catheter configured to be positioned proximate to a user’s urethra at least in order to maintain the engagement between the external catheter and the user’s urethral opening and/or area surrounding the urethral opening, particularly for in situations where disability limits or impairs mobility of a user, as taught by Sanchez (see para. [0124]). Additionally, in the combined device of Yao ‘356, Alex, Moehring, and Sanchez, the first tube (see tube T1 in Fig. 2 and para. [0017] of Alex) is in fluid communication with the external catheter of Sanchez which results in the first tube siphoning liquid from the external catheter towards the fluid collection container.
Regarding claim 3, Yao ‘356, in view of Alex, further in view of Moehring, and further in view of Sanchez (hereinafter, Combination 1) teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, in the device of Combination 1, fluid is drawn and temporarily contained within the suction device (see para. [0045] of Alex).
Regarding claim 5, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Yao ‘356 teaches a switch located on an arm of a wheelchair (see para. [0024]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to locate the operator of Moehring (see combination in claim 1 for adding the operator) on the arm of the wheelchair at least because Yao ‘356 teaches that coupling a switch to the armrest is beneficial (see para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Combination 1 teaches a controller having a programmable timer that is configured to control the actuator (see combination in claim 1 for adding an actuator and a computer that controls the actuator), as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally Combination 1 teaches wherein the suction device includes an inlet in fluid communication with the fluid collection device (see para. [0017] and Fig. 6 of Alex) and an outlet in fluid communication with the fluid collection container (see para. [0017] and Fig. 6 of Alex). Additionally, Alex teaches wherein a one-way valve is disposed within the inlet or the outlet (see check valve 15, 16 in para. [0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Combination 1 to further incorporate the teachings of Alex by including a one-way valve disposed within the inlet or outlet at least in order to initiate, control, and shut off the flow of liquid through the pump body during the siphoning process and from one container to another container, as taught by Alex (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally Combination 1 teaches wherein the one-way valve is a first valve disposed within the inlet (see para. [0018]), and the suction device includes a second valve disposed within the outlet (see para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Alex teaches wherein the suction device includes at least one valve positioned between the inlet and the outlet along the fluid flow path (see check valve 15, 16 in para. [0018]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Combination 1 to further incorporate the teachings of Alex by including at least one valve positioned between the inlet and the outlet along the fluid flow path at least in order to initiate, control, and shut off the flow of liquid through the pump body during the siphoning process and from one container to another container, as taught by Alex (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Combination 1 teaches wherein the suction device is attached to the fluid collection container, the suction device, and the fluid collection container (see for example claim 1 above and Fig. 6 of Alex) collectively exhibiting a generally rectangular profiled (as broadly recited, Combination 1 exhibits a generally rectangular profile; see for example Fig. 2 of Yao ‘356 and Fig. 6 of Alex).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘356 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0038356 A1), in view of Alex (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2002/0033200 A1), further in view of Moehring (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2021/0020072 A1), and further in view of Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of McNeil (U.S. Patent No. 4,551,141).
Regarding claim 14, Combination 1 teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Combination 1 fails to explicitly teach that the fluid collection container is positioned below the suction device, as required by the claim.
McNeil teaches an analogous drainage device (Abstract) comprising a fluid collection device 42 and a fluid collection container 10 (see col. 4, line 67 thru col. 5, line 8). McNeil further teaches wherein the fluid collection container is positioned below the suction device (Fig. 3 shows the collection bag 10 is positioned below the reservoir 44), wherein the fluid drains from the suction device into the fluid collection container via gravity (McNeil col. 1, lines 62-63 teach that emptying the reservoir can be done by gravity flow).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Combination 1 to incorporate the teachings of McNeil by positioning the fluid collection container below the suction device at least in order to enable fluid to be drained via gravity, as taught by McNeil (see col. 1, lines 62-63).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘356 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0038356 A1), in view of Alex (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2002/0033200 A1), further in view of Moehring (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2021/0020072 A1), and further in view of Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of Yao ‘050 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2014/0352050 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, neither Yao ‘356, Alex, Moehring, nor Sanchez explicitly teach that the fluid collection container is configured to be mounted underneath a seat of a wheelchair, as required by the claim.
Yao ‘050 teaches an analogous wheelchair with a urinal device (Abstract) comprising a fluid collection device (see drain pan 1) and a fluid collection container (see container 3) mounted underneath a seat of the wheelchair (see Figs. 1-5 and at least para. [0019]-[0020].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Combination 1 to incorporate the teachings of Yao ‘050 by including a fluid collection container mounted underneath a seat of a wheelchair, as required by the claim. Such a combination would be the simple substitution of the structural configuration of Yao ‘356 with the structural configuration of Yao ‘050 to achieve a predictable result of having a fluid collection container mounted underneath a seat of a wheelchair, as taught by Yao ‘050.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao ‘356 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0038356 A1), in view of Alex (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2002/0033200 A1), further in view of Moehring (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2021/0020072 A1), and further in view of Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of Harvie (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0154360 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, neither Yao ‘356, Alex, Moehring, nor Sanchez explicitly teach that the fluid collection container includes an absorbent material or wherein the absorbent material includes gel beads, as required by the claims.
Harvie teaches an analogous fluid collection system comprising a fluid collection device 11, a fluid collection container 3, and a suction device 2 (see Abstract and para. [0119]). Harvie further teaches that the disposable urine bag 3 utilizes super absorbent polymer crystals (see para. [0028]). Harvie further teaches wherein the absorbent material includes gel beads (para. [0028] teaches that the super absorbent polymer crystals have a gelling effect on the urine).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Combination 1 to incorporate the teachings of Harvie by including an absorbent material comprising gel beads within the fluid collection container at least in order for the absorbent material to have a gelling effect on discharged urine in order to contain and control the urine and any effluvia that it may produce in order to absorb urine as it is deposited in the fluid collection container, as taught by Harvie (see for example para. [0028 & 0158]).
Regarding claim 17, Combination 1 teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Combination 1 fails to explicitly teach that the fluid collection container includes an odor neutralizer configured to at least partially neutralize an odor of the fluid, as required by the claim.
Harvie teaches wherein the fluid collection container includes an odor neutralizer configured to at least partially neutralize an odor of the fluid (para. [0028] teaches that the super absorbent polymer crystals may further have a urine deodorizer mixed within the crystals).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of Combination 1 to incorporate the teachings of Harvie by including an odor neutralizer at least in order to eliminate odors, as taught by Harvie (see at least para. [0028]).
Conclusion
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 JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781