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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, drawn to a device for on-site analysis of excrements of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 1/30/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) Prokopp does not teach the features of dependent claim 18 recites similar subject matter as claim 21 and Prokopp doesn’t teach those features; and (2) claim 24 depends from claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the traversal argues the wrong standards. First, unity of invention doesn’t consider the subject matter of dependent claims when considering lack of unity a posteriori (see MPEP 1850). Second, it does not matter if claim 24 depends from claim 1 because this isn’t U.S. restriction practice according to MPEP 800, but instead unity of invention under MPEP 1850. MPEP 1850 states that “any dependent claim could be considered as constituting in themselves an invention.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 21-30 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/30/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “A device.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Device” (line 1) should be “The device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an engagement element,” in claim 6, which has no corresponding structure; and “a linear pulling means,” in claim 15, which has no corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 6, the claim language “an engagement element” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the corresponding structure (and therefore the claimed subject matter) since the structure is not described. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 15, the claim language “a linear pulling mean,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the corresponding structure (and therefore the claimed subject matter) since the structure is not described. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the claim language “preferably elastically bendable” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether this is a required claim limitation or optional. The claim is examined under the latter interpretation.
For claim 1, the claim language “sensor arm which can be mounted on a holder at least partially bent” is ambiguous. Is the sensor arm or the holder “at least partially bent”? The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 1, the claim language “in particular for a sample carrier” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether this is required by the claim language or just a recitation of intended use of the claimed “device.” The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 1, the claim language “a retracted mounting position mounted at least partially bent on the holder” is ambiguous. What is mounted on the holder? The claim is examined as the sensor device.
For claim 1, the claim language “characterized in that the sensor arm is spaced by at least one spacing means from such portions of the holder in relation to which the sensor arm moves in the direction of its longitudinal displacement” is ambiguous. The examiner cannot figure out what this means and doesn’t have an inclination as to what it is supposed to mean. The examiner understand the sensor arm being spaced by the spacing means, but the “from such portions of the holder in relation to which the sensor arm moves in the direction of its longitudinal displacement” is just grammatically confusing.
For claim 6, the claim language “an engagement element” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim language is since the structure(s) that are supposed to be covered by the scope of this claim language appear to be missing. The claim is examined as any structure that is capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 15, the claim language “a linear pulling means” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim language is since the structure(s) that are supposed to be covered by the scope of this claim language appear to be missing. The claim is examined as any structure that is capable of performing the recited function.
Dependent claim(s) 2-20 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/096340 to Prokopp et al. (hereinafter “Prokopp”) (Examiner’s Note: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0172161 being relied upon as the English translation and reference herein made to that document).
For claim 1, Prokopp discloses a device for on-site analysis of excrements (Abstract) with a sensor device (Examiner’s Note: made up of the element(s) it comprises) by means of which an excrement sample can be detected at a measuring location and at least partially analyzed (para [0223]), the sensor device having a bendable, preferably elastically bendable, sensor arm (3) (Figs. 3-4 and 14) (para [0223]) which can be mounted on a holder (10) (Figs. 7 and 15, especially where both reference numeral “15” point to in Fig. 15) (para [0224]) at least partially bent (as can be seen in Figs. 7-8 and 14-15), in particular for a sample carrier displaceable in the longitudinal direction by means of an actuator (4, 20, and 38) (para [0226]-[0227]) between an extended measuring position bridging a distance between the holder and the measuring location for detecting the excrement sample (as can be seen in Fig. 14) and a retracted mounting position mounted at least partially bent on the holder (as can be seen in Figs. 3-4); characterized in that the sensor arm is spaced by at least one spacing means (25) (Figs. 7-8 and 14-15) (para [0226]) from such portions of the holder in relation to which the sensor arm moves in the direction of its longitudinal displacement (as can be seen in Figs. 7-8 and 14-15).
For claim 2, Prokopp further discloses the sensor arm is wire-shaped (as can be seen in Fig. 14).
For claim 12, Prokopp further discloses the one or an additional spacing means is a sheathing which envelops the sensor arm at least in portions and receives it so that it can slide in the longitudinal direction, an exterior of the sheathing being supported, preferably held, at the holder (as can be seen in Fig. 14).
For claim 14, Prokopp further discloses the actuator has at least one drive roller (58) (Fig. 1) (para [0227]) which cooperates with the sensor arm in a frictionally engaged manner in order to displace the latter between its extended measuring position and its retracted mounting position (para [0227], [0251], and [0253]).
For claim 17, Prokopp further discloses accommodated in a housing which can be fastened via a retention means to a toilet bowl for receiving the excrements (as can be seen in Figs. 14-15).
For claim 18, Prokopp further discloses a self-sealing cartridge for providing several sample carriers received in a cartridge housing (i.e., via 32) (para [0226]-[0227]) formed by a first housing half and a second housing half (42 and 93) (see Figs. 1-4), the first housing half and the second housing half being held so as to be displaceable relative to one another between a closed position (para [0179], [0244], and [0256]), in which the sample carriers accommodated in the cartridge housing are shielded, in particular hermetically shielded, from an external environment (para [0179], [0244], and [0256]), and a dispensing position, in which at least one of the sample carriers accommodated in the cartridge housing can be removed from the housing (para [0227]) (also see para [0293]-[0295]) (moreover, see more generally para [0234]-[0260]); and being biased into the closed position by a spring element (para [0227], [0241], and [0243]).
For claim 19, Prokopp further discloses the spring element is mounted at one end on the first housing half (see Figs. 1-2) and presses at the other end on a feed plunger displaceably mounted in the second housing half (see Figs. 1-2) (para [0227], [0241], and [0243]), which presses the sample carriers received in the cartridge housing against a housing wall of the second housing half (para [0227], [0241], and [0243]); in the region of the sample carrier resting against the housing wall, a dispensing window being provided in the second housing half for dispensing the sample carrier resting against the housing wall from the cartridge housing (para [0227]) (also see para [0293]-[0295]) (moreover, see more generally para [0234]-[0260]); in the closed position, the dispensing window being closed by a wall portion of the first housing half and in the dispensing position (para [0179], [0244], and [0256]), the dispensing window being uncovered to removably provide the sample carrier resting against the housing wall of the second housing half from the cartridge housing through the dispensing window (para [0227]) (also see para [0293]-[0295]) (moreover, see more generally para [0234]-[0260]).
For claim 20, Prokopp further discloses an entrance window is provided in the first housing half in the region of the sample carrier resting against the housing wall of the second housing half (para [0227]) (also see para [0293]-[0295]) (moreover, see more generally para [0234]-[0260]), which entrance window is closed in the closed position by a wall section of the second housing half and is uncovered in the dispensing position (para [0179], [0244], and [0256]) and arranged in such a way that by inserting an ejection plunger through the entrance window, the sample carrier, which rests against the housing wall of the second housing half, can be dispensed from the cartridge housing through the dispensing window (para [0227]) (also see para [0293]-[0295]) (moreover, see more generally para [0234]-[0260]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokopp in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,730,149 to Nakayama et al. (hereinafter “Nakayama”).
For claim 16, Prokopp does not expressly disclose accommodated in a housing which is a toilet seat that can be fastened to a toilet bowl for receiving the excrements.
However, Nakayama teaches accommodated in a housing which is a toilet seat that can be fastened to a toilet bowl for receiving excrements (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Prokopp to include accommodated in a housing which is a toilet seat that can be fastened to a toilet bowl for receiving the excrements, in view of the teachings of Nakayama, for the obvious advantage of integrating the different components so that fewer separate pieces need to be attached together making the device ready to go for use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-11, 13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791