DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment dated 8/29/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, “mesh-like” is indefinite. The addition of “-like” to an otherwise definite term extends the scope of the term as to render it indefinite. How much “like” a mesh must the insert be? What does or does not infringe on this claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 7, and 9- 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbara (US 5,894,608) in view of Geisel (US 6,546,566) and Samsonov et al. (US 6,258,215).
Regarding claim 1, Birbara discloses a waste management system comprising a waste container (urine container, fig. 6)(62), a capture funnel (65, 16); and a hose (64) fluidly connecting to the waste container; the capture funnel comprises a funnel (16) having an inlet end (top) and an outlet end (17), the inlet end having a non-circular shape (col. 6, ln. 48-51, the inlet is deformable to a non-circular shape as shown in fig 4), a skirt (12) arranged at the inlet end.
Birbara does not show the particulars of the capture insert. Attention is turned to Geisel which teaches a similar portable urination system (10) having a funnel (34) with a capture insert (48) the capture insert comprises a mesh-like material (see fig. 3, 4) configured to capture liquid within a gap between the capture insert and an interior surface of the funnel to prevent the liquid from passing back through the capture insert and to direct the liquid toward the outlet end of the funnel. Note that the hydrophobic coating of the funnel inner surface (42) will encourage the urine to flow within the gap. It is additionally noted that this structure is substantially similar to the structure disclosed by applicant, and therefore, insofar as applicant’s device performs the claimed function, so too does Geisel.
Birbara does not show a reclamation system connected to the funnel. Attention is turned to Samsonov which teaches a similar waste management system having a urine capture portion (1) which is connected to a waste container (9, 10) and which is also connected to a water reclamation unit (II)(fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided a water reclamation unit in the device of Birbara in order to provide potable water in places where there is minimal or no water (Samsonov, col. 1, ln. 7-12).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Birbara shows that the funnel comprises at least one airflow aperture (19, 15) arranged to permit gases to pass therethrough and to prevent liquid from passing therethrough (col. 6, ln. 52- col. 7, ln. 21).
Regarding claim 4, Birbara shows that the skirt is formed form a flexible anti-microbial material (col. 6, ln. 46-47, the hydrophobic material is understood to inhibit growth of microbes, as evidenced by Geisel (US 6,546,566), col. 4, ln. 1-10).
Regarding claim 5, Birbara shows that the skirt (12) has the same non-circular shape as the inlet end (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Birbara shows the shape is saddle-shaped (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Birbara as modified shows that the capture insert is formed from a wicking. Note that mesh is understood to have wicking properties. See Girala (US 3,602,923), col. 3, ln. 25.
Regarding claim 9, Birbara as modified shows that the capture insert is separable and removable from the funnel (see gap illustrated in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 10, Birbara shows that the capture funnel includes a hose adapter (reduced diameter portion 17) configured to sealingly connect to the hose.
Regarding claim 11, Birbara also shows a fluid driver (motor fan assembly, fig. 6) arranged along the hose (fig. 10) and configured to generate a motive force through hose and through the capture funnel (col/ 7, ln. 58-63).
Regarding claim 12, Birbara also shows a fluid separation function arranged along the hose to separate liquid and gas (fig. 6, urine/air separator)(68).
Regarding claim 13, Birbara also shows that the waste container shows a removable container insert (63 from housing 62, constrained by 67).
Regarding claim14, Birbara as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, with Samsonov further providing that the system is configured for use in low gravity, see rejection of claim 1 above. See also https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-picked-winner-in-lunar-loo-space-toilet-challenge-2020-10 showing that centrifuges are usable in space and microgravity environments.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbara, Geisel, and Samsonov, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ron (US 2014/0094665).
Regarding claim 3, Birbara as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that that the skirt is adjustable between minimum and maximum deployment. Attention is turned to Ron which teaches a similar urine collection device (10) having a skirt (9) which is expandable (abstract) between minimum and maximum deployments (inflated or uninflated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an expandable skirt in the apparatus of Birbara in order to 1) allow for a more comfortable fit of the funnel against the skin and 2) to enable a better fit for users of varying anatomy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbara, Geisel, and Samsonov, as applied to claim 1, in view of Girala (US 3,602,923).
Regarding claim 8, Birbara as modified shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not specify that the insert is formed from a material which hydrophilic, hydrophobic, or combination thereof. Attention is turned to Girala which teaches a similar urine funnel having a mesh insert (25) which is made from stainless steel, which is understood by the ordinary artisan to be naturally hydrophilic. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing to have provided the insert of the device of Birbara as combined from stainless steel, since that is a material which is known to withstand the corrosive effects of urine.
Claim 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birbara, Geisel, and Ron.
Regarding claim 15, Birbara shows a capture funnel for use with a waste management system, the capture funnel comprises a funnel (16) having an inlet end (top) and an outlet end (17), the inlet end having a non-circular shape (col. 6, ln. 48-51, the inlet is deformable to a non-circular shape as shown in fig 4), a skirt (12) arranged at the inlet end, the funnel providing a wicking to capture and direct liquid toward the outlet end of the funnel (col. 6, ln. 46-47)(note that insofar as applicant defines wicking as hydrophobic, see para. [0038], Birbara shows a wicking ability as well).
Birbara does not show the particulars of the capture insert. Attention is turned to Geisel which teaches a similar portable urination system (10) having a funnel (34) with a capture insert (48) the capture insert comprises a mesh-like material (see fig. 3, 4) configured to capture liquid within a gap between the capture insert and an interior surface of the funnel to prevent the liquid from passing back through the capture insert and to direct the liquid toward the outlet end of the funnel. Note that the hydrophobic coating of the funnel inner surface (42) will encourage the urine to flow within the gap. It is additionally noted that this structure is substantially similar to the structure disclosed by applicant, and therefore, insofar as applicant’s device performs the claimed function, so too does Geisel.
Birbara does not show that that the skirt is adjustable between minimum and maximum deployment. Attention is turned to Ron which teaches a similar urine collection device (10) having a skirt (9) which is expandable (abstract) between minimum and maximum deployments (inflated or uninflated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have provided an expandable skirt in the apparatus of Birbara in order to 1) allow for a more comfortable fit of the funnel against the skin and 2) to enable a better fit for users of varying anatomy.
Regarding claim 16, Birbara shows that the skirt is formed form a flexible anti-microbial material (col. 6, ln. 46-47, the hydrophobic material is understood to inhibit growth of microbes, as evidenced by Geisel, col. 4, ln. 1-10).
Regarding claim 17, Birbara shows that the capture insert is formed from a hydrophobic material (col. 6, ln. 46-47)
Regarding claim 18, Birbara shows the shape is saddle-shaped (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Birbara shows that the funnel comprises at least one airflow aperture (19, 15) arranged to permit gases to pass therethrough and to prevent liquid from passing therethrough (col. 6, ln. 52- col. 7, ln. 21).
Regarding claim 20, Birbara shows that the capture funnel includes a hose adapter (reduced diameter portion 17) configured to sealingly connect to the hose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the gap and liquid capture have been addressed in the action above.
In response to applicant's argument that it is improper to modify Birbara with the mesh of Geisel owing to the urinal cake, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner notes that Geisel shows that the primary purpose of the screen is to prevent particulates from entering the collection system, and that a urinal cake can also be used, but is not required.
Applicant’s argument that the inner cone of Birbara being replaced with mesh would render the functionality of the inner core inoperable. 1) The new rejection of record contemplates adding a funnel insert to the device of Birbara for capturing debris; and 2) as noted above, insofar as applicant’s structure of the insert and the gap leads to the capture of urine as claimed; so too would the combined device of Birbara and Geisel.
Applicant is referred to the rejection above in response to the arguments about claim 14. The examiner additionally notes that the embodiment of claim figures 11 and 12 does not form a part of the rejection.
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 ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights