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
This action is responsive to communication filed on 04/17/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending, with claims 1-2 and 12-20 currently withdrawn, and claims 3 and 4 currently amended. Examiner note: Applicant has struck-through all the text of the withdrawn claims. It is unclear whether the claims are withdrawn-currently amended, withdrawn, or canceled. If withdrawn-currently amended, there would be no remaining text in the withdrawn claims, resulting in canceled claims. For the purpose of examination, since the claims are withdrawn, they are being treated as containing the struck-through language until formally canceled. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. The preamble is directed to a bowl member; however, the claim then goes on to state that the bowl member comprises a roller. A review of the specification shows that the roller is part of the agitator device, not the bowl member. Accordingly, it is unclear where infringement occurs since the claim is directed to a bowl member but then appears to recite a combination of an apparatus having at least a bowl member and agitator member. Examiner recommends further defining the agitator device as set forth in element (b) so that the roller is claimed to be part of the agitator device instead of the bowl member to overcome the rejection. Clarification is required. Claims 4-11 will inherit this same issue since they depend from the rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010-012077 A using attached machine translation (hereinafter Akiyama) in view of US 10,265,669 (hereinafter Ruberg).
Regarding claim 3, Akiyama discloses a bowl member (5) adapted for supporting waste in a portable toilet device including an agitator device (7) for causing mixing of a reagent with waste supported and contained by the bowl member (5), the bowl member comprising:
(a) a bowl wall (5) having a bowl shape (fig. 3) with an upward extending sidewall and a bottom joined to the sidewall (see fig. 3), the bowl sidewall terminating upwardly in a mounting rim (10);
(b) the bowl member being formed of a flexible
(c) a roller (13) engaging and depressing an exterior surface of the sidewall (fig. 1); the roller (13) operably being rotated axially about the bowl member sidewall by the agitator device (7) so as to swirl the waste in the bowl (translation pg. 3, par. 7); and
(d)
Akiyama fails to recite the flexible material is a polymer with a Shore durometer in a range of 5-80. Attention is turned to Ruberg in the same field of endeavor of flexible mixing containers having external agitators which teaches selecting a flexible polymer material having a Shore durometer of about 50-70 as a suitable material for the mixing container to achieve the desired function of stirring (col. 6, ln. 54-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a polymer having a Shore durometer in a range of 5-80 based on the suitability of its intended use as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Ruberg mentioned above.
Regarding claim 6, under the modification of Akiyama in view of Ruberg, Ruberg discloses (a) the bowl wall is formed from a viscoelastic material (vulcanized rubber; col. 6, ln. 55).
Regarding claim 7, under the modification of Akiyama in view of Ruberg, Ruberg discloses the bowl wall is formed from a rubber material (vulcanized rubber; col. 6, ln. 55).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Ruberg as applied to claims 3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of WO 2011012629 A1 (hereinafter Bianchi).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akiyama and Ruberg shows all in the instant invention as claimed but fails to show the roller (13) is a first roller, the bowl wall has a Shore durometer of about 35, and a second roller is joined to the agitator device and diagonally located opposite the first roller so as to rotate with the first roller.
Attention is first turned to Ruberg which shows including first and second agitator devices (33, 33.1) located diagonally across from one another in relation to the bowl circumference that move in sync with one another to provide uniform mixing (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a second roller joined to the agitator device and diagonally located opposite the first roller so as to rotate with the first roller to provide more uniform and even mixing as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings of Ruberg mentioned above.
Attention is now turned to Bianchi which teaches that selecting a material with a Shore durometer of about 35 is suitable for mixing container liners (pg. 3, ln. 1-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a material having a Shore durometer of about 35 for the bowl wall of Akiyama since the selection of a material based on the suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings of Bianchi mentioned above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Ruberg as applied to claims 3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of US Patent 10,264,932 (hereinafter Hibbs).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Akiyama and Ruberg shows all in the instant invention as claimed but fails to show (a) a sanitary bowl liner removably positioned within the bowl member for receiving and containing waste therein. Attention is turned to Hibbs which shows including a sanitary disposable liner (122) in a mixing container (128) for protecting the mixing elements from the material being mixed (col. 7, ln. 33-46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include a liner removably positioned within the bowl member to protect the mixing elements from contacting the material being mixed as evidenced by the teachings of Hibbs mentioned above.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Ruberg as applied to claims 3 and 6-7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0218287 (hereinafter Rowlands).
Regarding claims 8-11, the combination of Akiyama and Ruberg shows all in the instant invention as claimed but Ruberg is silent as to the type of rubber, and thus fails to show it is natural, synthetic, silicone, or neoprene. Attention is turned to Rowlands which shows that rubbers formed from natural, synthetic, silicone, or neoprene materials are functionally equivalent for creating flexible material walls (par. 198). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a rubber material that is natural, synthetic, silicone, or neoprene for the bowl wall of Ruberg since the selection of a material based on the suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the teachings of Rowland mentioned above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-11 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.
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 JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights