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
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2025 is acknowledged. As Applicant has amended the independent claims to incorporate the features from the elected invention; accordingly, the previous requirement has been withdrawn.
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) 1-2 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2001327434 A (hereinafter Yoshida) in view of US Patent 2,859,019 (hereinafter O’Neill).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida shows a portable toilet (1) comprising a bowl (3) and a plurality of agitators (4) coupled to the bowl. Yoshida fails to show the agitators are buoyant and tethered. Attention is turned to O’Neill which solves the same problem of stirring and mixing within a vessel using rotary agitators which shows a vessel (3) and a plurality of buoyant agitators (18) tethered (via chain 21) to the vessel. O’Neill teaches that including the buoyant agitators allows the mixing to occur at the level of liquid within the chamber (col. 1, ln. 50-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include buoyant agitators tethered to the bowl to allow for better stirring at the surface level of the fluid within the bowl as evidenced by the teaching of O’Neill mentioned above.
Regarding claim 2, under the modification in view of O’Neill, O’Neill shows the tether (21) is flexible, and the plurality of buoyant agitators are tethered to the bowl with the tether (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, under the modification in view of O’Neill, O’Neill shows at least one non-buoyant agitator (20).
Regarding claim 7, under the modification in view of O’Neill, O’Neill shows the plurality of buoyant agitators (17) are structured to form turbulent eddies within a liquid solution upon swiveling the bowl about a vertical axis (the agitators float in the liquid solution and can rotate which is capable of creating turbulent eddies if the vessel is swiveled about a vertical axis such as that defined by axis (8)). “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on").” (MPEP 2114. Section I. Inherency and Functional Limitations in Apparatus Claims).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida shows a portable toilet (1) comprising a bowl (3) and a plurality of agitators (4) coupled to the bowl. Yoshida fails to show the agitators are buoyant and tethered by a tether. Attention is turned to O’Neill which solves the same problem of stirring and mixing within a vessel using rotary agitators which shows a vessel (3) and a plurality of buoyant agitators (18) tethered via chain (21) to the vessel. O’Neill teaches that including the buoyant agitators allows the mixing to occur at the level of liquid within the chamber (col. 1, ln. 50-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include buoyant agitators tethered to the bowl to allow for better stirring at the surface level of the fluid within the bowl as evidenced by the teaching of O’Neill mentioned above.
Regarding claim 9, under the modification in view of O’Neill, O’Neill shows the plurality of agitating members are buoyant (17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4-5 are similarly objected to as they inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 3.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 11-12 are similarly objected to as they inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 3.
Claims 13-18 and 20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0039096 is directed to the state of the art of buoyant floats tethered to a toilet bowl.
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