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Claims 1-2 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/11/2025.
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) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,265,669 (hereinafter Ruberg).
Regarding claim 3, Ruberg discloses a bowl member (3) for supporting waste in a portable toilet device including an agitator device for causing mixing of a reagent with waste supported by the bowl member (bowl member of Ruberg is capable of performing the recited function due to the structure as disclosed below), the bowl member comprising:
(a) a bowl wall (18, 19) having a bowl shape (fig. 3) and terminating upwardly in a mounting rim (17);
(b) the bowl member being formed of a flexible polymer material (vulcanized rubber; col. 6, ln. 55) able to withstand repeated flexure of the wall by contact of an agitator device therewith (fig. 5; col. 8, ln. 10-34); and
(c) the bowl wall having a Shore durometer in a range of 5 to 80 (about 50-70, col. 6, ln. 54-56).
Regarding claim 6, Ruberg discloses (a) the bowl wall (18, 19) is formed from a viscoelastic material (vulcanized rubber; col. 6, ln. 55).
Regarding claim 7, Ruberg discloses (a) the bowl wall (18, 19) is formed from a rubber material (vulcanized rubber; col. 6, ln. 55).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruberg in view of WO 2011012629 A1 (hereinafter Bianchi).
Regarding claim 4, Ruberg fails to show (a) the bowl wall has a Shore durometer of about 35. Attention is 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 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 Bianchi mentioned above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruberg in view of US Patent 10,264,932 (hereinafter Hibbs).
Regarding claim 5, Ruberg 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 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. Regarding the intended use of being a sanitary bowl for receiving and containing waste, it has been held that so long as the structural limitations are met by the prior art, the device is deemed capable of performing the intended use. In the instant case, a lined bowl of Ruberg is capable of receiving waste as a toilet bowl if a user so desires; there is nothing to structurally preclude such a use.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruberg in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0218287 (hereinafter Rowlands).
Regarding claims 8-11, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0303750 is directed to the state of the art of flexible toilet bowls.
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