DETAILED ACTIO N 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. Election/Restrictions Claims 44-49 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 6, 2026. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Such claim limitations are: “ means for compressing the reservoir to displace a portion of the volume of liquid through the tube and out of the anal probe ” in claim 43 . The examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted to mean lid displacement means, lateral side wall displacement means, a movable roller, a movable pressure plate, a hinged lid and means for tilting the lid, or a lung and means for inflating the lung, as shown in the figures, and functional equivalents thereof. “ means for inflating the lung to a larger size adapted to squeeze the container of the reservoir ” in claim 51 . The examiner notes that this limitation is interpreted to mean an air pump, as discussed in paragraph 64 (of the published application), and functional equivalents thereof. 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. Claim(s) 43, 50, 51, and 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 10398811 ) in view of Chandrasekar (US 20110306941). Regarding claim 43 , Nguyen discloses a n anal irrigation system (fig. 4 shows a system capable of irrigating an anus/anal cavity) comprising: a reservoir having a first wall sealed to a second wall to form a container adapted to hold a volume of liquid ( irrigation solution bag 410 in fig. 4 has at least a first and second walls operabl y sealed to each other to hold irrigation solution 411 ), a tube connected to the reservoir ( irrigation solution line 408 in fig. 4 is fluidically connected to bag 410 ), and an anal probe connected to the tube ( tip 406 in fig. 4 is fluidically connected to tube 408 and is capable of acting as an anal irrigation probe ) ; a box (housing 414 in fig. 4) comprising a floor (see below) , opposing end walls each attached to the floor (see below) and to the opposing lateral side walls, a tube opening formed in one of the opposing end walls (see below) , and; means for compressing the reservoir to displace a portion of the volume of liquid through the tube and out of the anal probe ( this limitation is interpreted to mean a lung and means for inflating the lung , as discussed above; bladder 416 and pump 422 in fig. 4 are disclosed in 8:61-65 to inflate and compress the bag 410) . However, Nguyen does not explicitly teach or disclose the box comprises a lid that moves to expose a first cavity inside of the box that is sized to receive the reservoir and opposing lateral side wall attached to the floor and the opposing end walls. Chandrasekar teaches a similar irrigation system (portable lavage apparatus 100 in fig. 1) comprising a box comprising a floor, opposing lateral side walls attached to the floor, opposing end walls each attached to the floor and to the opposing lateral side walls (case 110 comprises a floor on which reservoir 310 rests, two lateral side walls, opposing end walls in figs. 1-3), a lid that moves to expose a first cavity inside of the box that is sized to receive the reservoir (half 130 in fig. 3 is hingedly connected to bottom half 125) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the box of Nguyen be the box of Chandrasekar so that the box further comprises opposing lateral side walls and a hinged lid . This modification would protect the bladder and reservoir during use as they would be fully enclosed and would render the box portable, as taught by Chandrasekar (paragraph 33). Regarding claim 50 , in the modified system of Nguyen , Chandrasekar discloses the lid is hinged relative to the box (paragraph 29 discloses halves 125 and 130 are coupled via a hinge). Regarding claim 51 , in the modified system of Nguyen, Nguyen discloses a lung (bladder 416 in fig. 4) disclosed inside the box (housing 414 in fig. 4); wherein the means for compressing the reservoir comprise means for inflating the lung to a larger size adapted to squeeze the container of the reservoir (this limitation is interpreted to mean an air pump, as discussed above; pneumatic hand pump 422 in fig. 4). Regarding claim 54 , in the modified system of Nguyen, Nguyen discloses the box further comprises a fill spout (fitting 412 protruding from housing 410 in fig. 4), and the fill spout is adapted to couple with the container to allow additional liquid to be added to the container (8:35-39) . Regarding claim 55 , in the modified system of Nguyen, Nguyen discloses the reservoir further comprises an end wall sealed between the first wall and the second wall (see below), and the tube is sealed to the end wall (the tube is fluidically sealed to the end wall below) . Regarding claim 56 , in the modified system of Nguyen , Nguyen discloses the box is a rectangular box ( fig. 4 shows housing 414 with a rectangular cross-section ) forming a rectangular first cavity ( fig. 4 shows the cross-section of the cavity being rectangular ) and the reservoir is a rectangular reservoir that is sized to fit in the rectangular first cavity ( fig. 4 shows bag 410 has a rectangular cross-section and situated within the cavity ) . Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Chandrasekar, as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Leiboff (US 20060025728 ) . Regarding claim 52 , modified Nguyen teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 43, as discussed above. With regards to claim 43, using a different interpretation of the claimed “tube connected to the reservoir”, Nguyen teaches a tube connected to the reservoir (see below; the tube designated below is fluidically connected to the reservoir 410 in fig. 4) . While it appears that Nguyen teaches that the anal probe (tip 406 in fig. 4) is integral, and therefore permanently fixed to the tube, modified Nguyen does not explicitly teach or disclose this limitation. Leiboff teaches a tube (tube 32 in fig. 3) and a irrigating tip (“rounded tip” in paragraph 43 and fig. 4) which is “molded from and integral with the irrigating tube” (paragraph 43), so that the tip is permanently fixed to the tube. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anal probe of Nguyen, which is the tip of the tube, to be permanently fixed to the tube by making the probe integral with the tube, as taught by Leiboff , as this modification would simplify manufacturing and would reduce the chance of leaking during use. Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Chandrasekar, as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Marak (US 8157782 ) . Regarding claim 53, modified Nguyen teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 43, as discussed above, but does not teach or disclose an attachment strap connected to the box, where the attachment strap is configured to secure the box to a leg of a user. Marak teaches a similar system comprising a case (bag member 14 in fig. 2) which is adapted to contain a reservoir (bag 34 in fig. 4) and an inflatable lung which can compress the reservoir as its inflated (cuff 36 in fig. 4; 6:20-27). Marak further teaches an attachment strap connected to the case (strap 12 in fig. 2) , where the attachment strap is configured to secure the case to a leg of a user (figs. 2 and 3 shows the strap as being adjustable so that the strap would be able to secure the case to a leg) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the box of modified Nguyen to further comprise the adjustable strap of Marak , as Marak teaches this modification would allow for the box to be carried and used without encumbering hands (5:31-37). Claim(s) 57, 59, and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Chandrasekar, as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Sanchez (US 20170274143 ) . Regarding claim 57 , modified Nguyen teaches all of the claimed limitations set forth in claim 43, as discussed above. Nguyen further discloses an inflatable lung located within the cavity of the box (bladder 416 in fig. 4) , wherein the means for compressing the reservoir comprises a pump adapted to pump air into the inflatable lung which inflates the inflatable lung and applies pressure to the reservoir to displace the portion of the volume of liquid through the tube and out of the anal probe (pump 422 in fig. 4) . However, modified Nguyen does not teach or disclose the inflatable lung comprising a plurality of chambers each of which is inflatable to pressurize to increase a size of the inflatable lung . Sanchez teaches a similar system (fig. 3A) comprising a box (receptacle 302 in fig. 3A) adapted to hold a reservoir (bag 202 in fig. 3A) and an inflatable lung (bladder 204 in fig. 3A) which is adapted to inflate to compress the reservoir (fig. 3B). Sanchez further teaches a plurality of chambers each of which is inflatable to pressurize to increase a size of the inflatable lung (chambers 208-1, 2, 3, and 4 in fig. 3A/B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inflatable lung of modified Nguyen to comprise a plurality of chambers each of which is inflatable to pressurize to increase a size of the inflatable lung , as taught by Sanchez, as Sanchez teaches that this arrangement would allow the bag to be squeezes in a manner which would force fluid toward the outlet of the bag and would ensure the bag is not pinched in the middle (paragraph 24). Regarding claim 59 , in the modified system of Nguyen, Sanchez discloses the plurality of chambers provides feedback to a user indicating an amount of inflation of the inflatable lung and correlated to the portion of the volume of liquid displaced from the reservoir (the chambers of Sanchez are capable of providing this function since a user would be able to visually inspect the degree of inflation of chambers). Regarding claim 60 , in the modified system of Nguyen , Nguyen discloses the pump comprises air inlets allowing the pump to draw air into the pump for inflating the inflatable lung (8:50-56 discloses a filter 426 in fig. 4 which would intake air and would keep contaminants from the interior of the pump; the filter 426 would provide a plurality of air inlets through which air can flow) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 58 and 61 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 58 , the closest prior art is Nguyen in view of Chand raseka r which does not teach or disclose the second cavity is configured to hold the pump. Chandrasekar teaches that the lid comprises a second cavity (fig. 1 shows the lid forming half of the box so that the lid would comprise a cavity). However, there is no teaching in the prior art which suggests that the second cavity is configured to hold the pump (pump 422 in fig. 4) of Nguyen. Regarding claim 61 , the closest prior art is Nguyen in view of Chandrasekar which does not teach or disclose the lid comprises air inlets allowing the pump to draw air into the box and the pump for inflating the inflatable lung . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7481 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM EST) . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3383 . 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. /COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783