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 .
Claim Objections
The claims contain minor informalities:
In claim 15, the language “… wherein: [[wherein]] the lid comprises an interior portion and …” should be changed for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14-16 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.
In claim 14, the language “… wherein the twist lock mechanism comprises:
[[the]] a flange [[is]] on the lid; and
[[the]] a groove [[is]] on the lid ring …”
should be changed to provide proper antecedent basis for the flange and groove. Parent claim 13 recites elements including a lid, lid ring, ramped surface and cam surface but does not recite a flange or a groove.
Claim 14 further calls for “… the flange has a ramped surface that declines axially toward a base of the lid in a rotational direction of locking engagement; and the groove has a cam surface …”
Parent claim 13 already describes “…a ramped surface on one of the lid and the lid ring and a cam surface on the other of the lid and the lid ring …” Introducing the ramped surface and cam surface a second time raises a question of whether these are the same or different ramped and cam surfaces as described in parent claim 13. Examiner suggests to reference these elements instead of reintroducing them to the claim scope, for example “… the flange [[has a]] defines the ramped surface that declines axially toward a base of the lid in a rotational direction of locking engagement; and the groove [[has a]] defines the cam surface …”
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected for depending on a rejected parent 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia; Brent S. et al. (US 20070135779 A1) in view of Bobroff, Alec et al. (US 20050203469 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lalomia discloses a fluid waste container assembly (¶ [0002], a waste collection and disposal system; ¶ [0014], [0111], FIG. 1, the system 100);
comprising: a first container (¶ [0113] Referring to FIG. 2, the waste collection unit 102 utilizes upper 200 and lower 202 waste containers to collect and temporarily store the waste material during use; ¶ [0115], FIGS. 2 and 3, the upper waste container 200 comprises an upper canister 218 … The lower waste container 202 comprises a lower canister 224);
a base forming a bottom for the first container, the base having an interior surface at least partially defining a drain opening (¶ [0118], FIG. 3 … Each of the canisters 218, 224 includes a bottom 230, 232, respectively);
a lid assembly providing selective access to an interior of the first container (¶ [0115], FIGS. 2 and 3 … An upper cap 222 covers the upper canister 218 … A lower cap 228 covers the lower canister 224);
a vacuum pump for producing suction in the first container (¶ [0136] Referring to FIGS. 6 and 17 … In some embodiments, the vacuum source 402 is a rotary vane type vacuum pump 402);
a primary vacuum level detection system for setting a vacuum level in the first container by controlling output of the vacuum pump (¶ [0138], FIG. 17, upper 408 and lower 410 vacuum regulators are included in the vacuum circuit 400 … A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402); and
a secondary vacuum level detection system for monitoring the vacuum level in the first container (¶ [0141] Separate sets of pressure sensors 424, 426 are responsive to pressure changes in each of the waste containers 200, 202. The pressure sensors 424, 426 generate corresponding pressure signals sent to the vacuum controllers 411, 413).
Lalomia does not explicitly disclose a safety transducer and controller that compares vacuum level signals between a safety transducer and a set vacuum level. Bobroff discloses devices and methods for surgical wound drainage (¶ [0001], [0007], [0031] FIG. 1 … system 10);
comprising a first container (¶ [0034] Fluid aspirated through drain tube 18 collects in vessel 22);
a vacuum pump for producing suction in the first container (¶ [0048] To draw blood from the wound, controller 117 controls the compressor/vacuum pump 361 to provide a vacuum through the chuck to the exterior side of the diaphragm 331);
a primary vacuum level detection system for setting a vacuum level in the first container by controlling output of the vacuum pump (¶ [0016], The controller monitors how frequently the valve must be opened over time in order to maintain adequate suction levels in the pathway; ¶ [0038] A pressure sensor 58 is in fluid communication with the suction pathway defined by conduits 52 and 54, vessel 22 and drain tube 18. The pressure sensor 58 is configured to sense the negative pressure experienced in the suction pathway and provides continuous information to the system controller 24 regarding the magnitude of the suction levels in the pathway); and
a secondary vacuum level detection system for monitoring the vacuum level in the first container independently of the primary vacuum level detection system (¶ [0038], A redundant set-up of two pressure sensors may be employed, with the controller monitoring readings from both sensors to ensure that a malfunctioning sensor is detected if readings do not match);
the secondary vacuum level detection system comprising a safety transducer configured to provide a vacuum level signal (¶ [0038], An example of a pressure sensor suitable for this application is the Motorola MPX Series 5000 sensor); and
a controller configured to compare the vacuum level signal from the safety transducer to the vacuum level set by the primary vacuum level detection system (¶ [0038], A redundant set-up of two pressure sensors may be employed, with the controller monitoring readings from both sensors to ensure that a malfunctioning sensor is detected if readings do not match).
Bobroff redundantly monitors a vacuum level in order to respond when one of two sensors fail or return erroneous readings (¶ [0038]). One would be motivated to modify Lalomia with Bobroff’s safety transducer to detect or compensate for a failed sensor, since Lalomia calls for comparing the transducers’ outputs to detect a faulty sensor (¶ [0141], This redundancy allows the main controller 342 to compare pressure readings and determine whether any of the pressure sensors 424, 426 are malfunctioning or whether either of the vacuum controllers 411, 413 are malfunctioning). The difference between Lalomia and the claimed invention appears to be how the transducers connect to the controller, and how the controller evaluates their outputs. A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Lalomia with Bobroff’s safety transducer by reconfiguring Lalomia’s multiple transducers to send their outputs to the controller, and reprogramming the controller to compare their outputs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lalomia with Bobroff’s safety transducer in order to detect a faulty transducer.
Regarding claim 23, Lalomia discloses all the claimed structures including a canister, vacuum pump, user input, suction regulator and safety transducer, as discussed for claim 1 above. Lalomia operates these structures in the same manner as discussed for claim 1, by automatically adjusting the suction regulator to match the suction level in the canister to the desired suction level based on output of the safety transducer (¶ [0141] Separate sets of pressure sensors 424, 426 are responsive to pressure changes in each of the waste containers 200, 202. The pressure sensors 424, 426 generate corresponding pressure signals sent to the vacuum controllers 411, 413).
Lalomia further discloses that the suction regulator bleeds air into a vacuum flow path at a location downstream of the canister and upstream of the vacuum pump to reduce suction pressure at the canister (¶ [0138], A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402); and
monitoring a suction level generated in the canister with a transducer positioned between the canister and a valve connected to the suction regulator (¶ [0141] Separate sets of pressure sensors 424, 426 are responsive to pressure changes in each of the waste containers 200, 202. The pressure sensors 424, 426 generate corresponding pressure signals sent to the vacuum controllers 411, 413).
Lalomia does not explicitly monitor the suction level in the canister with a safety transducer or compare the output of the safety transducer to the desired set suction level. Bobroff discloses devices and methods for surgical wound drainage (¶ [0001], [0007], [0031] FIG. 1 … system 10);
the method comprising: generating suction for a canister with a vacuum pump (¶ [0034] Fluid aspirated through drain tube 18 collects in vessel 22; ¶ [0048] To draw blood from the wound, controller 117 controls the compressor/vacuum pump 361 to provide a vacuum through the chuck to the exterior side of the diaphragm 331);
setting a desired suction level within the canister; controlling a suction level generated in the canister with the vacuum pump with a suction regulator (¶ [0016], The controller monitors how frequently the valve must be opened over time in order to maintain adequate suction levels in the pathway; ¶ [0038] A pressure sensor 58 is in fluid communication with the suction pathway defined by conduits 52 and 54, vessel 22 and drain tube 18. The pressure sensor 58 is configured to sense the negative pressure experienced in the suction pathway and provides continuous information to the system controller 24 regarding the magnitude of the suction levels in the pathway);
monitoring the suction level generated in the canister independently of the controlling step with a safety transducer; and automatically adjusting the suction regulator to match the suction level in the canister to a desired suction level based on output of the safety transducer (¶ [0038] The pressure sensor 58 is configured to sense the negative pressure experienced in the suction pathway and provides continuous information to the system controller 24 regarding the magnitude of the suction levels in the pathway);
wherein automatically adjusting comprises comparing the output of the safety transducer to the desired suction level set via the user input and adjusting the suction regulator in response to the comparison (¶ [0038], A redundant set-up of two pressure sensors may be employed, with the controller monitoring readings from both sensors to ensure that a malfunctioning sensor is detected if readings do not match).
