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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/20/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-9 being examined and claims 10-20 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 03/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 currently recites “fecal grinder assembly of claim 1” where it appears that “The” is missing at the front of the claim, and should be added.
Claim 9 similarly recites “fecal grinder assembly” where it appears that “The” is missing at the front of the claim, and should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidorsky (US-2016/0051445-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sidorsky teaches a fecal grinder assembly (stool collection and filtration container 1200) comprising ([0132], Figure 12):
a container (container 1204) defining an open interior volume ([0132], Figure 12);
a collection member comprising a filter portion (filter 1212) and a collection body (plunger 1216) extending from the filter portion (1212), a keyway extends through the filter portion (1212) and the collection body (1216) ([0132], Figure 12 where the filter 1212 and plunger 1216 are seen to have a hole to accept handle 1220, the hole being a keyway).
Figure 12 does not teach where the container defines a plurality of container teeth, and while there is a homogenizing plate 1208 this plate does not have a plurality of grinder teeth.
Figures 13A and 13B of Sidorsky show a device similar to the device 1200, where the container 1305 includes ridges 1305 on the base to assist in homogenization as they shear against the arms and rings of homogenizing plate 1308 as the homogenizing plate is rotated and plunged down ([0133]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the homogenizing plate seen in Figure 12 to be the homogenizing plate seen in Figure 13 as well as modifying the container seen in Figure 12 to include ridges because it is taught by Sidorsky that these ridges and plate assist homogenization (Sidorsky; [0133]).
It is understood that the homogenizing plate and ridges of the container of Figure 13 provide an improvement of homogenization over the homogenization plate seen in Figure 12, as the ridges will provide more surface area for breaking down material.
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., stool collection and filtration container) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., homogenization plate and container) with other component(s) (i.e., homogenization plate and container that both have ridges), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the homogenization plates seen in Figures 12 and 13 and the ridges on the bottom of the containers), and the results of the substitution (i.e., homogenization of sample) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the homogenization plate of Figure 12 with the homogenization plate of Figure 13, and further to include the ridges seen in Figure 13 in the container of Figure 12, since the result would have been predictable.
As seen in annotated Figure 13B below, the dashed arrow is pointing to one of the plurality of teeth of the homogenization plate 1308 that has a portion extending downward. The structure of the homogenization plate 1308 that the teeth are connected to is the base. The homogenization plate 1308 will be attached to the handle 1220 seen in Figure 12, the handle being a key that extends from the base. It is understood that the plunger plate and filter will be above the homogenizing plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Sidorsky teaches the fecal grinder assembly of claim 1. Figure 13 of Sidorsky further teaches wherein the base of the grinder comprises a top wall and a sidewall extending from the top wall, the sidewall circumscribing the plurality of grinder teeth, wherein a plurality of cutouts are formed in the sidewall.
The structure of the homogenization plate 1308 that the teeth are connected to being the base, as seen in Figure 13B has a top wall. Further, the outermost edges of each of the teeth together define a sidewall and the areas between the teeth are cutouts formed in the sidewall.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sidorsky teaches the fecal grinder assembly of claim 2. Figure 13 of Sidorsky further teaches wherein the plurality of cutouts are equidistantly spaced apart from one another along the sidewall of the grinder (annotated Figure 13B supra, where the spaces between each of the teeth (cutouts) are seen to be equidistantly spaced).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sidorsky teaches the fecal grinder assembly of claim 2. Figure 13 of Sidorsky further teaches wherein the top wall of the base of the grinder comprises a plurality of apertures formed therein and extending through the top wall (see Figures 13A and 13B where there are understood to be apertures through the homogenization plate).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sidorsky teaches the fecal grinder assembly of claim 1. Modified Sidorsky further teaches wherein rotation of the collection member when the key of the grinder is received within the keyway of the collection member causes the grinder to rotate within the open interior volume of the container.
As described by [0133] the homogenizing plate 1308 is rotated and plunged down, where this motion will now be conducted with the device seen in Figure 12. As the filter 1212 (filter portion) and plunger plate 1216 (collection body) are connected to both the handle 1220 and the homogenizing plate 1308 these components will similarly be rotated.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sidorsky (US-2016/0051445-A1) in view of Yamamoto (US-2006/0078474-A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sidorsky teaches the fecal grinder assembly of claim 2. Sidorsky does not teach wherein the key comprises a plurality of key portions extending from the top wall of the base of the grinder.
In the same problem solving area of breaking up a sample safely and efficiently, Yamamoto teaches a breaking-up stick (Yamamoto; [0001], [0043]).
Specifically, Yamamoto teaches where a breaking-up stick 20 is inserted into a breaking-up tube 11, and includes a pressing section 21d with protrusions 21g on the lower end surface 21f (Yamamoto; [0043], [0045], Figure 1). It is described in [0044] that the breaking-up stick 21 includes a handle 21a and connecting section 21c that connects to sample pressing section 21d, where the connecting section 21c is a column-shaped body made up of four plates spaced equally apart along a circumferential direction, but may be formed into other polygonal column-shapes.
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a handle) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., shape of the handle being columnar) with other component(s) (i.e., handle being made up of four plates), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., columnar shape for the four plates), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the filter, plunger, and homogenizing plate) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to substitute the column handle of reference Sidorsky with the four plates spaced equally apart along a circumferential direction of reference Yamamoto, since the result would have been predictable.
Therefore, the handle (key) will now have the four plate structure as seen in Figure 1 of Yamamoto, where each of the plates is a key portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art of record is Sidorsky. Currently the plunger plate 1216 seen in Figure 12 of Sidorsky is being mapped to the collection body, however the plunger plate is not seen to comprise a first conical portion extending from the filter portion, and a second conical portion extending from the first conical portion.
It would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the plunger plate of Sidorsky to have such first and second conical portions.
Claims 8-9 depend on claim 7 and would therefore be allowable by virtue of being dependent on claim 7. However please note the other claim objection for claim 9 as described above.
Other References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobler (US-6358474-B1) teaches a vessel 1 and an isolating device that includes an isolating disk 2 and actuating shaft 3, where the isolating disk includes a filter membrane 5 and grinding elements 6 (Dobler; column 4 lines 52-60, column 5 lines 5-17, Figure 1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights