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Claims 11-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
The examiner notes that applicant argues that as the International Searching Authority did not raise a lack of unity of invention, pending claims 1-27 meet the requirement for unity of invention. This is not persuasive as analysis for unity of invention does not include whether or not the International Searching Authority raised a lack of unity of invention.
Applicant further argues that there is a special technical features between groups 1,2, and 3, that being the dispenser and thus the restriction is traversed. The examiner notes however, that the restriction requirement cited Davie, in combination with Minchew to show a dispenser in the system, and thus said dispenser is not a special technical feature. Further the groups still require different technical features from one another. For example, claim 1 requires the urine collection device positively claimed in the structure whereas, claim 20 requires a conduit to provide fluid connection to a urine collection device, claim 1 requires the base of the device housing a pump, not required by claim 20, and claim 1 requires different configurations including a collection and cleaning configuration, not required by claim 20. Further group 3 (see claim 11) does not require urine collection, rather just urine within a container, where the device is activated to clean the container, and thus the groups lack unity of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim1-10 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.
The examiner notes that the limitation of “at least one first conduit” in claim 1 is unclear. It is unclear how there can be multiple “first conduits”, as the term “at least one” may include more than one. It is further unclear as said conduit is may be connected to both the urine and dispenser port, where in the “urine collection configuration” the conduit is connected to the urine port and collection interface, but in the “Cleaning configuration” the seemingly same conduit is attached to the dispenser and cleaning port. It is unclear if there is a method step in which the conduit is disconnected from the first configuration and moved to the second, or the “at least one first conduit” may be two separate conduits in the two configurations. The examiner notes that for the purpose of examination, a device having a conduit connecting to the container and the urine collection device and a device having a conduit connecting to a cleaning fluid dispenser would read to the claimed limitation.
Claim 7, in a similar manner requires “an additional first conduit”. The language is unclear as to how one could have an additional first of something. The examiner notes that an additional conduit would read to the limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minchew et al. WO 2022076427, previously provided, in view of Davie US 2019/0001029, hereafter Minchew and Davie respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Minchew discloses a portable urine collection system (see figure 2, the examiner notes that as the device merely requires a container fitting to a base, a urine collection interface, and a cleaning module, where the parts are seen to be disconnectable (see 120,146), it is interpreted that the system is portable), comprising: a urine collection device (125) configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user (para. 0023); a canister having an interior region (container (108), para. 0022); a base (112) including a pump (para. 0023); a lid (110) secured or securable to the canister (configured to close the container per para. 0022); a cleaning solution container (134) having a cleaning port (where tube 142 connects to container).
The examiner notes that the lid of Minchew is disclosed to have “one or more apertures or ports to fluidly connect the internal volume of the container with external devices or environments (para. 0022). The examiner notes that in figure 2, it can be seen to have a vacuum port where the pump connects to the container through conduit (116). The location at which the conduit connects to the lid is interpreted as the vacuum port. Further the user interface (125) can be seen connecting to the container through conduit (124), where said conduit (124) connects to the lid is interpreted as the urine port. The examiner notes that while the cleaning module (130) is also able to be connected to the lid (see figure 3) through tube (142) and coupler (146) (see para. 0027) the port through which it is connected appears to be the same port as the vacuum port as previously disclosed. However, as paragraph 0022 states that the lid may be provided with apertures or ports to connect the container to external devices, where the cleaning system is configured to connect with the lid, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional aperture for connection of the cleaning system to the lid, separate from the vacuum port as an obviousness duplication of parts rationale. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 VI B “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. As Minchew teaches that the cleaning system attaches to a port where the lid of the container may have ports for connecting to external devices, merely adding an additional port for the cleaning system to attach to does not produce an new and unexpected result and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Should applicant disagree with the examiner’s rationale, the examiner relies on Davie.
Davie teaches a waste container and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Davie teaches that the device (see figures 31-33) comprises liquid delivery devices (430,432) such as sprinklers, in each waste container to wash the containers (para. 0111). Per para. 0113 said delivery devices are located on ports (434,436), seen directly coupled to supply lines (410 and 412). Therefore, as Davie teaches that a container may have separate ports for cleaning solution to clean a container, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lid of Minchew with a cleaning port to connect to a supply line of cleaning solution.
Further, Minchew discloses at least one first conduit (124) having an outlet detachably secured or securable to the dispenser port and/or the urine port (seen connecting to the lid at the previously defined urine port), and an inlet detachably secured or securable to the urine collection device (opposite end of 124 connecting to 125) and/or the cleaning port; a second conduit (116) in fluid communication with the pump and having an inlet releasably securable to the vacuum port (para. 0024 where the tube 116 connects to the pump and is removably attached through coupling element 120);
The examiner notes that while the cleaning device of Minchew connects to the lid to clean the interior, there is no clear disclosure of a dispenser positioned in the interior region of the canister, the dispenser having one or more openings configured to mist or spray the cleaning solution into the interior region of the canister. While Minchew discloses a second embodiment seen in figure 5, where flow is seen to be directed by arrows and the cleaning solution container (205) is draw, through vacuum into the pump and toward the container (para. 0042) through 116 based on arrow direction and disclosure), where 116 is seen to have an internal component interpreted to be a dispenser, there is no explicit disclosure in Minchew about said structure. As such, in an effort to achieve compact prosecution, the examiner again relies on Davie.
As detailed above, Davie discloses that sprinklers (para. 0111, figure 30-33, sprinklers 430,432) may be used to deliver cleaning fluid into a container. It is interpreted, as seen in figure 32, that there are at least two openings through which the cleaning fluid is delivered into the container. Therefore as Minchew depicts an internal component connecting to a cleaning fluid supply tube, and Davie discloses that cleaning fluid may be supplied to liquid delivery devices (in the form of sprinklers) for cleaning containers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the two sprinkler delivery configuration as taught in Davie for delivering fluid to and cleaning the container of Minchew. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being delivery of cleaning fluid to a container.
The prior art combination, further teach that the urine collection system is adjustable to adopt at least: a urine collection configuration having the at least one first conduit secured to the urine collection device and the urine port and having the second conduit secured to the vacuum port such that activation of the pump creates a negative pressure in the interior region of the canister effective to draw urine in the urine collection device through the at least one first conduit into the interior region of the canister; and a cleaning configuration having the at least one first conduit secured to the dispenser port and the cleaning port, and having the second conduit secured to the vacuum port such that activation of the pump creates the negative pressure in the interior region of the canister effective to draw cleaning solution in the cleaning solution container through the at least one first conduit, and the dispenser port, and the one or more openings of the dispenser into the interior region of the canister. The examiner notes upon the obviousness combination, the device comprises at least a conduit connected between the urine receptacle and container, a conduit between the pump and container, and a conduit between the cleaning device and the container. The examiner notes that the first configuration would exist when the urine collection device is connected to a user and the pump is on, suctioning urine into the container (para. 0024 of Minchew). The second configuration would be when the cleaning device is turned on to supply cleaning fluid to the container through button (154, per para. 0026), where a tube (figure 5 (185)) and suction (para. 0032) may be used to move the cleaning fluid from the cleaning device container.
Regarding Claim 2, Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1, wherein the one or more openings configured to dispense mist or spray the cleaning solution include multiple openings positioned to mist or spray the cleaning solution from multiple locations spaced from one another in the interior region of the canister. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Minchew with Davie would see at least two cleaning devices, in the form or sprinklers within the container for cleaning the container, and thus the prior art combination reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 2, wherein, in the cleaning configuration activation of the pump creates the negative pressure in the interior region of the canister effective to draw cleaning solution in the cleaning solution container through the at least one first conduit and the one or more openings of the dispenser into the interior region of the canister. The examiner notes that per the citation of paragraph 0032 of Minchew discloses that the cleaning fluid may be moved by suction, however this is with respect to a pump within the cleaning device, not the pump of the entire system. However, the examiner notes that in an operation flow defined in figure 7 and para. 0044, step 312 involves the transfer of cleaning fluid to the container, where it is clear in figure 6 and paragraph 0042 that fluid can be removed from both the cleaning container and the collection container through suction. While there is no specific disclosure that the pump (located within the base) provides negative pressure to draw cleaning fluid directly from the cleaning container, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Minchew to do so as the device of Minchew discloses, in multiple citations, that the cleaning fluid may be moved through the system through suction, and that the base suction pump can pull liquids into the container, where the cleaning device is fluid connected to the container and thus the base suction pump. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minchew, when in the second configuration (i.e. cleaning device button on press), to have the base vacuum pump further pull cleaning fluid into the container through suction.
Regarding Claim 4 Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 2 wherein the multiple openings of the dispenser include multiple spray nozzles spaced from one another in the interior region of the canister. The examiner notes as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Minchew with Davie would see at least two cleaning devices, in the form or sprinklers within the container for cleaning the container (see figure 31-33 of Davie), and thus the prior art combination reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 5 Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1,wherein the cleaning solution container is secured or securable to at least one of the base or the canister. The examiner notes that per the coupling element (146) is configured to form a seal between the conduit (142, connecting to the cleaning device) and the lid of the container. As such it is interpreted that the cleaning solution container is securable to the container, through the coupling element.
Regarding Claim 6 Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1,wherein the at least one first conduit includes one first conduit having the outlet selectively and detachably secured or securable to the dispenser port and the urine port, and the inlet selectively and detachably secured or securable to the urine collection device and the cleaning port. The examiner notes that as detailed under the 112b rejection and rejection of claim 1, there is at least a conduit secured/securable to a urine port and urine collection device and at least a conduit secured/securable to the dispenser port and cleaning port.
Regarding Claim 7 Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1,wherein the at least one first conduit includes: a first conduit having an outlet detachably secured or securable to the urine port and an inlet detachably secured or securable to the urine collection device (as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the conduit connecting the urine collection interface to the container is at least one first conduit); and an additional first conduit having an outlet detachably secured or securable to the dispenser port and an inlet secured or securable to the cleaning port (detailed under the rejection of claim 1, conduit (142)).
Regarding Claim 8, Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1, but fail to specifically teach the system, further comprising: wherein the lid includes a removal port; an interior conduit secured or securable to the removal port to extend from the removal port at least partially into the interior region of the canister. However, the examiner notes that the lid of Minchew is disclosed to have “one or more apertures or ports to fluidly connect the internal volume of the container with external devices or environments (para. 0022). The examiner notes that as seen in figure 3 of Minchew, conduit (124) is used to dispel the contents of the container into a toilet. The examiner notes that in a second example system of Minchew, see figure 6, conduit (124) connected to pump (203), may draw liquid out of the container through suction and eventually downstream to a toilet (para. 0041). As seen in the same figure 5, within the container connected to conduit (124) is an internal conduit. The examiner notes therefore, that as suction apart from the suction used to collect urine from the user, may be applied from the pump to a port with an internal conduit to remove urine from the container, where said initial vacuum port does not comprise the internal conduit, and where Minchew discloses that the lid may have multiple ports, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional aperture for connection of the second conduit (Connected to the vacuum source) of the cleaning system to the lid, separate from the vacuum port used to drain from the user interface as an obviousness duplication of parts rationale. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 VI B “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. As Minchew teaches that the system can use suction to empty a container to the toilet where the lid of the container may have ports for connecting to external devices, merely adding an additional port with an internal conduit (as seen in figure 5) for the vacuum conduit to attach to, as a means to empty collected urine from the container to does not produce an new and unexpected result and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that connection of the pump to said port with the internal conduit is the urine removal configuration.
However, Minchew fails to specifically disclose a discharge port or opening on the base; where the system discharges the fluid through the discharge port or opening on the base. The examiner notes that per paragraph 0041 as detailed under the same rejection, the pump uses suction to draw urine from the container through conduit 124. The fluid is then pushed through the pump into conduit (213) then to conduit (158) and into the toilet (162). The examiner notes that as Minchew teaches that this pump system is suitable for use with the urine collection system it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use said pump as the pump of the embodiment of figure 2, where the pump is located within the housing (previously cited para. 0023). The examiner notes that as the pump of the embodiment of figure 2 is disclosed to draw fluid from the container (para. 0023, 0024), where the pump of figure 6 is configured to perform the same operation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pump of the second embodiment of Minchew with the first embodiment, where the pump is located within the base. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being suction application to the container. The examiner notes that for the pump to drain to a toilet though a conduit, at least an opening would be required to be within the base (where the tubing connects to the pump, as seen in figure 6), and as such the prior art combination reads to the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minchew and Davie and further in view of Nava US 7018367, hereafter Nava.
Regarding Claim 9 Minchew and Davie teach the portable urine collection system of claim 1,wherein the canister includes a top region (Minchew, where the lid attaches), a bottom region distal to the top region (where the container connects to the base), but fails to teach an opening at the bottom region, and a cap detachably secured or securable to the opening.
Nava teaches a urine drainage system and is thus analogous to the claimed invention. Nava teaches that the container (11) comprises a drainage opening at the bottom (13, see figure 3), where said opening is covered by a cap (14), where said cap is removably secured over the opening (column 2, line 59-67). The cap allows for selective drainage, in that the cap is removed to allow the container to drain (column 3 line 46-47). Therefore, as a means to control drainage from a container, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a bottom side opening on the container of Minchew and Davie, where said opening further comprises a cap, as taught by Nava. Doing so would merely require combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (preventing drainage when capped, allowing drainage when uncapped), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minchew, Davie, and Nava, and further in view of Smith et al. US 2017/0028110, hereafter Smith.
Regarding Claim 10 Minchew, Davie, and Nava teach the portable urine collection system of claim 9, wherein: the base includes a recess sized to receive at least a portion of the bottom region of the canister (see Minchew figure 2) but fails to specifically teach a notch positioned to provide access to the cap and/or the opening in the canister when the canister is positioned in the recess of the base; and the urine collection system is further adjustable to a urine removal configuration having the cap removed from the opening such that urine in the canisters empties from the canister through the opening.
Smith teaches a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Smith teaches that the device comprises a container (19), where said container sits on a base (44) (See figure 4). As further seen in figure 6, the base comprises an opening (54) for facilitating the removal of solid and fluid waste through the container (para. 0080). Therefore, as the previous combination of prior arts teach a drainage hole at the bottom of the container, where the container sits on a base, and Smith teaches that the base for a container may further comprise a hole such that waste can be drained from the container through the base, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hole in the base for accessing the outlet opening of the prior art combination to drain waste. Doing so would merely involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, that being the drainage of the container, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that upon combination the base would thus comprise a notch to provide access to the opening in the canister, where the cap would be removed to drain fluid through the opening and further through said notch in the base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al. US 2024/0335599, discloses a container (102)comprising vacuum drainage (114) and an outlet hole (108) at the bottom of the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights