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
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 13 January 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention III, claims 16-20, in the reply filed on 13 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to identify any mutually exclusive features between Inventions I and II; the Office has failed to show how the inventions I and II are not capable of use together, or have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; the Office failed to identify any mutually exclusive features between Inventions I and III; the Office failed to describe a materially different apparatus for practicing the method of Invention III.
This is not found persuasive because page 2 of the Election/Restriction action dated 13 November 2025 details the mutually exclusive features between Inventions I and II being the bell shape superhydrophobic passage of invention I. The bell shape superhydrophobic passage is not claimed to be an expansion chamber. Invention II requires a superhydrophobic expansion chamber. The superhydrophobic expansion chamber is not required to have a bell shape. Furthermore, Invention II also requires a user interface, a collapsible bag, and a superhydophilic vane structure, all of which is not required by Invention I. Thus, Invention I and II have a materially different design. Applicant further agrees that Invention I and II are not obvious variants.
Page 3 of the Election/Restriction action dated 13 November 2025 further details the mutually exclusive features between Inventions I and III, and II and III. No arguments or evidence was presented to dispute the mutually exclusive features.
Pages 3-4 of the Election/Restriction action dated 13 November 2025 lists the search burden. The Office is not required to provide specific examples to support its assertion of a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton (US 20180353020 A1) in view of Siddiqui (US 20250134696 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Stapleton discloses a method for passively directing liquid ("selectively control fluid flow through the inlet" Abstract), comprising:
receiving liquid at a first end ("inlet 112" [0018]; FIG. 3) of a expansion chamber ("bellows 110" [0018]);
propelling the liquid away from the first end using the expansion chamber, where the expansion chamber enables self-propelling of the liquid from the first end to a second end of the expansion chamber ("volume changes affect the pressure within the internal chamber 115, which causes fluid, such as urine, to be entrained and expelled" [0018]);
directing liquid out of the second end of the expansion chamber ("allow fluid flow out of the bellows 110 via the outlet 114" [0019]); and
releasing gas from the expansion chamber via a plurality of vent holes at the second end of the expansion chamber ("permits the entrained fluid (i.e., air and urine) to be expelled through the second valve 140" [0022]).
Stapleton fails to specify that the expansion chamber is superhydrophobic. However, Siddiqui teaches a fluid collection assembly 100 ([0027]; FIG. 1B) wherein the expansion chamber (“chamber 104” [0027]) is superhydrophobic (“inner layer 112 may be hydrophobic” [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stapleton to incorporate the teachings of Siddiqui to help “limit absorption, adsorption, and solubility of the bodily fluids”, thereby “decreasing the amount of bodily fluids held” by the device ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, Stapleton fails to specify the liquid is directed away from walls of the superhydrophobic expansion chamber by the superhydrophobic material. However, Siddiqui teaches the liquid is directed away from walls of the superhydrophobic expansion chamber by the superhydrophobic material ("inner layer 112 may be hydrophobic" [0057]; NOTE: all liquid are inherently directed away from hydrophobic walls). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Stapleton to incorporate the teachings of Siddiqui to help “limit absorption, adsorption, and solubility of the bodily fluids”, thereby “decreasing the amount of bodily fluids held” by the device ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 18, Stapleton discloses the method is operated in a reduced- or low-gravity environment ("microgravity urine collection apparatus" [0003]).
Regarding Claim 20, Stapleton discloses gas from the collapsible bag is displaced by wicking of the liquid to the tapered end of the collapsible bag, and is released from the collapsible bag via an annular perforated superhydrophobic screen ("hydrophobic membrane disposed within the housing between the bellows outlet and the housing outlet. The microgravity urine storage apparatus may further include a vapor filter disposed within the housing between the hydrophobic membrane and the housing outlet. The vapor filter may be a charcoal filter. The charcoal filter may absorb odors, and trap small amounts of urine that may pass through the hydrophobic membrane" [0007]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton in view of Siddiqui, and further in view of Kriscovichet al. (US 20220313474 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Stapleton discloses directing liquid out of the second end of the superhydrophobic expansion chamber further comprises directing the liquid into a container (“expulsion of urine and air from the first bellows 110 to inlet 212 of the housing 210” [0026]; FIG. 5) but fails to specify the remaining limitations. Siddiqui teaches the container is a collapsible bag ("fluid storage container 562 may include a bag" [0118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Stapleton such that the container is a bag, as taught by Siddiqui to suitably store the drained bodily fluids ([0118]).
Stapleton/Siddiqui fails to specify the remaining limitations. However, Kriscovichet teaches a fluid collection device 100 ([0022]; FIG. 1A) comprising a superhydrophilic composite bag liner ("hydrophilic coating 258 on the strips of wicking material 256" [0040]; FIG. 2B) and a superhydrophilic vane structure ("strips of additional wicking material 256, such as strips 256a, 256b, 256n" [0040]; FIG. 2B), and wicking the liquid to a tapered end of the collapsible bag using the superhydrophilic composite bag liner and the superhydrophilic vane structure ("increases along direction of the flow of fluid" [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Stapleton/Siddiqui as taught by Siddiqui to suitably “provide a continued, capillary draw for the fluid to flow” ([0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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 E. 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.
/Adam Marcetich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781