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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; claims 5-7 and 17-20 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/01/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Den Heuvel et al. US 2009/0306610 A1 (newly cited) in view of Okabe et al. US 2005/0070861 A1 (previously cited),.
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.
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 1-4, 8, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel et al. US 2009/0306610 A1 (newly cited, hereinafter Van Den Heuvel) in view of Okabe et al. US 2005/0070861 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Okabe), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Van Den Heuvel discloses a urine collection system 1 (Fig. 1 – container 1), comprising:
a urine collection device 27 (Par. 5 describes that reference Wolff WO 00/57784, hereinafter Wolff, is incorporated in its entirety, thus attention is directed to Wolff; Fig. 3a of Wolff shows an interface 27) configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user (Abstract of Wolff – “an interface (27) locatable at the urethral opening of a person”);
a first tube T1 (see annotated Fig. 1 below) in fluid communication with the urine collection device 27 (Fig. 3a of Wolff; since the urine inlet port 7 is intended to receive urine, the annotated tube T1 providing the inflow of urine has to be in fluid communication with the interface 27 of Fig. 3a of Wolff);
a urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1) configured to receive urine (Par. 38 – “The urine flows into the lid 6 at the urine inlet port 7”) from the urine collection device 27 (Fig. 3a of Wolff), the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1) including an interior (Fig. 1);
a lid 6 (Fig. 1 – lid 6) secured or securable to the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1, and Par. 34 – “The container is provided with a lid 6 that forms an air tight seal with the container 1”), the lid 6 (Fig. 1) including an exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1 – air outlet 2) and an inlet port 7 (Fig. 1 – urine inlet port 7) configured to provide fluid communication between the first tube T1 (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1);
a second tube (Par. 5, Par. 38, and Par. 40 describes that reference Wolff WO 00/57784, hereinafter Wolff, is incorporated by means of the vacuum pump, thus attention is directed to Wolff; Fig. 3b of Wolff shows second tube attached to port 22) in fluid communication with the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1) through the exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1) on the lid 6 (Fig. 1; since the vacuum pump of Wolff is incorporated into the system of Van Den Heuvel, it is widely understood that the air outlet 2 of Van Den Heuvel will have a second tube as taught by Wolff);
a pump 4 (Par. 38 – “In use, a vacuum is maintained within the storage container 1 by means of a vacuum pump and valve as described in WO 00/5778”; attention is directed to Fig. 3b of Wolff – pump 4) configured to pull an at least partial vacuum in the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1, and Abstract of Wolff – “a pump (4) operable to create a vacuum within the container (1)”) through the second tube (Fig. 3b of Wolff) to draw the urine from the urine collection device 27 (Fig. 3b of Wolff, and Page 3, first paragraph of Wolff – “the preferred embodiment using a stored vacuum to allow immediate rapid removal of urine at the rate it is produced”) through the first tube T1 (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and the inlet port 7 (Fig. 1) into the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1); and
an odor filter 4 (Fig. 2 – moisture-absorbing material 4, and Abstract – “Moisture-absorbing material (4) may also serve to absorb odours”) secured to the lid 6 (Fig. 2) proximate to the exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1) between the interior of the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1) and the second tube (Fig. 3b of Wolff).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel
However, Van Den Heuvel does not disclose wherein the pump includes an exhaust vent.
Okabe, in the same field of endeavor of urine disposal device (Title), teaches wherein the pump 29 (Fig. 1) includes an exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 – air release tube 31).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Van Den Heuvel to further include an exhaust vent as taught by Okabe, in order to release the air upon suction of the pump (Par. 36 of Okabe).
Regarding claim 2, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) is configured to inhibit urine odor from exiting (Par. 18 of Van Den Heuvel – “The provision of an odour-absorbing material helps to prevent any odour from the urine from escaping from the container”) through the exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 of Okabe).
Regarding claim 3, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the second tube (Fig. 3b of Wolff) is coupled to the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) at the exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel; as established above in claim 1, the second tube of Wolff is incorporated into the system of Van Den Heuvel, thus the second tube of Wolff is understood to couple the container 1 at air outlet 2) such that the pump 4 (Fig. 3b of Wolff) draws air from the urine collection container 1 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) through the exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel, and Par. 37 of Van Den Heuvel – “The air outlet 2 extends through the lid 6, from the container 1 to a vacuum pump (not shown)”, and Par. 38 of Van Den Heuvel – “In use, a vacuum is maintained within the storage container 1 by means of a vacuum pump and valve as described in WO 00/57784”) and expels the air out of the exhaust vent 31 (Fig. 2 of Okabe, and Par. 36 of Okabe – “an air release tube 31 are linked to the vacuum pump 29”).
Regarding claim 4, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) is located proximate to the exhaust port 2 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel).
Regarding claim 8, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the urine collection system 1 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) further includes a filter housing (see annotated Fig. 2 of Van Den Heuvel below) configured to retain the odor filter 4 (Fig. 2 of Van Den Heuvel).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Van Den Heuvel
Regarding claim 9, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) is removable and replaceable (Par. 42 of Van Den Heuvel – “The lid 6 can then be replaced and the vacuum reapplied to render the device ready for use”).
Regarding claim 11, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) is cylindrical (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel).
Regarding claim 12, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the odor filter 4 (Fig. 1 of Van Den Heuvel) includes an activated carbon sorbent (Par. 37 of Van Den Heuvel – “a layer of material that absorbs odour and moisture 4, such as activated carbon granules”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blake, III US 5,045,077 A (previously cited, hereinafter Blake) as cited in the IDS, and evidenced by Zhuang et al. US 2004/0194792 A1 (previously cited, hereinafter Zhuang).
Regarding claim 10, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the odor filter is disk-shaped.
Blake, in the same field of endeavor of body cavity drainage implement (Title), teaches wherein the filter 39 (Fig. 2 – filter means 39) is disk-shaped (Fig. 2, and Col. 5, line 40-44 – “a hydrophobic filter disc lying upon said upper side of said mounting disc…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified odor filter of the combination to have the disk shape as taught by Blake, in order to have the edges be in sealing contact with the port wall (Col. 5, line 40-44 of Blake); in this instant case, the disk-shaped odor filter of the combination will have the round edges against the exhaust port for a sealing effect.
Furthermore, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration, and it is well known in the art that the filter can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including cylindrical shape, oval, polygonal cross-sectional shape, disk, spherical, honeycomb, or other monolithic shape, as evidenced by Zhuang in Par. 43 – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent is not limited to any particular shape. It can have a cylindrical shape, such as shown, as well as various other shapes including, for example, oval or polygonal cross-sectional shapes, sheet-like, disk, spherical, honeycomb, or other monolithic shapes.” It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe as applied to claim 12 and claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang.
Regarding claim 13, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 12. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the activated carbon sorbent includes pores having a pore size of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent includes pores having a pore size of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å (Par. 41 of Zhuang – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can have a microporous… pore structure. The term "microporous molecular sieve" generally refers to such material with a pore size of about 20 Å or less”, which encompasses the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore size of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a pore size as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from between 20 Å or less to from about 5 Å to about 10 Å as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 32 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Zhuang would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working range of Zhuang is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 12. The combination does not disclose wherein the activated carbon sorbent has a surface area of from about 500 m2/g to about 3,000 m2/g.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent has a surface area of from about 500 m2/g to about 1,500 m2/g (Par. 60 of Zhuang – “In a preferred embodiment, the BET (Brunauer, Emmett and Teller) surface area of the activated carbon-containing sorbent after activation is from about 500 m2/g to about 1,500 m2/g”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface area of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a surface area as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface area of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from between 500 m2/g and 1,500 m2/g to 500 m2/g to about 3,000 m2/g as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 33 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Zhuang would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working range of Zhuang is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the odor filter includes a zeolite.
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the odor filter includes a zeolite (Par. 34 – “a filter includes an activated carbon-containing sorbent”, Abstract – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can be a composite including one or more molecular sieve materials”, and Par. 70 – “…the molecular sieve material is one or more zeolites”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the odor filter of the combination to further incorporate zeolite as taught by Zhuang, in order to promote sorption of selected gas molecules onto the zeolite (Par. 70 of Zhuang). This improves the deodorization process within the combined device because gas molecules are filtered before exiting.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhuang and Ladrech et al. US 9,968,908 B2 (previously cited, hereinafter Ladrech).
Regarding claim 15, Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe suggests the invention of claim 12. However, the combination does not wherein the activated carbon sorbent contains pores (Par. 62 of Zhuang – “…the pore size, pore volume and density of the activated carbon-containing sorbent”; Examiner notes that pore volume is also an inherent parameter of materials with pores) in the pore size range of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å (Par. 41 of Zhuang – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can have a microporous… pore structure. The term "microporous molecular sieve" generally refers to such material with a pore size of about 20 Å or less”, which encompasses the claimed range; thus, the limitation is met).
Zhuang, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize unpleasant odor in treatment of waste flows (Par. 109 – “the activated carbon-containing sorbent can be used in other applications in which the selective removal of gaseous components from a gas flow is desired. For example, it can be used in… treatment of waste flows containing undesirable gases and/or vapors, air filtration,… and deodorization processes”), teaches wherein the activated carbon sorbent contains pores (Par. 62 of Zhuang – “…the pore size, pore volume and density of the activated carbon-containing sorbent”; Examiner notes that pore volume is also an inherent parameter of materials with pores) in the pore size range of from about 5 Å to about 10 Å (Par. 41 of Zhuang – “The activated carbon-containing sorbent can have a microporous… pore structure. The term "microporous molecular sieve" generally refers to such material with a pore size of about 20 Å or less”, which encompasses the claimed range; thus, the limitation is met).
Ladrech, analogous to the instant invention as both seek to minimize odor via activated carbons (Col. 1, line 22-24), teaches disclose pores having a pore volume of from about 0.2 cm3/g to about 1.0 cm3/g (Col. 2, line 43-44 – “a micropore volume of 0.356 cm3/g”; which is within the claimed range; Examiner also notes that this pore volume is of the microporous pores, which has been evidenced by Zhuang above and in Par. 41 of Zhuang that such a microporous pore size is about 20 Å or less; thus, this pore volume of Ladrech corresponds to the claimed pore size of about 5 Å to about 10 Å).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore size of the carbon sorbent of the combined device to have a pore size as taught by Zhuang, since activated carbon sorbent is capable of selectively remove selected gaseous components from a gas flow (Par. 32 of Zhuang); thus facilitate the removal of certain odor from the urine within the system of Van Den Heuvel in view of Okabe.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the activated carbon sorbent in the pore size of about 5 Å to about 10 Å of the combination to further have the pore volume as taught by Ladrech, in order to deliver better filtration result for pollutant gases (Col. 2, line 21-23 of Ladrech).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore volume of the activated carbon sorbent of the combination from 0.356 cm3/g to 0.2 cm3/g to about 1.0 cm3/g as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Par. 34 of Applicant’s PG-Pub) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Ladrech would not operate differently with the claimed range since the working value of Ladrech is within the claimed range.
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 QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781