Bobroff duplicates the transducers and compares their output in order to detect a faulty transducer (¶ [0038]). Regarding the rationale and motivation to modify Lalomia with Bobroff’s safety transducer, see the discussion of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 11, Lalomia discloses a fluid waste container assembly wherein the primary vacuum level detection system comprises a suction regulator for regulating operation of the vacuum pump; and the fluid waste container assembly further comprises a valve connected to the suction regulator that is configured to constrict a flow path between the vacuum pump and the first container (¶ [0138], FIG. 17, upper 408 and lower 410 vacuum regulators are included in the vacuum circuit 400 … The upper vacuum regulator 408 comprises a first valve member 412. A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402; ¶ [0286] Alternative suction regulator assemblies … Each regulator assembly includes a first valve member that is adjustable to regulate the suction draw from the vacuum source 402);
wherein the suction regulator is configured to bleed air into a vacuum flow path at a location downstream of the first container and upstream of the vacuum pump to reduce suction pressure at the first container (¶ [0138], A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402);
further comprising: a second container fluidly connected to the vacuum pump (¶ [0115] Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3 … The lower waste container 202 comprises a lower canister 224 … The lower canister 224 defines a lower waste chamber 226 for holding waste material);
an additional primary vacuum level detection system for setting a vacuum level in the second container by controlling the vacuum pump; and an additional secondary vacuum level detection system for monitoring vacuum level in the second container (¶ [0140] The main controller 342 controls operation of the vacuum regulators 408, 410 through upper 411 and lower 413 vacuum controllers (e.g., separate microcontrollers)).
Regarding the valve that is configured to constrict a flow path between the vacuum pump and the first container, Lalomia discloses a valve that selectively opens a fluid passage (¶ [0138], FIG. 17, upper 408 and lower 410 vacuum regulators are included in the vacuum circuit 400 … The upper vacuum regulator 408 comprises a first valve member 412. A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412). As known in the art, valves operate by altering an effective cross-section through a fluid passage, in order to adjust a fluid flow rate through the passage. For example, a gate valve, pin valve or servo valve each operates by selectively opening a passage where fluid can flow. Depending on the passage’s cross-section, fluid will pass at different rates or stop altogether.
Regarding claim 4, Lalomia discloses a second transducer comprising a pressure sensor that is positioned for monitoring a suction level in the flow path, wherein the second transducer is located between the first container and the valve (¶ [0141] Separate sets of pressure sensors 424, 426 are responsive to pressure changes in each of the waste containers 200, 202. The pressure sensors 424, 426 generate corresponding pressure signals sent to the vacuum controllers 411, 413). To clarify, Lalomia arranges a pair of pressure sensors 424 in a flow path between the first container (containers 200) and the valve (first valve member 412) (Fig. 17).
Lalomia does not explicitly disclose an independent safety transducer. Bobroff discloses an independent safety transducer and associated controller (¶ [0038] A pressure sensor 58 … A redundant set-up of two pressure sensors may be employed … to ensure that a malfunctioning sensor is detected). Regarding the rationale and motivation to modify Lalomia with Bobroff’s safety transducer, see the discussion of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lalomia discloses an assembly further comprising: a user input for allowing a user to set a suction level to be generated by the vacuum pump and controlled by the suction regulator; and a controller for comparing output of the primary vacuum level detection system to the suction level set via the user input (¶ [0136] Referring to FIGS. 6 and 17, the vacuum circuit 400 provides independently controllable vacuum levels in each of the waste containers 200, 202. As a result, the user can establish different vacuum levels for the waste containers 200, 202 depending on the particular needs of the medical procedure being performed);
wherein the user input is configured to adjust a constriction of the flow path produced by the valve (¶ [0138], A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia and Bobroff in view of Karpowicz; John et al. (US 20070219532 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Lalomia and Bobroff do not describe that if the monitored suction level exceeds the suction level, the controller provides an alarm or shuts down the vacuum pump. Karpowicz discloses a negative pressure wound treatment system comprising a controller (¶ [0002], [0015], [0047] FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of a system (10); ¶ [0084], FIG. 6, the portable pump unit (102) preferably includes a positive displacement air pump (103) … a pump unit controller (200); ¶ [0086], FIG. 6, the pump unit controller (200) includes a vacuum or suction pressure controller (202) for maintaining a negative pressure in the wound);
wherein the controller is configured to provide a user-perceptible alarm if a monitored suction level exceeds a desired suction level (¶ [0113], A compliance indicator (236) alerts the caregiver to deviations from the normal application of suction to the wound over time and is a useful adjunct to the application of negative pressure wound therapy; ¶ [0116], The error indicator (234) preferably includes an alphanumeric error display, and the error detector (216) can cause the error display to provide indications that correlate to at least following errors: overpressure (i.e., suction exceeding a prescribed limit), missing waste collector, pressure transducer failure);
wherein the controller is configured to shut-down operation of a vacuum pump if the monitored suction level exceeds the desired suction level (¶ [0088], Once the upper control limit is reached, the pressure controller (202) turns off the pump (103)).
Karpowicz explains details of how to automatically operate a suction pump for a NPWT system. One would be motivated to modify Lalomia and Gordon with Karpowicz’s controller configuration that sends an alarm or shuts down the pump in order to operate the system with minimal user intervention since Lalomia calls for other semi-autonomous operations (¶ [0131] In some instances, the main controller 342 may automatically instruct the valve controller 344 to move the transfer valve 276 without requiring user instruction; ¶ [0224], In some embodiments, this "automatic" mode of smoke evacuation may be set by the user on the control panel 310 or can be continuously operating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lalomia and Gordon with Karpowicz’s controller configuration in order to automatically regulate the system’s pressure and also to prevent the pump from generating unsafe pressures.
Regarding claim 8, Lalomia discloses that the controller is configured to adjust the valve to match the monitored suction level to the suction level set by the user (¶ [0138], A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia and Bobroff in view of Reasoner; Stephen J et al. (US 20150224237 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lalomia further discloses an evacuation station (¶ [0111] Referring to FIG. 1, the system 100 comprises a mobile waste collection unit 102 and a fixed docking station 104).
Lalomia and Bobroff lack a communication interface and wireless protocol. Reasoner discloses medical waste collection systems (¶ [0001], [0005], [0064], FIGS. 1-4 … system 50; ¶ [0190] FIGS. 26 and 28, waste collection system 3000);
comprising an evacuation station and controller (¶ [0190], chassis 3100 … Chassis 3100 is sometimes called a suction cart 3100; ¶ [0214], Electrical cable 3812 connects data contacts 3510 to a chassis controller 3802 (FIG. 44));
comprising a communication interface operatively connected to the controller for communicating with the evacuation station over a wireless protocol (¶ [0293] Controller 3802 is further in communication with a radio frequency identification device (RFID) reader 3830 via a power and data cable 3832).
Reasoner automatically identifies the system’s various accessories (¶ [0293], The RFID reader 3830 reads information from RFID tags placed on various pieces of medical equipment … RFID tags are placed on surgical handpieces 62, 66). One would be motivated to modify Lalomia and Bobroff with Reasoner’s communication interface and wireless protocol to automatically identify accessories used with the Lalomia’s fluid waste container assembly. For example, Lalomia calls for recording data related to the containers (¶ [0202] In the preferred embodiment, an upper memory device 720 is coupled to the upper waste container 200 and a lower memory device 722 is coupled to the lower waste container 202 … The data stored in each memory device 720, 722 is unique to that specific container 200, 202 for which it is coupled to). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lalomia and Bobroff with Reasoner’s RFID interface in order to identify the containers or other components used with the fluid waste container assembly.
Claims 13-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia; Brent S. et al. (US 20070135779 A1) in view of Jaycox, Donald L. (US 20050072124 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lalomia discloses a medical waste fluid collection container assembly (¶ [0002], a waste collection and disposal system; ¶ [0014], [0111], FIG. 1, the system 100);
comprising: a container having a first end and a second end (¶ [0115] Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, the upper waste container 200 comprises an upper canister 218 that is slightly frusto-conical in shape … The lower waste container 202 comprises a lower canister 224 that is also slightly frusto-conical in shape);
a base positioned at the first end of the container, the base forming a bottom having a drain opening (¶ [0118] Referring specifically to FIG. 3 … Each of the canisters 218, 224 includes a bottom 230, 232, respectively; ¶ [0124] Referring to FIGS. 8 through 10 … The neck 286 is integrally formed with the bottom 230 and the outer wall 234 of the upper canister 218 and extends downwardly from the bottom 230); and
a lid assembly, comprising: a lid ring having a central opening, the lid ring engaging the second end of the container (¶ [0118], A V-clamp 254, 256, respectively, secures the caps 222, 228 to the canisters 218, 224 by clamping the peripheral lips 250, 252 to the rims 238, 240); and
a lid configured for engaging the lid ring; the lid being configured to close off at least part of the second end of the container when engaging the lid ring (¶ [0115], An upper cap 222 covers the upper canister 218 to close the upper waste chamber 220 … A lower cap 228 covers the lower canister 224 to close the lower waste chamber 226).
Lalomia does not explicitly disclose a twist lock mechanism. Jaycox discloses a packaging system for shipping medical substances (¶ [0001], [0003], [0014] FIG. 1 … packaging system 10);
comprising: a container having a first end and a second end (¶ [0014], Vessel 14 has a first end 18 and a second end 20. First end 18 includes a bottom wall (not shown in FIG. 1) and second end 20 is open to provide access to a hollow cylindrical body 22); and
a lid assembly, comprising: a lid ring having a central opening, the lid ring engaging the second end of the container (¶ [0021], FIG. 3, vessel 14 includes a perimeter ring 102 extending from outer surface 74, and locking tabs 24 extend out from perimeter ring 102); and
a lid configured for engaging the lid ring via a twist lock mechanism, the lid being configured to close off at least part of the second end of the container when engaging the lid ring (¶ [0015] Lid 16 includes a cylindrical body 30 and a top wall 32; ¶ [0020], Bottom surface 86 includes a plurality of notches 89 positioned beneath indentations 36. A plurality of tab receptacles 90 are disposed within lid 16 and are circumferentially positioned between indentations 36 and notches 89 on interior perimeter 88 and form a portion of bottom surface 86; ¶ [0021], When lid 16 is installed upon vessel 14, locking tab 24 is rotated along one of tab receptacles 90 (not shown in FIG. 3) positioned within lid 16 causing a portion of lid 16 to engage the secondary sealing surface as further described below);
wherein the twist lock mechanism comprises a ramped surface on one of the lid and the lid ring (¶ [0019], Locking tabs 24 are extend from cylindrical body 22 outer surface 74); and
a cam surface on the other of the lid and the lid ring (¶ [0020], A plurality of tab receptacles 90 are disposed within lid 16);
the ramped surface and the cam surface frictionally engaging when the lid is rotated relative to the lid ring to lock the lid to the lid ring (¶ [0026], When lid 16 is being installed upon vessel 14, locking tabs 24 are initially received in notches 89. As a rotational force is applied to engage lid 16 with vessel 14, the rotation forces locking tabs 24 to engage along tab receptacles 90 thereby causing indentation engaging members 135 into locking indentations 26).
Jaycox securely fastens a container lid to a high quality standard (¶ [0032], provide an air tight seal without the use of any external hardware such as O-rings or gaskets … (ICAO/IATA) packing instruction 650). One would be motivated to modify Lalomia with Jaycox’s twist lock mechanism so that a user can open and close the container more securely, and since Lalomia otherwise discloses few of the lid assembly’s details. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lalomia with Jaycox’s twist lock mechanism in order to securely fasten a container and lid assembly.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-20, Lalomia lacks a twist lock mechanism comprising a flange, groove, ramped surface and cam surface. Jaycox discloses a twist lock mechanism comprising: the flange is on the lid (¶ [0020], Bottom surface 86 includes a plurality of notches 89 positioned beneath indentations 36. A plurality of tab receptacles 90 are disposed within lid 16 and are circumferentially positioned between indentations 36 and notches 89 on interior perimeter 88 and form a portion of bottom surface 86); and
the groove is on the lid ring (¶ [0021], FIG. 3, vessel 14 includes a perimeter ring 102 extending from outer surface 74, and locking tabs 24 extend out from perimeter ring 102);
wherein: the groove has a ramped surface that declines axially toward a base of the lid in a rotational direction of locking engagement; and the flange has a cam surface configured to frictionally engage the ramped surface of the flange as the lid is rotated relative to the lid ring to draw the lid axially toward the lid ring (¶ [0022] First member 100 extends between first end 80 and second end 82 and is curved such that first member 100 conforms to cylindrical body 22 outer surface 74. First member 100 is circumferentially tapered from second end 82 to first end 80. First member 100 has a first thickness 110 that extends along the length of locking tabs 24. Additionally, the tapering of first member 100 draws the lid tighter against vessel 14 while lid 16 is being secured to vessel 14);
wherein the flange includes a stop to prevent further rotation of the lid once the lid is locked into place relative to the lid ring (¶ [0021], Second end 82 includes an "L-shaped" member 106);
wherein the lid ring comprises: a base configured to face the lid; a wall extending from the base; the wall configured to be inserted into the lid (¶ [0023], Top surface 94); and
a flange extending along the wall to form a first portion of the twist lock mechanism (¶ [0019], Locking tabs 24 are extend from cylindrical body 22 outer surface 74);
wherein the flange comprises: an elongate projection extending at an angle along the wall (¶ [0019], Locking tabs 24 are extend from cylindrical body 22 outer surface 74); and
a vertical portion extending from the elongate projection to connect to the base (¶ [0021], Second end 82 includes an "L-shaped" member 106);
wherein the lid comprises: a central opening; a top surface surrounding the central opening (¶ [0028], interior perimeter 88 … inner surface 130);
a flange opening extending into the top surface; and a groove positioned in the lid adjacent the flange opening (¶ [0028], Tab receptacles 90 extend inward along bottom surface 86 from outer surface 84 for engagement with locking tabs 24 (shown in FIG. 3));
wherein: the flange is configured to be positioned in the flange opening when the lid is unlocked; and the flange is configured to be positioned in the groove when the lid is locked (¶ [0020], Lid 16 is sized to fit snugly over vessel 14 such that when lid 16 is fully secured, interior perimeter 88 is positioned substantially at diameter 92, a surface of lid 16 engages a top surface 94 of vessel 14, and locking tabs 24 are received in tab receptacles 90).
Jaycox does not arrange a ramped surface on the flange, and instead configures the groove as a ramped surface. A skilled artisan would have been able to rearrange Jaycox’s flange and groove by selecting the tab receptacles 90 to have an inclined or ramped shape.
Jaycox also does not arrange a wall on the lid, wherein the wall is configured to be inserted into the lid ring. Instead, Jaycox arranges a wall on the lid ring which is inserted into the lid (¶ [0023], Top surface 94 further provides a sealing surface which engages a sealing slot (shown in FIG. 7) in lid 16).
These reversals will not affect the twist lock mechanism’s operation and would have been an obvious variation to try. Aside from these interchanged positions, Jaycox discloses all other features of the twist lock mechanism.
Jaycox securely fastens a container lid to a high quality standard (¶ [0032], (ICAO/IATA) packing instruction 650). Regarding the rationale and motivation to modify Lalomia with Jaycox’s twist lock mechanism, see the discussion of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Lalomia discloses that the lid comprises an interior portion and an exterior portion, the interior portion being sized and configured to be received within the central opening of the lid ring when the lid engages the lid ring, such that the interior portion extends into the lid ring and the exterior portion remains accessible from outside the container (Figs. 3, 38, V-clamp 254, 256 externally surrounds the peripheral lips 250, 252 of caps 222, 228; ¶ [0118], A V-clamp 254, 256, respectively, secures the caps 222, 228 to the canisters 218, 224 by clamping the peripheral lips 250, 252 to the rims 238, 240).
Regarding claim 22, Lalomia further discloses a vacuum pump for producing suction in the container (¶ [0136] Referring to FIGS. 6 and 17 … In some embodiments, the vacuum source 402 is a rotary vane type vacuum pump 402);
a primary vacuum level detection system for setting a vacuum level in the container by controlling output of the vacuum pump (¶ [0138], FIG. 17, upper 408 and lower 410 vacuum regulators are included in the vacuum circuit 400 … A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402); and
a secondary vacuum level detection system for monitoring the vacuum level in the container (¶ [0141] Separate sets of pressure sensors 424, 426 are responsive to pressure changes in each of the waste containers 200, 202. The pressure sensors 424, 426 generate corresponding pressure signals sent to the vacuum controllers 411, 413).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia and Bobroff in view of Jaycox, Donald L. (US 20050072124 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lalomia and Bobroff lack a twist lock mechanism. Jaycox discloses a lid configured for engaging a lid ring via a twist lock mechanism, the lid being configured to close off at least part of the top end of a container when engaging the lid ring (¶ [0026], When lid 16 is being installed upon vessel 14, locking tabs 24 are initially received in notches 89 … the rotation forces locking tabs 24 to engage along tab receptacles 90 thereby causing indentation engaging members 135 into locking indentations 26).
Jaycox securely fastens a container (¶ [0032], (ICAO/IATA) packing instruction 650). Regarding the rationale and motivation to modify Lalomia and Bobroff with Jaycox’s twist lock mechanism, see the discussion of claim 13 above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalomia and Jaycox in view of Romano, Jack W. et al. (US 20050215961 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lalomia and Jaycox lack a door and living hinge. Romano discloses a medical waste fluid collection container comprising a lid assembly including a door providing access to the container through the lid, wherein a living hinge connects the door to the lid (¶ [0105] FIG. 20 … The locking and sealing between lid 10 and canister 7 is maintained by first, second, third and fourth snap down locks 10i turned down and remaining in integral contact with lid 10 by a living hinge; ¶ [0151] FIG. 8j is a front elevation view of lid 10 disclosing details lever hook 10h, living hinge 10u, cap nest sunken detent 10a1, pivot socket 10f, lid fenestration 10d, pivot socket distraction ramp/roof 10e2, lid fenestration 10a, sealing surface 10n, lid rim 10k, living hinge 10u an lid side wall 10j).
Romano provides additional openings and closures on a waste collection container for adding or removing materials. One would be motivated to modify Lalomia and Jaycox with Romano’s door and living hinge so that other materials can be added or removed to the container without removing its lid.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 6 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Smith ‘242; Larry C. et al. (US 10940242 B2).
Regarding pending claim 1, Smith ‘242 claims all limitations in patented claim 19, namely a fluid waste container assembly (claim 19, a fluid waste container assembly);
comprising: a first container (claim 19, a container);
a base forming a bottom for the first container (claim 19, a base forming a bottom for the container);
the base having an interior surface at least partially defining a drain opening (claim 19, the base having a crescent-shaped interior surface at least partially defining a drain opening);
a lid assembly providing selective access to an interior of the first container (claim 19, a lid assembly providing selective access to an interior of the container);
a vacuum pump for producing suction in the first container (claim 19, a vacuum pump for producing suction in the container);
a primary vacuum level detection system for setting a vacuum level in the first container by controlling output of the vacuum pump (claim 19, a suction regulator for regulating operation of the vacuum pump; a user input for setting a suction level to be generated by the vacuum pump and controlled by the suction regulator); and
a secondary vacuum level detection system for monitoring the vacuum level in the first container independently of the primary vacuum level detection system, the secondary vacuum level detection system comprising a safety transducer configured to provide a vacuum level signal (claim 19, a vacuum level detection system for sensing a vacuum level generated by the vacuum pump); and
a controller configured to compare the vacuum level signal from the safety transducer to the vacuum level set by the primary vacuum level detection system (claim 19, a controller for comparing output of the vacuum level detection system the suction level set via the user input).
Smith ‘242 does not explicitly claim that the secondary vacuum level detection system comprises a safety transducer. However, Smith ‘242 claims a transducer that generates a vacuum level signal (claim 19, a vacuum level detection system for sensing a vacuum level generated by the vacuum pump). Although Smith ‘242’s transducer is not explicitly described as a safety transducer, it measures a vacuum level and performs identically to a safety transducer.
Regarding pending claim 6, Smith ‘242 does not explicitly claim that the user input adjusts the valve’s constriction. However, any valve necessarily operates by selectively opening or adjusting its effective cross-section.
Regarding pending claim 11, Smith ‘242 does not explicitly claim a second container, additional primary vacuum level detection system or an additional secondary vacuum level detection system.
These limitations are interpreted as a duplication of parts, which does not provide patentability unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One would have been motivated to duplicate Smith ‘242’s container and primary / secondary detection systems in order to expand the assembly’s general capacity or to provide a backup system. Duplicating the container and detection systems will double the volume of fluids that the system can collect, and will also allow it to continue operating if one of the two containers or their detection systems fails. Therefore, a new and unexpected result would not be produced by duplicating the container and detection systems. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Response to Arguments
The objections to claims 1, 4, 22 and 23 for minor informalities and the rejections of claims 14 and 19 under 35 USC § 112 are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 13 May 2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 May 2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-23 as amended, under 35 USC § 102 and 103 over Lalomia, Gordon, Karpowicz, Reasoner, Zalewski and Romano, have been fully considered and are persuasive. After further consideration, the amended claims are rejected on new grounds under 35 USC § 103 over Lalomia, Bobroff, Karpowicz, Reasoner, Romano and Jaycox (see above).
The double patenting rejections citing Smith ‘537; Larry C. et al. (US 11969537 B2) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 13 May 2026. Smith ‘537 does not claim a controller that compares the vacuum level signal from the safety transducer to the vacuum level set by the primary vacuum level detection system.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Gordon and Zalewski have been considered but are moot because the references are no longer cited in the current rejection.
Applicant submits that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the requirement of amended claim 1 that specifies a secondary vacuum level detection system that operates independently of the primary vacuum level detection system … a controller that compares that signal … (remarks p. 14). Examiner responds that Lalomia and Bobroff are cited in the new grounds of rejection as teaching all features of amended claim 1. Bobroff discloses a system including a pair of pressure transducers and a controller that compares their outputs for conflicts (¶ [0038], A redundant set-up of two pressure sensors may be employed, with the controller monitoring readings from both sensors to ensure that a malfunctioning sensor is detected if readings do not match).
Applicant asserts that amended claim 3 further recites that the suction regulator is configured to bleed air into the vacuum flow path at a location downstream of the first container and upstream of the vacuum pump to reduce suction pressure at the first container. This is a bleed valve architecture that is not disclosed by Lalomia, whose vacuum regulators operate as rotating disc switching valves that alternate between two discrete states, nor by any other cited reference (remarks p. 15). Examiner notes that Lalomia explicitly discloses a valve that opens a vacuum path to the atmosphere in order to adjust a vacuum intensity (¶ [0138], A first actuator 414 is operatively coupled to the first valve member 412 to move the first valve member 412 and selectively open fluid communication or air transfer between the upper waste container 200 and atmospheric pressure A or between the upper waste container 200 and the vacuum pump 402).
Applicant contends that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the requirement of amended claim 13 that specifies a twist lock mechanism comprising a ramped surface on one of the lid and the lid ring and a cam surface on the other, the ramped surface and the cam surface frictionally engaging when the lid is rotated relative to the lid ring to lock the lid to the lid ring (remarks p. 19). Examiner replies that Lalomia and Jaycox are cited in the new grounds of rejection as teaching all features of amended claim 13. Jaycox discloses a twist lock mechanism comprising a ramped surface, and explicitly describes an axial drawing force (¶ [0022] First member 100 is circumferentially tapered from second end 82 to first end 80 … Additionally, the tapering of first member 100 draws the lid tighter against vessel 14 while lid 16 is being secured to vessel 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterson; Erik W. US 5380280 A
Arnold; Bruce Douglas US 5638976 A
Jaycox; Don US 6345719 B1
Turner; Jake et al. US 20110054810 A1
Kassouni; Van M. US 20130334164 A1
Jaecklein; William Joseph et al. US 20160184496 A1
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to:
Tel 571-272-2590
Fax 571-273-2590
Email Adam.Marcetich@uspto.gov
The Examiner can be reached 8am-4pm Mon-Fri.
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 is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights