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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are pending with claims 1-13 being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the collection pan, capture opening, collection cup must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the plurality of holes has a shape” should read –the plurality of holes have a shape--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 ”the plurality of holes is round” should read –the plurality of holes are round--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bilinski (WO 2020111959 A1; hereinafter “Bilinski” previous of record).
Regarding claim 1, Bilinski teaches a collection pan (Bilinski; fig. 1. 10 and Title) for retrieving a capsule discharged from anus of a patient into a toilet bowl. Bilinski teaches a collection pan, what the collection pan is used for is a matter of intended use, the collection pan comprising:
a flange to adapt to a rim of the toilet bowl (Bilinski; fig. 1. 14), wherein the flange comprises a capture opening for collecting feces (Bilinski; fig. 1. 16), the flange is longer in one direction than the other (Bilinski; fig. 1. 14 has a longer horizontal dimension that a vertical dimension), and two wings of the flange extended from the capture opening in a long direction are placed over the rim of the toilet bowl to support the collection pan (Bilinski; fig. 1. 14 and 2A. 14 illustrates two wings of the flange extending from the capture opening in a long direction placed over the toilet rim) and
a collection cup (Bilinski; fig. 1. 12) joined to the flange around the capture opening (Bilinski; fig. 1. 12, 14, 16, 58 illustrates fastening members 14 at inlet opening 58 adapted to top opening 16 of container 12), wherein the collection cup comprises a cup wall (Bilinski; FIG. 1. 12, 34 illustrates container with a cup having edges 34) and a sifting part at bottom of the collection cup (Bilinski; fig. 1. 32 “drainage”), and wherein the sifting part comprises a plurality of holes (Bilinski; fig. 5. 66 “gaps”) to allow "liquid or soft feces to pass while preventing the capsule to pass; and
wherein the flange and the collection cup are made of rubber or rubber-alike materials (Bilinski; Page 5. Paragraph 3 “fastening member can be made of plastic”, and paragraph 4 “the container can be made of plastic”),
the flange is flexible to fold down and to bend up (Bilinski; Abstract “fastening member 14 is bendable in its symmetry axis 46); and
the cup wall is flexible to collapse under pressure applied to top of the collection cup and the bottom of the collection cup and to extend from collapsed state when a pull force is applied to the bottom of the collection cup (Bilinski; fig. 3. 12 illustrates the cup wall is flexible).
Regarding claim 2, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein the flange and the collection cup are made of a same material (Bilinski; Page 5. Paragraph 3 “fastening member can be made of plastic”, and paragraph 4 “the container can be made of plastic”).
Regarding claim 3, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein the flange comprises at least one bump on each of the two wings of the flange and distance between corresponding bumps of the two wings matches rim dimension of typical toilets (Bilinski; fig. 5. 54 and fig. 2A 54 illustrates the left and right wing comprising two outer most projections on opposing edges of member 14 corresponding to the rim 38 of toilet bowl 36).
Regarding claim 5, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein the flange has a thickness between 1mm and 6mm (Bilinski; page 5 paragraph 3 “fastening member 14 can be 1 mm thick”) .
Regarding claim 10, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein the plurality of holes has a shape of round, square, rectangle or triangular (Bilinski; fig. 5. 66 illustrates a round shape) .
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 4, 6-9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilinski (WO 2020111959 A1; hereinafter “Bilinski” previous of record).
Regarding claim 4, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 3 (see above) to include at least one bump (see above).
Bilinski fails to teach the height of the bumps including thickness of the flange is between 4mm and 12mm.
It would have been obvious to modify Bilinski’s bumps to have a height of between 4mm to 12mm including the thickness of the flange in order to match the gap dimensions between the rim and the toilet seat of typical toilets.
Regarding claim 6, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above) to include a flange (see above).
Bilinski fails to teach the flange has a length between 200mm and 500mm.
It would have been obvious to modify Bilinski’s flange to have a length between 200mm and 500mm in order to fit typical toilet seats.
Regarding claim 7, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above) to include a flange (see above).
Bilinski fails to teach the flange has a width between 40mm and 400mm.
It would have been obvious to modify Bilinski’s flange to have a length between 200mm and 500mm in order to fit typical toilet seats.
Regarding claim 8, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein the cup wall has a thickness between 0.2 mm and 4 mm (Bilinski; page 4, lines 6-7 “the container with a film thickness of 100 micrometers” or 0.1 mm).
Bilinski fails to teach the cup wall has a thickness between 0.2 mm and 4 mm.
However, Examiner notes that a thickness of 0.2 mm to 4 mm is so close to Bilinski’s 0.1mm that a skilled artisan would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties.
It would have been obvious to modify the cup to have a wall thickness of between 0.2 mm and 4 mm in order to prevent the cup bottom from collapsing after adding a sample.
Regarding claim 9, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 8 (see above), wherein the cup wall comprises one or more folding lines (Bilinski; fig. 5. 46 and page 5, paragraph 2 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 10 to include a plurality of holes (see above).
Bilinski fails to teach the plurality of holes is round with a diameter between 0.2mm and 12mm.
It would have been obvious to modify Bilinski’s plurality of holes to have a diameter between 0.2 mm and 12 mm in order to allow liquid or soft feces to pass while preventing the capsule recited in claim 1 above to pass through the plurality of holes.
Regarding claim 13, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above), wherein height of the collection cup at a fully extended state is between 10mm and 300mm.
Bilinski teaches the collection cup (container 12) hangs freely inside the toilet bowl without touching its bottom (Bilinski; page 5, paragraph 5 lines 5-6).
Bilinski does not explicitly teach the height of the collection cup at a fully extended state is between 10 mm and 300 mm.
It would have been obvious to include a collection cup with a fully extended height of between 10 mm and 300 mm in to prevent the container from touching the toilet bowl bottom to prevent sample contamination.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilinski (WO 2020111959 A1; hereinafter “Bilinski” previous of record) in view of Sydorsky (US 20140017720 A1; hereinafter “Sydorsky" previous of record).
Regarding claim 12, Bilinski teaches the collection pan of claim 1 (see above) to include a capture opening (see above).
Bilinski fails to teach the capture opening is round with a diameter between 40 mm and 400 mm.
However, Sydorsky teaches the analogous art of a device for collection of gastrointestinal microflora (Sidorsky; Title) that includes a capture opening that is round (Sidorsky; fig. 1. 104).
Sidorsky is silent to the capture opening having a diameter of between 40mm and 400mm.
It would have been obvious to include a capture opening having a diameter of between 40mm and 400mm in order to accommodate the passage of patients stool samples into the collection container.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Bilinski’s capture opening to be round as taught by Sidorsky because Sidorsky teaches a round capture opening.
The opening round shape allows for proper fitment of the collection container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at (571) 272-1267. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/JILL A WARDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798