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 Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 1: “An apparatus as claimed in claim 1” should read “The apparatus of claim 1”;
Claim 9, line 9: “… a means configured within the harness” should read “… a manipulating means configured within the harness”. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “… a means configured within the harness for manipulating the potential space” in claim 9, line 9.
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 only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The term “… a means configured within the harness for manipulating the potential space” is interpreted to be a component/structure that is on the harness that can manipulate/adjust the potential space, or the central strap, as described in claim 10, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Aronie discloses an apparatus for controlling the collection of fecal matter (system 10; Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph 0017) which comprises: a collapsible receptacle for collecting fecal matter (container 50; Figure 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0025-0026), wherein the collapsible receptacle is formed with an opening having a flexible periphery (container 50 with opening 53 and holding flap 52 that is flexible to be foldable and fit over the orifice; Figure 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0026 and 0028); a harness (Figure 1; Paragraph 0017), wherein the harness includes an arrangement of straps operable to create a potential space (strap 26, orifice 22, and straps 24a-24b make the potential space/opening; annotated Figure 2C below), wherein the potential space is reconfigurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (potential space/opening is fully capable of being reconfigured between an open and closed configuration since orifice 22 is made of flexible material; Paragraph 0020), 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 (container 50 with an opening 53 surrounded by a holding flap 52 dimensioned to have a fluid tight engagement, Figure 4 shows the holder 52 over the central strap which prevents fluid from escaping in between the two components, with the orifice 22 of the central strap around the potential space/opening between the upper grip and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below; Figures 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0025-0026); and a manipulating means configured within the harness 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 (central strap and manipulating means are equivalent; annotated Figure 2C below).
Regarding claim 10, Aronie discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Aronie further discloses wherein the manipulating means further comprises: an elongated central strap having a first end and a second end (strap 26 with orifice 22 is the elongated central strap with first and second end; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C below; Paragraph 0017) with a slit extending lengthwise there between to create a left half and a right half for the central strap (slit/lip 40 is opening at orifice 22 with left half of central strap on left side of orifice 22 and right side of central strap on right side of orifice 22; Paragraph 0020; Figure 2A; annotated Figure 2C below); 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 in constant contact at a first location of the central strap; annotated Figure 2C below); and a lower grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strip at a second location on the central strap (lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap in constant contact at a second location of the central strap; annotated Figure 2C below) to establish a separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip (separation distance between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below) and to create a potential space there between along the separation distance, and wherein the potential space is bounded by a left edge and a right edge between the upper grip and the lower grip (opening/potential space where outlet path 38 is present is between the separation distance and is bound by a left and right edge between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below).
Regarding claim 16, Aronie discloses a method for constructing an apparatus for controlling the collection of fecal matter (Abstract; Paragraph 0017) which comprises the steps of: providing a collapsible receptacle having an opening surrounded by a flexible perimeter (container 50 with opening 53 and holding flap 52 that is flexible to be foldable and fit over the orifice; Figure 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0026 and 0028); creating a harness (Figure 1; Paragraph 0017), wherein the harness includes an arrangement of straps operable to create a potential space (strap 26, orifice 22, and straps 24a-24b make the potential space/opening; annotated Figure 2C below), and wherein the potential space is reconfigurable between an open configuration and a closed configuration (potential space/opening is fully capable of being reconfigured between an open and closed configuration since orifice 22 is made of flexible material; Paragraph 0020); and engaging the flexible periphery of the collapsible receptacle with the harness to establish a fluid tight connection therewith around the potential space (container 50 with an opening 53 surrounded by a holding flap 52 dimensioned to have a fluid tight engagement, Figure 4 shows the holder 52 over the central strap which prevents fluid from escaping in between the two components, with the orifice 22 of the central strap around the potential space/opening between the upper grip and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below; Figures 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0025-0026).
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.
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) 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Chang (Patent No. US 5,593,389 A).
Regarding claim 1, Aronie teaches an apparatus for controlling the collection of fecal matter (system 10; Abstract; Figure 1; Paragraph 0017) which comprises: an elongated central strap (strap 26 with orifice 22 is the elongated central strap; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C below; Paragraph 0017) having a first end and a second end (strap 26 with orifice 22 has first and second end; Figure 1 and 2C) with a slit extending lengthwise there between to create a left half and a right half for the central strap (slit/lip 40 is opening at orifice 22 with left half of central strap on left side of orifice 22 and right side of central strap on right side of orifice 22; Paragraph 0020; Figure 2A; annotated Figure 2C below); 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 in constant contact at a first location of the central strap; annotated Figure 2C below); a lower grip for holding the left half of the central strap in constant contact with the right half of the central strip at a second location on the central strap (lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap in constant contact at a second location of the central strap; annotated Figure 2C below) to establish a separation distance between the upper grip and the lower grip (separation distance between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below), and to create a potential space there between along the separation distance and wherein the potential space is bounded by a left edge and a right edge between the upper grip and the lower grip (opening/potential space where outlet path 38 is present is between the separation distance and is bound by a left and right edge between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below); 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 (container 50 with an opening 53 surrounded by a holding flap dimensioned to have a fluid tight engagement, Figure 4 shows the holder 52 over the central strap which prevents fluid from escaping in between the two components, with the orifice 22 of the central strap around the potential space/opening between the upper grip and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C below; Figures 3A-3B and 4; Paragraph 0025-0026); a waist belt (waist strap 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0017); a back strap segment of the central strap for interconnecting the upper grip with the waist belt (strap 26 of central strap that connects the upper grip with the belt 15; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C below); a pair of leg straps for interconnecting the lower grip with the waist belt (straps 24a and 24b connect lower grip with belt 15; annotated Figure 2C below; Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
287
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2C
Aronie does not teach 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.
However, Chang teaches a pair of adjustable lateral straps (anchor straps 31 with commissure 46; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 9-34), with a left lateral strap interconnecting the left edge of the potential space with the waist belt (left anchor strap 31 connects between left edge of opening 21 and the waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34) and with a right lateral strap interconnecting the right edge of the potential space with the waist belt (right anchor strap 31 connects between right edge of opening 21 and waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34).
Aronie and Chang 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 Aronie to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have the lateral straps with the commissure of Chang connect between the waist belt and the right and left edge of the potential space of Aronie. This allows for the anchoring and stabilization of the device for waste collection with respect to the waist of the user (Chang; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 19-26 and Column 6, lines 25-29).
The combination of Aronie in view of Chang further teaches 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 (when device of Aronie in view of Chang is worn, the lateral straps of Chang is tensioned and is fully capable of opening the potential space to receive the fecal matter into the collection receptacle of Aronie, when device is not worn, lateral straps are not tensioned and would be fully capable of reducing the potential space for removal of fecal matter; Aronie; Paragraph 0020 – orifice 22 with potential space is made of flexible material which can be widened/shortened by external forces).
Regarding claim 2, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Aronie further teaches further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration (wipe 59 covers the potential space of orifice 22; Figure 5; Paragraph 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 11, Aronie discloses the apparatus of claim 10. Aronie further discloses further comprising: a waist belt (waist strap 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0017); a back strap segment of the central strap for interconnecting the upper grip with the waist belt (strap 26 of central strap that connects the upper grip with the belt 15; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C above); a pair of leg straps for interconnecting the lower grip with the waist belt (straps 24a and 24b connect lower grip with belt 15; annotated Figure 2C above; Figure 1). Aronie does not teach 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.
However, Chang teaches a pair of adjustable lateral straps (anchor straps 31 with commissure 46; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 9-34), with a left lateral strap interconnecting the left edge of the potential space with the waist belt (left anchor strap 31 connects between left edge of opening 21 and the waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34) and with a right lateral strap interconnecting the right edge of the potential space with the waist belt (right anchor strap 31 connects between right edge of opening 21 and waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34).
Aronie and Chang 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 Aronie to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have the lateral straps with the commissure of Chang connect between the waist belt and the right and left edge of the potential space of Aronie. This allows for the anchoring and stabilization of the device for waste collection with respect to the waist of the user (Chang; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 19-26 and Column 6, lines 25-29).
The combination of Aronie in view of Chang further teaches 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 (when device of Aronie in view of Chang is worn, the lateral straps of Chang is tensioned and is fully capable of opening the potential space to receive the fecal matter into the collection receptacle of Aronie, when device is not worn, lateral straps are not tensioned and would be fully capable of reducing the potential space for removal of fecal matter; Aronie; Paragraph 0020 – orifice 22 with potential space is made of flexible material which can be widened/shortened by external forces).
Regarding claim 12, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Aronie further teaches further comprising a protective covering adaptable to cover the potential space when the potential space is in an open configuration (wipe 59 covers the potential space of orifice 22; Figure 5; Paragraph 0027-0028).
Claim(s) 3-4, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Chang (Patent No. US 5,593,389 A), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hanuka et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0113810 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Aronie in view of Chang 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, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Aronie in view of Chang 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 13, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Aronie in view of Chang 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, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Aronie in view of Chang 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) 5-6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Chang (Patent No. US 5,593,389 A), as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Nazemi (Publication No. US 2021/0267787 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang does not teach wherein the protective covering is a cover selected from the group consisting of a paper fiber, a cloth fiber and a film.
However, Nazemi teaches that a wipe or toilet paper can be used to clean the patient when needed (Paragraph 0014). The wipe of Aronie also provides the same function of cleaning the patient (Paragraph 0027-0028).
Since the prior art of Nazemi recognizes the equivalency of wipes and toilet paper in the field of waste excretion devices, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the wipe of Aronie to be made of the toilet paper material of Nazemi, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent identifiers recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The combination of Aronie in view of Chang and Nazemi further teaches wherein the protective covering is a cover selected from the group consisting of a paper fiber, a cloth fiber and a film (toilet paper material of Nazemi is made of paper fiber and is located as wipe of Aronie; see combination above).
Regarding claim 6, Aronie in view of Chang and Nazemi teaches the apparatus of claim 5. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang and Nazemi further teaches wherein the protective covering is formed with a hole (Aronie; wipe 59 has a hole; Figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang does not teach wherein the protective covering is a cover selected from the group consisting of a paper fiber, a cloth fiber and a film.
However, Nazemi teaches that a wipe or toilet paper can be used to clean the patient when needed (Paragraph 0014). The wipe of Aronie also provides the same function of cleaning the patient (Paragraph 0027-0028).
Since the prior art of Nazemi recognizes the equivalency of wipes and toilet paper in the field of waste excretion devices, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the wipe of Aronie to be made of the toilet paper material of Nazemi, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent identifiers recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Chang (Patent No. US 5,593,389 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Missud (Patent No. US 3,656,459 A).
Regarding claim 7, Aronie in view of Chang teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang. This allows for the closure of the opening to dispose the feces (Missud; Column 4, lines 32-46).
Regarding claim 8, Aronie in view of Chang and Missud teaches the apparatus of claim 7. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang is the locking mechanism to hold the collapsed potential space in closed position for disposal; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Hanuka et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0113810 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Aronie discloses the method of claim 16. Aronie 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 as the potential space is reconfigured from the closed configuration to the open configuration.
However, Hanuka teaches further comprising the step of mounting a disperser on the flexible perimeter of the collapsible receptacle to secrete a liquid substance therefrom as the potential space is reconfigured from the closed configuration to the open configuration (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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang to incorporate the teachings of Hanuka to have the protective covering of Aronie in view of Chang 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 18, Aronie in view of Chang and Hanuka teaches the method of claim 17. The combination of Aronie in view of Chang 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) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Missud (Patent No. US 3,656,459 A).
Regarding claim 19, Aronie discloses the method of claim 16. Aronie 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 (strap 26 with orifice 22 is the elongated central strap with a slit/lip 40 is opening at orifice 22 with left half of central strap on left side of orifice 22 and right side of central strap on right side of orifice 22; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C above; Paragraph 0017 and 0020); 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 (upper grip holds the left and right half of the central strap in constant contact at a first location of the central strap; annotated Figure 2C 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 (lower grip holds the left and right half of the central strap in constant contact at a second location of the central strap and at a separation distance from the upper grip; annotated Figure 2C above), with the potential space between the upper grip and the lower grip (opening/potential space where outlet path 38 is present is between the separation distance and is between the upper and lower grip; annotated Figure 2C above). Aronie 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.
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).
Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang 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 Aronie in view of Chang. This allows for the closure of the opening to dispose the feces (Missud; Column 4, lines 32-46).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aronie (Publication No. US 2006/0095011 A1) in view of Missud (Patent No. US 3,656,459 A), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Chang (Patent No. US 5,593,389 A).
Regarding claim 20, Aronie in view of Missud teaches the method of claim 19. The combination of Aronie in view of Missud does not teach further comprising the steps of: affixing a left lateral strap to the left half of the central strap in the separation distance; and affixing a right lateral strap to the right half of the central strap in the separation distance to jointly counter the bias of the cinch and thereby create the open configuration of the potential space with respective applications of opposing forces on the left and right lateral straps.
However, Chang teaches further comprising the steps of: affixing a left lateral strap to the left half of the central strap in the separation distance (left anchor strap 31 connects between left edge of opening 21 and the waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34); and affixing a right lateral strap to the right half of the central strap in the separation distance (right anchor strap 31 connects between right edge of opening 21 and waist belt 32; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 22-34).
Aronie in view of Missud and Chang 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 Aronie in view of Missud to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have the lateral straps with the commissure of Chang connect between the waist belt and the right and left edge of the potential space and in the separation distance of Aronie in view of Missud. This allows for the anchoring and stabilization of the device for waste collection with respect to the waist of the user (Chang; Figure 7; Column 5, lines 19-26 and Column 6, lines 25-29).
The combination of Aronie in view of Missud and Chang further teaches to jointly counter the bias of the cinch and thereby create the open configuration of the potential space with respective applications of opposing forces on the left and right lateral straps (when device of Aronie in view of Missud and Chang is worn, the lateral straps of Chang is tensioned and is fully capable of opening the potential space to receive the fecal matter into the collection receptacle of Aronie, 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).
Regarding claim 21, Aronie in view of Missud and Chang teaches the method of claim 20. Aronie further teaches further comprising the steps of: providing a waist belt (waist strap 15; Figure 1; Paragraph 0017); interconnecting a back strap between the upper grip of the central strap with the waist belt (strap 26 of central strap that connects the upper grip with the belt 15; Figure 1; annotated Figure 2C above); and interconnecting a pair of leg straps between the lower grip of the central strap and the waist belt (straps 24a and 24b connect lower grip with belt 15; annotated Figure 2C above; Figure 1).
Conclusion
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
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781