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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/21/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 16-19 are pending. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 16-17, and 19 are amended. Claims 5-6, 15, and 20-21 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The amendment of claim 2 and claim 9 overcomes the claim objections of record. The claim objections of claim 2 and 9 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. More specifically, the claim amendments reciting how the potential space is bound by the right and left buttocks of the person in amended independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 19.
Though the same prior art reference is re-used herein, amended independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 required a change in the grounds of rejection relying on additional prior art as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 2-4, 7-8, 10-14, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The dependent claims should be formatting as the following example “The method/apparatus of claim __,”, where the word claim is lower case and a comma is placed after the claim number. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (Patent No. US 3,577,989 A1) in view of Snyder (Patent No. US 3,447,536 A).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an apparatus for controlling the collection of fecal matter feces from a person suffering from fecal incontinence (bag 10 used for collecting fecal matter from a patient who is incontinent; Figure 7; Column 3, lines 54-58) which comprises:
an elongated central strap having a first end and a second end (flange 22/elongate central strap having a first end 102 and second end 100; Column 4, lines 36-45; annotated Figure 9 below) with a slit extending lengthwise there between to create a left half and a right half for the central strap (elongated opening 92 inbetween first end 102 and second end 100 to create a left and right half of the central strap 22; annotated Figure 9 below; Column 4, lines 36-45);
an upper grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a first location on the central strap (upper grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a first position; annotated Figure 9 below);
a lower grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a second location on the central strap (lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a second position; annotated Figure 9 below) to establish a separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip (upper grip and lower grip are at a separation distance; annotated Figure 9 below) and to create a potential space there between along the separation distance (size of opening 92 is the potential space between and along the separation distance, such as the potential space when the bag is closed in Figure 4 versus when the bag is worn on the buttocks of the user in Figure 7; Column 3, lines 45-69), and wherein the potential space is bounded by a left edge and a right edge between the upper grip and the lower grip (potential space is bounded when the bag 20 is worn by the user and has a left and right edge between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 9 below; Figure 7; Column 3, lines 54-69);
a collapsible collection receptacle having an opening surrounded by a flexible periphery dimensioned for a fluid tight engagement with the central strap around the potential space between the upper grip and the lower grip (sack 24 is collapsible, Figure 4, and has an opening that has a flexible periphery, since the sack is made of a flexible plastic material, that is attached to flange 22 between layers 84/86 for a fluid tight engagement between the central strap 22 around the potential space of the opening 92 between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 9 below; Column 3, lines 58-61 and Column 3, line 70 to Column 4, line 13),
a waist belt (waist belt 112; Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7);
a back strap segment of the central strap for interconnecting the upper grip with the waist belt (strap 109 connects upper grip with belt 112; Column 4, lines 46-52; annotated Figure 9 below; Figure 7);
a pair of leg straps for interconnecting the lower grip with the waist belt (pair of leg straps 108 connects lower grip to waist belt 112; Figure 7; annotated Figure 9 below; Column 4, lines 46-52). Anderson does not teach wherein the potential space is bounded by the right buttock in apposition to the left buttock of the person, a pair of adjustable lateral straps, with a left lateral strap interconnecting the left edge of the potential space with the waist belt and with a right lateral strap interconnecting the right edge of the potential space with the waist belt, wherein adjustments of the lateral straps are alternately tensioned to open the potential space and receive fecal matter into the collection receptacle and relaxed to close the potential space and thereby collapse the potential space for removal of fecal matter.
However, Snyder teaches a pair of adjustable lateral straps (intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11), with a left lateral strap interconnecting the left edge of the potential space with the waist belt (left intermediate strap connects the left edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11) and with a right lateral strap interconnecting the right edge of the potential space with the waist belt (right intermediate strap connects the right edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11).
Anderson and Snyder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Snyder and have the pair of adjustable lateral straps with the adjustable attachments of Snyder to be connected between the left and right edge of the potential space and the waist belt of Anderson, around the buttocks of the user. This would allow for the device to be stabilized against the body of the user and ensure that the apparatus is in the proper position (Snyder; Column 3, lines 5-11).
The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder further teaches wherein the potential space is bounded by the right buttock in apposition to the left buttock of the person (potential space/size of opening 92 of Anderson extend between the left and right buttocks of the user and are bounded by the right and left buttocks of the person through the intermediate straps 11 of Snyder since the intermediate straps of Snyder pulls on the flexible flange 22 when the user wears the apparatus; see combination above), wherein adjustments of the lateral straps are alternately tensioned to open the potential space and receive fecal matter into the collection receptacle and relaxed to close the potential space and thereby collapse the potential space for removal of fecal matter (Snyder; intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt – obvious that the adjustment of the straps 11 to tension the opening 92 of Anderson will increase the size of the opening 92/potential space, where the lack of tension and removal of the apparatus from the body will allow for the closure of the potential space for removal of feces in the apparatus of Anderson; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11; see combination above).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches an apparatus for controlling the collection of feces from a person suffering from fecal incontinence (bag 10 used for collecting fecal matter from a patient who is incontinent; Figure 7; Column 3, lines 54-58) which comprises:
a collapsible receptacle for collecting fecal matter, wherein the collapsible receptacle is formed with an opening having a flexible periphery (sack 24 is collapsible, Figure 4, and has an opening that has a flexible periphery, since the sack is made of a flexible plastic material, that is attached to flange 22 between layers 84/86 for a fluid tight engagement between the central strap 22 around the potential space of the opening 92; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 3, lines 58-61 and Column 3, line 70 to Column 4, line 13);
a harness (harness includes flange 22, waist belt, strap 109, and leg straps 108; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45 and Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7), wherein the harness includes an arrangement of straps operable to create a potential space (harness comprises straps including flange 22, waist belt, strap 109, and leg straps 108 and potential space is the size of the opening 92 that changes between an open and closed position; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45 and Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7), wherein the potential space is reconfigurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (size of opening 92 is the potential space between and along the separation distance, such as the potential space when the bag is closed in Figure 4 versus when the bag is worn on the buttocks of the user in Figure 7; Column 3, lines 45-69), and wherein the harness is engaged with the flexible periphery of the collapsible receptacle to establish a fluid tight connection therewith around the potential space (sack 24 is collapsible, Figure 4, and has an opening that has a flexible periphery, since the sack is made of a flexible plastic material, that is attached to flange 22 between layers 84/86 for a fluid tight engagement between the central strap 22 around the potential space of the opening 92; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 3, lines 58-61 and Column 3, line 70 to Column 4, line 13). Anderson does not teach wherein the potential space includes tissues in apposition and
adjustable lateral straps for manipulating the potential space to open the potential space for receiving fecal matter into the collection receptacle, and to close the potential space for removing the collection receptacle from the harness.
However, Snyder teaches adjustable lateral straps (intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11).
Anderson and Snyder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Snyder and have the pair of adjustable lateral straps with the adjustable attachments of Snyder to be connected between the left and right edge of the potential space and the waist belt of Anderson, around the buttocks of the user. This would allow for the device to be stabilized against the body of the user and ensure that the apparatus is in the proper position (Snyder; Column 3, lines 5-11).
The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder further teaches wherein the potential space includes tissues in apposition (potential space/size of opening 92 of Anderson extend between the left and right buttocks of the user and are bounded by the right and left buttocks of the person through the intermediate straps 11 of Snyder since the intermediate straps of Snyder pulls on the flexible flange 22 when the user wears the apparatus; see combination above) and
the adjustable lateral straps for manipulating the potential space to open the potential space for receiving fecal matter into the collection receptacle, and to close the potential space for removing the collection receptacle from the harness (Snyder; intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt – obvious that the adjustment of the straps 11 to tension the opening 92 of Anderson will increase the size of the opening 92/potential space, where the lack of tension and removal of the apparatus from the body will allow for the closure of the potential space for removal of feces in the apparatus of Anderson; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11; see combination above).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Anderson further teaches wherein the harness further comprises: wherein the harness further comprises:
an elongated central strap having a first end and a second end (Anderson; flange 22/elongate central strap having a first end 102 and second end 100; Column 4, lines 36-45; annotated Figure 9 above) with a slit extending lengthwise there between to create a left half and a right half for the central strap (Anderson; elongated opening 92 inbetween first end 102 and second end 100 to create a left and right half of the central strap 22; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45);
an upper grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a first location on the central strap (Anderson; upper grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a first position; annotated Figure 9 above); and
a lower grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a second location on the central strap (Anderson; lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a second position; annotated Figure 9 above) to establish a separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip (Anderson; upper grip and lower grip are at a separation distance; annotated Figure 9 above) and to create a potential space there between along the separation distance (Anderson; size of opening 92 is the potential space between and along the separation distance, such as the potential space when the bag is closed in Figure 4 versus when the bag is worn on the buttocks of the user in Figure 7; Column 3, lines 45-69), and wherein the potential space is bounded by the tissues in apposition and a left edge and a right edge between the upper grip and the lower grip (Anderson; potential space is bounded when the bag 20 is worn by the user and has a left and right edge between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 9 above; Figure 7; Column 3, lines 54-69).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the apparatus of claim 10. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder further teaches further comprising:
a waist belt (Anderson; waist belt 112; Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7);
a back strap segment of the central strap for interconnecting the upper grip with the waist belt (Anderson; strap 109 connects upper grip with belt 112; Column 4, lines 46-52; annotated Figure 9 above; Figure 7);
a pair of leg straps for interconnecting the lower grip with the waist belt (Anderson; pair of leg straps 108 connects lower grip to waist belt 112; Figure 7; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 46-52); and
a pair of adjustable lateral straps (Snyder; intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11), with a left lateral strap interconnecting the left edge of the potential space with the waist belt (Snyder; left intermediate strap connects the left edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11) and with a right lateral strap interconnecting the right edge of the potential space with the waist belt (Snyder; right intermediate strap connects the right edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11), wherein adjustments of the lateral straps are alternately tensioned to open the potential space and receive fecal matter into the collection receptacle and relaxed to close the potential space and thereby collapse the potential space for removal of the collection receptacle (Snyder; intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt – obvious that the adjustment of the straps 11 to tension the opening 92 of Anderson will increase the size of the opening 92/potential space, where the lack of tension and removal of the apparatus from the body will allow for the closure of the potential space for removal of feces in the apparatus of Anderson; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11; see rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson teaches a method for constructing an apparatus for controlling the collection of fecal matter (bag 10 used for collecting fecal matter from a patient who is incontinent; Figure 7; Column 3, lines 54-58) which comprises the steps of:
providing a collapsible receptacle having an opening surrounded by a flexible perimeter (sack 24 is collapsible, Figure 4, and has an opening that has a flexible periphery, since the sack is made of a flexible plastic material, that is attached to flange 22 between layers 84/86 for a fluid tight engagement between the central strap 22 around the potential space of the opening 92 between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 3, lines 58-61 and Column 3, line 70 to Column 4, line 13);
creating a harness (harness includes flange 22, waist belt, strap 109, and leg straps 108; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45 and Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7), wherein the harness includes an arrangement of straps operable to create a potential space (harness comprises straps including flange 22, waist belt, strap 109, and leg straps 108 and potential space is the size of the opening 92 that changes between an open and closed position; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45 and Column 4, lines 46-52; Figure 7), and wherein the potential space is reconfigurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (size of opening 92 is the potential space between and along the separation distance, such as the potential space when the bag is closed in Figure 4 versus when the bag is worn on the buttocks of the user in Figure 7; Column 3, lines 45-69);
engaging the flexible periphery of the collapsible receptacle with the harness to establish a fluid tight connection therewith around the potential space (sack 24 is collapsible, Figure 4, and has an opening that has a flexible periphery, since the sack is made of a flexible plastic material, that is attached to flange 22 between layers 84/86 for a fluid tight engagement between the central strap 22 around the potential space of the opening 92; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 3, lines 58-61 and Column 3, line 70 to Column 4, line 13). Anderson does not teach wherein the potential space includes tissues in apposition and
adding adjustable lateral straps for manipulating the potential space; and
applying lateral forces to the adjustable lateral straps to open the potential space for receiving fecal matter into the receptacle.
However, Snyder teaches adding adjustable lateral straps (intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11).
Anderson and Snyder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Snyder and have the pair of adjustable lateral straps with the attachments of Snyder to be connected between the left and right edge of the potential space and the waist belt of Anderson, around the buttocks of the user. This would allow for the device to be stabilized against the body of the user and ensure that the apparatus is in the proper position (Snyder; Column 3, lines 5-11).
The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder further teaches wherein the potential space includes tissues in apposition (potential space/size of opening 92 of Anderson extend between the left and right buttocks of the user and are bounded by the right and left buttocks of the person through the intermediate straps 11 of Snyder since the intermediate straps of Snyder pulls on the flexible flange 22 when the user wears the apparatus; see combination above) and
adding the adjustable lateral straps for manipulating the potential space (see combination above); and
applying lateral forces to the adjustable lateral straps to open the potential space for receiving fecal matter into the receptacle (Snyder; intermediate straps 11 that fit around the buttocks of the user and are adjustable by the location in which the straps are attached to the waist belt – obvious that the adjustment of the straps 11 to tension the opening 92 of Anderson will increase the size of the opening 92/potential space, where the lack of tension and removal of the apparatus from the body will allow for the closure of the potential space for removal of feces in the apparatus of Anderson; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 43-64 and Column 3, lines 5-11; see combination above).
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (Patent No. US 3,577,989 A1) in view of Snyder (Patent No. US 3,447,536 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Acosta (Publication No. US 2019/0314189 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder does not teach further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration.
However, Acosta teaches further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space (first sheath 1140 covers the opening of the second sheath 1150 and is made of a dressing material; Paragraph 0062; Figure 11).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Acosta and have the second sheath of Acosta attached over the potential space of Anderson in view of Snyder. This would allow for the removal of waste away from the user while protecting the skim of the user (Acosta; Paragraph 0062). The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta further teaches further comprising the protective covering adaptable to cover the right buttock in apposition to the left buttock of the person and the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration (protective cover of Acosta is to cover the potential space in an open configuration of Anderson in view of Snyder and the area between the right and the left buttock; see combination above).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder does not teach further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration.
However, Acosta teaches further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space (first sheath 1140 covers the opening of the second sheath 1150 and is made of a dressing material; Paragraph 0062; Figure 11).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Acosta and have the second sheath of Acosta attached over the potential space of Anderson in view of Snyder. This would allow for the removal of waste away from the user while protecting the skim of the user (Acosta; Paragraph 0062). The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta further teaches protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration (protective cover of Acosta is to cover the potential space in an open configuration of Anderson in view of Snyder and the area between the right and the left buttock; see combination above).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (Patent No. US 3,577,989 A1) in view of Snyder (Patent No. US 3,447,536 A) and Acosta (Publication No. US 2019/0314189 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hanuka et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0113810 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta does not teach wherein the protective covering is a layer selected from the group consisting of an ointment, a gel, an oil, a cream and a topical medicament.
However, Hanuka teaches wherein the protective covering is a layer selected from the group consisting of an ointment, a gel, an oil, a cream and a topical medicament (gel, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to be a layer of gel, such as petroleum jelly, as taught by Hanuka. This allows for the reduction of irritation between the skin and the device and form a barrier to prevent waste from leaving/entering (Hanuka; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta does not teach wherein the protective covering is a barrier selected from the group consisting of a wax and a petroleum derivation.
However, Hanuka teaches wherein the protective covering is a barrier selected from the group consisting of a wax and a petroleum derivation (gel, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta and Hanuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to have a layer of gel, such as petroleum jelly, as taught by Hanuka. This allows for the reduction of irritation between the skin and the device and form a barrier to prevent waste from leaving/entering (Hanuka; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta does not teach wherein the protective covering is a layer selected from the group consisting of an ointment, a gel, an oil, a cream and a topical medicament.
However, Hanuka teaches wherein the protective covering is a layer selected from the group consisting of an ointment, a gel, an oil, a cream and a topical medicament (gel, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta and Hanuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to be a layer of gel, such as petroleum jelly, as taught by Hanuka. This allows for the reduction of irritation between the skin and the device and form a barrier to prevent waste from leaving/entering (Hanuka; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta does not teach wherein the protective covering is a barrier selected from the group consisting of a wax and a petroleum derivative.
However, Hanuka teaches wherein the protective covering is a barrier selected from the group consisting of a wax and a petroleum derivative (gel, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta and Hanuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to be a layer of gel, such as petroleum jelly, as taught by Hanuka. This allows for the reduction of irritation between the skin and the device and form a barrier to prevent waste from leaving/entering (Hanuka; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (Patent No. US 3,577,989 A1) in view of Snyder (Patent No. US 3,447,536 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Acosta (Publication No. US 2019/0314189 A1), and Hanuka et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0113810 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the method of claim 16. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder does not teach further comprising the step of mounting a disperser on the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle to secrete a liquid substance therefrom in response to the lateral forces as the potential space is reconfigured from the closed configuration to the open configuration.
However, Acosta teaches further comprising the step of mounting the disperser on the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle (first sheath 1140 covers the opening of the second sheath 1150 and is made of a dressing material; Paragraph 0062; Figure 11).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of waste collection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Acosta and have the second sheath of Acosta attached over the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle of Anderson in view of Snyder. This would allow for the removal of waste away from the user while protecting the skim of the user (Acosta; Paragraph 0062). The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta does not teach further comprising the step of mounting the disperser on the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle to secrete a liquid substance therefrom.
However, Hanuka teaches further comprising the step of mounting the disperser on the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle to secrete a liquid substance therefrom (gel, which is a liquid substance, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta and Hanuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the disperser of Anderson in view of Snyder and Acosta to have a layer of gel, such as petroleum jelly, as taught by Hanuka. This allows for the reduction of irritation between the skin and the device and form a barrier to prevent waste from leaving/entering (Hanuka; Paragraph 0146 and 0172).
The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder, Acosta, and Hanuka further teaches to secrete a liquid substance in response to the lateral forces as the potential space is reconfigured from the closed configuration to the open configuration (when potential space of Anderson in view of Snyder is in the open position, the gel of Hanuka is dispersed across the disperser of Acosta; see combination above).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson in view of Snyder, Acosta, and Hanuka teaches the method of claim 17. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder, Acosta, and Hanuka further teaches wherein the liquid substance is selected from the group consisting of an ointment, a gel, an oil, a cream, a topical medicament, a wax and a petroleum derivative (Hanuka; gel, which is a liquid substance, such as petroleum jelly, is applied around the aperture between the contact of skin and the device; Paragraph 0146 and 0172; see rejection of claim 17 above).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (Patent No. US 3,577,989 A1) in view of Snyder (Patent No. US 3,447,536 A), as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Missud (Patent No. US 3,656,459 A).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder does not teach further comprising a cinch interconnecting the left edge with the right edge of the potential space at a point intermediate the separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip to bias the lateral straps to collapse the potential space.
However, Missud teaches further comprising a cinch interconnecting the left edge with the right edge of the potential space at a point intermediate the separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip to bias the lateral straps to collapse the potential space (drawstring 52 connects the left and right edge of opening at a point between the upper and lower edge to close the opening; Figure 2 and 4; Column 4, lines 32-47).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Missud to have the cinch of Missud be applied to the perimeter of the left edge and right edge of the potential space between the upper grip and lower grip of Anderson in view of Snyder. This allows for the closure of the opening to dispose the feces (Missud; Column 4, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud teaches the apparatus of claim 7. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud further teaches further comprising a locking mechanism to hold the collapsed potential space in a closed position for sanitary disposal (frictional force of the drawstring of Missud attached to the left and right edge of the potential space of Anderson in view of Snyder is the locking mechanism to hold the collapsed potential space in closed position for disposal; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson in view of Snyder teaches the method of claim 16. The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder further teaches further comprising the steps of:
splitting an elongated central strap of the harness lengthwise to create a left half and a right half (Anderson; elongated opening 92 inbetween first end 102 and second end 100 to create a left and right half of the central strap 22; annotated Figure 9 above; Column 4, lines 36-45);
engaging an upper grip with the central strap for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a first location (Anderson; upper grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a first position; annotated Figure 9 above);
engaging a lower grip with the central strap for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strap at a separation distance from the upper grip (Anderson; lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap at a second position to form a separation distance between the upper grip and lower grip; annotated Figure 9 above), with the potential space between the upper grip and the lower grip (Anderson; size of opening 92 is the potential space between and along the separation distance, such as the potential space when the bag is closed in Figure 4 versus when the bag is worn on the buttocks of the user in Figure 7; Column 3, lines 45-69);
affixing a left lateral strap to the left half of the central strap within the separation distance (Snyder; left intermediate strap connects the left edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11; see rejection of claim 16 above – left lateral strap of Snyder is connected to left half of central strap at the potential space of Anderson);
affixing a right lateral strap to the right half of the central strap within the separation distance (Snyder; right intermediate strap connects the right edge of the space formed by the groin strap 13 to the waist belt 10; Figure 2; Column 3, lines 5-11; ; see rejection of claim 16 above – right lateral strap of Snyder is connected to right half of central strap at the potential space of Anderson). The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder does not teach employing a cinch to interconnect the right half of the central strap with the left half of the central strap at a point in the potential space intermediate the upper grip and the lower grip to bias the potential space toward the closed configuration wherein the left lateral strap and the right lateral strap apply opposing forces on the respective left and right halves of the central strap that counteract the bias of the cinch to maintain the potential space in an open configuration under force equilibrium conditions.
However, Missud teaches employing a cinch to interconnect the right half of the central strap with the left half of the central strap at a point in the potential space intermediate the upper grip and the lower grip to bias the potential space toward the closed configuration (drawstring 52 connects the left and right edge of opening at a point between the upper and lower edge to close the opening; Figure 2 and 4; Column 4, lines 32-47).
Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external waste collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anderson in view of Snyder to incorporate the teachings of Missud to have the cinch of Missud be applied to the perimeter of the left edge and right edge of the potential space between the upper grip and lower grip of Anderson in view of Snyder. This allows for the closure of the opening to dispose the feces (Missud; Column 4, lines 32-46).
The combination of Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud further teaches wherein the left lateral strap and the right lateral strap apply opposing forces on the respective left and right halves of the central strap that counteract the bias of the cinch to maintain the potential space in an open configuration under force equilibrium conditions (when device of Anderson in view of Snyder and Missud is worn, the lateral straps of Snyder is adjustably tensioned and is fully capable of opening the potential space to receive the fecal matter into the collection receptacle of Anderson, against the cinch of Missud; Paragraph 0020 – orifice 22 with potential space is made of flexible material which can be widened/shortened by external forces; see rejection of claim 16 above).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights