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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 36 is 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.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the container support" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 36 depends from claim 33, but a container support was not disclosed until claim 34. For purposes of examination, claim 36 will be considered to depend from claim 34.
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.
Claim(s) 33 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (2016/0113809) in view of Chittenden et al. (3,690,315).
With respect to claim 33, Kim discloses a portable urine collection system, as shown in figures 1 and 3, comprising a urine collection device 11 capable of being positioned proximate to a urethra of a user, a conduit 13 in fluid communication with the collection device 11, a urine collection container 21 having an interior region and a generally planar bottom that is capable of being generally stable on a flat surface, a container cover 142 configured to detachably secure to the collection container 21, and a pump 23a, as shown in figure 4A, configured to pull a vacuum on the interior region of the collection container 21 to draw urine from the collection device 11 to the collection container 21 via conduit 13, as disclosed in paragraph [0102].
Kim discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the container cover having one or more securement elements configured to detachably secure to a wheelchair. Kim discloses in figure 16 and paragraph [0114] that the collection system is configured for mounting on a wheelchair, but does not disclose securement elements in the container cover. Chittenden discloses a urine collection system comprising a collection container having a cover, as shown in figure 4. The cover has securement elements 32 configured to detachably secure to a chair, as disclosed in column 3, lines 31-33. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container cover of Kim with one or more securement elements, as taught by Chittenden, to combine known prior art elements to achieve the predictable result of additional security when mounting the collection system of Kim on a wheelchair.
With respect to claim 40, Kim further discloses one or more locks 21e, as shown in figure 4B, which is a latch that locks onto locking ring 21e”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 16-18, 23, and 31-32 are allowed.
Claims 34-39 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: The closest prior art of record, Kim, does not disclose a container support having two opposing tracks configured to detachably mount to a wheelchair, wherein at least one of the container cover or collection container has two opposing slots sized to receive the tracks to detachably mount the container cover and collection container to the tracks. Instead Kim discloses a wheelchair mounting means comprising a tub body, as shown in figures 15 and 16, configured to mount to a wheelchair and hold the collection container inside the tub body. Chittenden does not remedy this because Chittenden discloses hooks for hanging on the rail of a chair, as shown in figure 4. Additional prior art made herein of record but not relied upon for any rejection, U.S. Patents 8,430,855 to Burgess et al. and 8,075,538 to Vernon, disclose portable urine collection systems for use with wheelchairs. However neither Burgess nor Vernon disclose opposing tracks mounted to a wheelchair and opposing slots in a collection system wherein the slots receive the tracks to detachably mount the system to the wheelchair. The prior art of record therefore does not disclose nor fairly suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents 8,430,855 and 8,075,538 disclose portable urine collection systems for use with wheelchairs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights