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
In the amendments filed December 14, 2025, claims 32, 35, 38-39, 41, and 47 were amended. Claims 32-51 are pending for examination and are considered on the merits below, whereby claims 48-51 are currently withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed December 14, 2025, with respect to drawings objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed December 14, 2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed December 14, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 32-37, 39, and 41-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 32-37, 39, and 41-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Stevic-Wages and Ritchie failing to teach a foot protruding from a bottom surface of the casing that defines a tilting axis as recited in amended claim 32 been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that, when comparing the functions of Applicant’s device and the devices of the prior art, 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. Furthermore, amended claim 32 has been reinterpreted as discussed below in view of the amendments made by Applicant.
Applicant further argued that Stevic-Wages fails to teach two reservoirs communicating via a passage equipped with a valve. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Stevic-Wages as modified by Ritchie below teach a valve as recited in amended claim 32 as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 38, the limitation “a means for capturing a first jet of urine” is limited by the description in the specification. The corresponding structures in the specification are a tank (p. 3, ll. 7-8), a valve (p. 3, ll. 11-12), an absorbent material (p. 3, ll. 17-18), and a chicane (p. 3, ll. 22-23).
Regarding claim 41, the limitation “a means for analyzing the residual urine collected by the collection means,” is limited by the description in the specification. The corresponding structure in the specification is, “a light sensor for capturing the color of at least one test specimen comprising at least one reagent” (p. 5, ll. 31-32).
Regarding claim 43, the limitation “a means for evaluating the color of the urine collected,” is limited by the description in the specification. The corresponding structure in the specification is a processor of a mobile telephone or a server to process an image of the urine present in the receptacle or casing to determine the color of the urine (p. 16, ll. 21-24 and 29-31).
Regarding claim 44, the limitation “a means for evaluating the clarity of the urine collected,” is limited by the description in the specification. The corresponding structure in the specification is a processor of a mobile telephone or a server to process an image of the urine present in the receptacle or casing to determine the clarity of the urine (p. 16, ll. 21-24 and 29-31).
Regarding claim 45, the limitation “a means for comparing: at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value; and/or at least one evaluated component quantity of the urine with at least one quantity limit value,” is limited by the description in the specification. The corresponding structure in the specification is a processor of a mobile telephone or a server to perform the image processing operations of comparing at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value; and/or at least one evaluated component quantity of the urine with at least one quantity limit value (p. 16, ll. 21-24, p. 17, ll. 6-11).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: the limitation “a bottom surface” is recited in line 9. However, the limitation “a bottom surface” is previously recited in line 3. It appears that the limitation “a bottom surface” recited in line 9 is referring to the bottom surface previously recited in line 3. Appropriate correction is required for consistency 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 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.
Claims 32-36, 38-39, and 46-47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevic-Wages (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0053729; hereinafter “Stevic-Wages”) in view of Ritchie (U.S. Pat. No. 5,596,948).
Regarding claim 32, Stevic-Wages teaches a casing (urine diversion device 100; ¶ [0083]; Figs. 1-4B) for capturing and analyzing animal urine (wherein urine diversion device 100 is capable of being used for capturing and analyzing animal urine) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art), comprising
a bottom surface (flap 160 which forms a bottom surface for urine/fluid in the raised position; ¶¶ [0091] and [0096]; Fig. 4B) extending along a horizontal axis between a first side of the case and a second side of the case (wherein flap 160, when in the raised position, extends along a horizontal axis between a first side of the case, e.g. the right side in which urine receiving side 120 is disposed as shown in Fig. 4B, and a second side of the case, e.g., the left side in which collection cup 180 is disposed in Fig. 4B; ; ¶ [0091]; Fig. 4B);
a first urine receptacle defined on said first side of the case (urine receiving side 120 disposed on the right side as shown in Fig. 4B; ¶ [0084]; Figs. 1-4B) and a second urine receptacle defined on said second side of the case (collection cup 180 disposed on the left side as shown in Fig. 4B; ¶ [0084]; Figs. 2 and 4A-4B), said second urine receptacle is provided with a support (wherein collection cup 180 comprises a bottom surface that receives and supports fluid and therefore the bottom surface is interpreted as the support; ¶ [0084]; Figs. 2 and 4A-4B) for a strip which carries test specimens comprising reagents (wherein the bottom surface within collection cup 180 is capable of supporting a strip which carries test specimens comprising reagents) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114 regarding functional language), the first and second receptacles being separated by a partition wall (ribs 134a, 134b collectively separate urine receiving side 120 and collection cup 180; ¶¶ [0089]-[0090]; Figs. 2-3) which is provided with a passage (wherein ribs 134a, 134b provide a passage to urine collection side 140 into collection cup 180; ¶¶ [0089]-[0091]; Figs. 2-3); and
at least one foot (fluid reservoir 150 is defined by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 that collectively form a foot as shown in Figs. 4A-4B; ¶ [0094]; Figs. 4A-4B) protruding from a bottom surface of the casing between said first side and said second side (wherein the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 protrudes from, e.g., extends below, flap 160 in the raised position; Fig. 4B), and defining a tilting axis (wherein the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 defines an axis on which urine diversion device 100 can be manually tilted; Fig. 4B) between said first and second urine receptacles (wherein the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 that defines the tilting axis is disposed between urine receiving side 120 and collection cup 180; Fig. 4B), such that the case is tilted between a first and a second configuration (wherein urine diversion device 100 is capable of being manually tilted between a first configuration whereby urine diversion device 100 is tilted to rest on the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 and a bottom surface of the first side of the case, e.g. the right side in which urine receiving side 120 is disposed as shown in Fig. 4B, and a second configuration whereby urine diversion device 100 is tilted to rest on the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 and a bottom surface of the second side of the case, e.g., the left side in which collection cup 180 is disposed in Fig. 4B) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art);
wherein in said first configuration the case is tilted to rest on the foot and the bottom surface of said first side, such that when the passage between the first and second urine receptacles is open, the urine entering the casing flows as a result of gravity into the first urine receptacle (wherein, in the first configuration, where flap 160 is raised and the passage is open, urine diversion device 100 is capable of being manually tilted to rest on the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 and a bottom surface of the first side of the case, e.g. the right side in which urine receiving side 120 is disposed as shown in Fig. 4B whereby urine entering urine diversion device 100 flows as a result of gravity into urine receiving side 120; ¶ [0091]; Fig. 4B) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art); and
wherein in said second configuration the case is tilted to rest on the foot and the bottom surface of said second side such that when the passage between the first and second urine receptacles is open, the urine flows as a result of gravity from the first urine receptacle into the second urine receptacle (wherein, in a second configuration, where flap 160 is raised and the passage is open, urine diversion device 100 is capable of being manually tilted to rest on the foot formed by wall 157 and arcuate wall 158 and a bottom surface of the second side of the case, e.g., the left side in which collection cup 180 is disposed in Fig. 4B whereby urine flows as a result of gravity from urine receiving side 12 into collection cup 180; ¶ [0091]; Fig. 4B) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
However, Stevic-Wages does not explicitly teach a valve that shuts or opens the passage between said receptacles. Ritchie, in the analogous art of collecting and analyzing urine, teaches a system that collects a series of urine samples from an animal (system 11; col. 3, ll. 59-60; Fig. 1) comprising a valve (three way valve 105; col. 7, ll. 36-38 and 46-51; Fig. 1) that shuts or opens a passage between receptacles (wherein three way valve 105 shuts of opens a passage between collection pan 27, which is interpreted as a first receptacle, and container 117, which is interpreted as a second receptacle; col. 4, ll. 44-46, col. 7, ll. 46-64, col. 8, ll. 6-11; Fig. 1).
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 casing of Stevic-Wages to incorporate a valve that shuts or opens the passage between receptacles as taught by Ritchie for the benefit of controlling the flow of fluid through the system (Ritchie, col. 10, ll. 50-51).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the casing of claim 32 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie further teaches wherein the valve is a multiport valve (Ritchie’s three way valve 105 has multiple ports and is therefore interpreted as a multiport valve; Ritchie, col. 7, ll. 36-38 and 46-51; Ritchie, Fig. 1) that additionally shuts or opens an inlet for urine in the casing (wherein the multiport valve of Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie would be capable of shutting or opening an inlet for urine within the casing) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the casing of claim 33 as discussed above. Ritchie further teaches wherein the valve comprises a holding tank for the first jet of urine entering a casing (three way valve 105 directs the liquid, e.g., a first jet of urine that enters column 21 interpreted as a casing, into weighing means 107 which comprises a container 117 interpreted as the holding tank; col. 7, ll. 46-51, col. 8, ll. 6-11; Fig. 1).
Thus, the valve of Ritchie (as described above) comprises a holding tank (a container 117) which serves to determine a weight of the urine (Ritchie, col. 8, ll. 6-8).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the casing of claim 34 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie further teaches wherein the holding tank for the first jet of urine is topped by the partition wall (Ritchie’s container 117 comprises a wall having a height with a top that partitions urine within container 117 from other compartments in the system; Ritchie, col. 8, ll. 19-21) limiting the flow of the urine to the second receptacle, in the second configuration of the casing (Ritchie’s container 117, when in the second configuration, is capable of limiting the flow of urine to Stevic-Wage’s collection cup 180) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the casing of claim 32 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages further teaches wherein the first receptacle comprises at least one side compartment (area of urine receiving side 120 on right side of rib 134a as shown on annotated version Fig. 2 below; Fig. 2) and at least one partition wall (rib 134a; ¶ [0089]; Fig. 2) holding urine in a side compartment when the casing tilts into the second configuration (wherein, when urine diversion device 100 is tilted into the second configuration, the side compartment formed by the area of urine receiving side 120 on right side of rib 134a as shown on annotated version of Fig. 2 below is capable of holding urine) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II) regarding manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches a device for collecting the urine of a predefined animal, which comprises: the casing for capturing and analyzing urine of claim 32 (see Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie as applied to claim 32 above).
In addition, Ritchie teaches a tray receiving the urinating animal (fluid pervious floor 19, interpreted as the tray, that receives the urinating animal; col. 4, ll. 27-30; Fig. 1) and holding elements inert to the urine (fluid pervious floor 19 is comprised of, and holds, upper mesh filter screen 23 which filters materials that would interfere with analysis of the urine and therefore mesh filter screen 23 is considered as comprised of elements inert to urine; col. 4, ll. 30-41; Fig. 1), on a screen (lower mesh filter screen 25; col. 4, ll. 30-41; Fig. 1) configured to retain the elements inert to the urine and let the urine pass (wherein lower mesh filter screen 25 retains upper mesh filter screen 23 and allows urine to pass; col. 4, ll. 30-41); and a sloping surface (collection pan 27 comprising an inclined wall 31, i.e., a sloping surface, and a drain port 33; col. 4, ll. 45-51; Fig. 1), under the screen (wherein collection pan 27 is under lower mesh filter screen 25; col. 4, ll. 45-50; Fig. 1), for collecting the urine in a convergence area leading to an inlet of a casing for capturing and analyzing urine (wherein collection pan 27 collects urine in a funnel shaped area, i.e., a convergence area, leading to column inlet funnel 37 of a column 21, which positions urine for analysis and is interpreted as a casing for capturing and analyzing urine; col. 4, ll. 45-50, col. 5, ll. 34-36 and 55-56, col. 6, ll. 1-6; Figs. 1-2).
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 device (of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie) to further incorporate a tray as taught by Ritchie for the benefit of filtering materials that would interfere with analysis of urine such as feces, hair, and food particles (Ritchie, col. 4, ll. 38-41) and further incorporate a sloping surface, under a screen, as taught by Ritchie for the benefit of directing urine to equipment for the analysis of the urine, such as a column that positions urine for analysis (Ritchie, col. 4, ll. 45-47).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the device of claim 38 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie further teaches a means for capturing a first jet of urine (Examiner’s Note - “the means for capturing a first jet of urine” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited by the description in the specification as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section as a tank, a valve, an absorbent material, and a chicane) (the valve of Stevic-Wages as modified by Ritchie in claim 32 as discussed above).
Ritchie further teaches a valve (urine controlling valve 39; col. 5, ll. 10-15; Fig. 1) on the passage of the urine downstream from the convergence area (wherein urine controlling valve 39 is disposed on the passage of urine downstream from funnel shaped area, i.e., a convergence area of collection pan 27; col. 5, ll. 10-15; Fig. 1), the valve being controlled to change position and direct the urine towards a collection area after a certain amount of urine has passed through the valve (wherein urine controlling valve 39 is an electronically actuated pinch valve which is controlled by a data processing system 41 and is capable of being controlled to change position and direct urine towards column 21, which is interpreted as a collection area, after a certain amount of urine has passed through urine controlling valve 39; col. 5, ll. 22-34; Fig. 1) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114 regarding functional language).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the device of claim 38 as discussed above. Ritchie further teaches a base comprising at least one weight sensor (a container 117 and a scale 119 are collectively interpreted as the base wherein scale 119 is interpreted as the weight sensor; col. 8, ll. 6-12; Fig. 1). 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 device (of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie) to further incorporate a base as taught by Ritchie for the benefit of determining the weight of the urine (Ritchie, col. 8, ll. 6-8).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the device of claim 38 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages further teaches a base comprising a drawer bearing the casing for capturing and analyzing urine (a toilet bowl, which is interpreted as the base comprising the drawer, supports and bears urine diversion device 100; ¶¶ [0083] and [0088]).
Claims 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie as applied to claim 32 or 38 above, and further in view of Chen (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0278692).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the casing of claim 32 as discussed above. However, Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie does not explicitly teach a cover, transparent at least opposite the support for a strip, the cover being mobile with respect to a base comprising the receptacles.
Chen, in the analogous art of urine test devices, teaches a cup (cup 20; ¶ [0023]; Fig. 1) comprising a cover (transparent cover 59; ¶ [0034]; Fig. 2), transparent at least opposite a support for a strip (transparent cover 59 is transparent and is opposite of cassette or card 50, which is a support for a strip; ¶¶ [0028] and [0034]), the cover being mobile with respect to a base (wherein transparent cover 59 is capable of being mobile with respect to cassette or card 50, which is considered as a base; ¶ [0029]) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II)).
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 device (of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie) to incorporate a cover as taught by Chen for the benefit of viewing the test strips in the cassette or card so that the results can be recorded (Chen, ¶ [0031]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the device of claim 38 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages further teaches a tank (fluid reservoir 150; ¶ [0091]; Figs. 1 and 4A-4B) for collected urine (wherein fluid reservoir 150 collects urine; ¶ [0093]) and an access plug (flap 160 which is configured to cover fluid reservoir 150 and is therefore interpreted as an access plug; ¶ [0091]; Figs. 1 and 4A-4B) for access to the tank by a strip which carries test specimens comprising reagents (wherein flap 160 is capable of providing access to fluid reservoir 150 to a strip which carries test specimens comprising reagents) (Examiner’s Note — 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; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114(II)).
However, Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie does not explicitly teach wherein the casing is at least partially transparent. Chen, in the analogous art of urine test devices, teaches a cup (cup 20; ¶ [0023]; Fig. 1) that is transparent so that the contents within the cup can be viewed through an exterior wall of the cup, such as a test result within the cup (see ¶¶ [0003] and [0022]). 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 casing (of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie) to be transparent as taught by Chen for the benefit of being able to view a test result through an exterior wall (Chen, ¶¶ [0003] and [0022]).
Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of McCord et al. (WO 2020018232 A1; hereinafter “McCord”).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie teaches the device of claim 38 as discussed above. However, Stevic-Wages and Ritchie does not explicitly teach a means for analyzing the residual urine collected (Examiner’s Note - “a means for analyzing the residual urine collected by the collection means” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited by the description in the specification as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section as a light sensor).
McCord, in the analogous art of urine analysis systems, comprises a means for analyzing the residual urine collected (photosensor system 220, which includes optical sensors 224 capable of detecting any combination of light reflectance, absorption, or fluorescence, measures the reaction of urine sample 203 in test chamber 210 with the reagents of the test regions of the test matrix; ¶¶ [0047]-[0048]; Fig. 2).
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 device (of Stevic-Wages and Ritchie) to incorporate a means for analyzing the residual urine collected as taught by McCord for the benefit of detecting a combination of light reflectance, absorption, or fluorescence (McCord, ¶ [0048]).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord teaches the device of claim 41 as discussed above. Stevic-Wages in view of Ritchie, and McCord teaches wherein the analysis means comprises a light sensor for capturing the color of at least one test specimen comprising at least one reagent (McCord’s photosensor system 220, which includes optical sensors 224 capable of detecting any combination of light reflectance, absorption, or fluorescence, measures the reaction of the urine sample with the reagents of the test regions of the test matrix that produce changes in color or intensity from the reaction; McCord, ¶¶ [0047]-[0048], [0055]; McCord, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord teaches the device of claim 42 as discussed above. McCord further teaches wherein the analysis means comprises a means for evaluating the color of the urine collected (Examiner’s Note - “a means for evaluating the color of the urine collected” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited by the description in the specification as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section as a processor of a mobile telephone or a server) (images with one or more sensors are used to detect changes in color or intensity from the reaction of urine with the reagents on the test matrix to determine the results – signals 1001b are transmitted over wireless channel 120 to mobile device 130 and analyzed on processor 233a in the mobile device and results 1002b are displayed on the mobile device; ¶¶ [0055] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device (of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord) to incorporate a means for evaluating the color of the urine collected as taught by McCord for the benefit of readily providing access to test analysis and results in a packaged mobile phone application (McCord, ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord teaches the device of claim 41 as discussed above. McCord further teaches wherein the analysis means comprises a means for evaluating the clarity of the urine collected (Examiner’s Note - “a means for evaluating the clarity of the urine collected” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited by the description in the specification as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section as a processor of a mobile telephone or a server) (signals 1001b are transmitted over wireless channel 120 to mobile device 130 and analyzed on processor 233a in the mobile device and results 1002b are displayed on the mobile device – the processor is capable of evaluating a clarity of urine collected; ¶¶ [0055] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device (of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord) to incorporate a means for evaluating the clarity of the urine collected as taught by McCord for the benefit of readily providing access to test analysis and results in a packaged mobile phone application (McCord, ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord teaches the device of claim 41 as discussed above. McCord further teaches wherein the analysis means comprises a means for comparing: at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value; and/or at least one evaluated component quantity of the urine with at least one quantity limit value (Examiner’s Note - “a means for comparing: at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value; and/or at least one evaluated component quantity of the urine with at least one quantity limit value” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is limited by the description in the specification as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section as a processor of a mobile telephone or a server; also, the term “and/or” in this claim limitation is interpreted as reciting one or more of the elements modified by the “and/or” term and therefore a finding of one element is sufficient to meet this claim limitation) (color change or intensity of the color indicate whether the analyte is present and in what quantities – signals 1001b are transmitted over wireless channel 120 to mobile device 130 and analyzed on processor 233a in the mobile device and results 1002b are displayed on the mobile device – both teachings being collectively interpreted as a means for comparing at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value; ¶¶ [0055], [0065], and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device (of Stevic-Wages, Ritchie, and McCord) to incorporate a means for comparing at least one evaluated color with at least one color limit value as taught by McCord for the benefit of readily providing access to test analysis and results in a packaged mobile phone application (McCord, ¶ [0047]).
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 Steven R. Castaneda whose telephone number is (571)272-0998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10am - 6pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/STEVEN RAY CASTANEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797