DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the arguments regarding Fleshman, and the references failing to disclose “an outer upstanding wall extending from both the head base wall and the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the plane of the head base wall and to the handle base wall so as to extend non-coplanar and non- parallel with the head base wall and the handle base wall, wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of each of the head base wall and the handle base wall and is adapted to contain a portion of the stream of liquid that impinges on the cup support.” The arguments are not persuasive. The rejection points out that bowl 12 has the outer upstanding wall as claimed and FIG. 1 additionally shows the device as integral and the walls 18 as additionally disclosing the limitations as claimed. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see pages 6-7 of remarks, that Fleshman teaches a planar urine collection device, however, points out that actually, FIG 3A and 3B are not planar, and disclose the outer upstanding wall. Applicant then argues, that because Fleshman discloses that the purpose of the outer upstanding wall is to facilitate drainage, that the wall cannot be the same. However, the walls of Fleshman are directed towards containing/facilitating flow in a certain manner, not necessarily directly at the floor to induce spillage. Fleshman recites, in the immediate sentence after Applicants quotation, that another benefit is avoiding unwanted spillage and further reciting an absorbent surface to again, avoid spillage, id. [0031] of Fleshman. Thus, Fleshman is not teaching away from the desired outcome of the claimed device and thus the arguments are not persuasive.
For the above consideration, see MPEP § 2114.II: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Fleshman as modified discloses the claimed cup support and the structural limitations. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
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, 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 1-9, 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleshman (US 2010/0174209 A1) (“Fleshman”) in view of Young (US 6,299,606 B1) (“Young”).
Regarding claim 1, Fleshman discloses A cup support having an upper side and a lower side and comprising (Abstract and entire document, FIG. 1 showing the upper side and the lower side is behind):
a. a head portion comprising a head base wall having an outer perimeter and extending within a plane and in which is defined an aperture having an aperture opening adapted to receive, in a direction from the upper side to the lower side of the cup support, a specimen cup for collection of a stream of liquid (FIG. 1-7, para. [0028], “a collection vessel securing end 12” which has an outer perimeter and fits a cup, see [0030], “The collection vessel securing end 12 defines there through a vessel receptacle portal 20 that is sized and configured to receive any conventional urine collection vessel, such as that exemplified at 22 in FIG. 4.”);
b. a handle portion extending from the head portion and comprising a handle base wall having an outer perimeter (FIG. 1-7, para. [0028], “a connecting arm 14 to a grasping end 16” which has an outer perimeter as shown and handle base wall is 14/16); and
Fleshman fails to disclose c. an outer upstanding wall extending from both the head base wall and the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the plane of the head base wall and to the handle base wall so as to extend non-coplanar and non- parallel with the head base wall and the handle base wall,
wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of each of the head base wall and the handle base wall and is adapted to contain a portion of the stream of liquid that impinges on the cup support.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches c. an outer upstanding wall extending from both the head base wall and the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the plane of the head base wall and to the handle base wall so as to extend non-coplanar and non- parallel with the head base wall and the handle base wall (FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” as the outer upstanding wall that extends to the upper side from the head base wall and the handle base wall nonparallel and non-coplanar),
wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of each of the head base wall and the handle base wall and is adapted to contain a portion of the stream of liquid that impinges on the cup support (FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” extends around the entirety of the outer perimeter of the head base wall and a portion of the outer perimeter of the handle base wall. Handle 18 is also shaped with an outer upstanding wall. See also Col. 2 lines 10-20 discussing catching and minimizing spillage by the shape of the outer upstanding wall adapted to contain liquid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cup support as taught by Fleshman to include c. an outer upstanding wall extending from both the head base wall and the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the plane of the head base wall and to the handle base wall so as to extend non-coplanar and non- parallel with the head base wall and the handle base wall, wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of each of the head base wall and the handle base wall and is adapted to contain a portion of the stream of liquid that impinges on the cup support as taught by Young to minimize and catch spillage (Abstract and Col. 2 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 2, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the head portion and the handle portion are integrally formed (Fleshman As shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the cup support is formed from a liquid absorbent material (Fleshman Para. [0029], “Non-limiting examples of suitable materials for manufacture of the device 10 include paper, cardboard, pressed paper laminate, plasticized coating material on any of the preceding materials, or any other material or combination of materials having combined characteristics of flexibility and resiliency to provide the bending and shape memory retention required of the invention when used. A non-limiting commercial example of a suitable alpha-cellulose material that is considered suitable or manufacture for the device 10 is Alphamat.TM. manufactured by Artcare Systems of Nielsen & Bainbridge headquartered at 40 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, N.J. 07653.” This material is absorbent. See also Para. [0031], “As shown in FIG. 5, a further alternative embodiment of the device 10 can include a moisture absorbent surface 28 over at least a portion of the device 10.”).
Regarding claim 4, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the cup support is formed from a cellulose material (Fleshman Para. [0029], “Non-limiting examples of suitable materials for manufacture of the device 10 include paper, cardboard, pressed paper laminate, plasticized coating material on any of the preceding materials, or any other material or combination of materials having combined characteristics of flexibility and resiliency to provide the bending and shape memory retention required of the invention when used. A non-limiting commercial example of a suitable alpha-cellulose material that is considered suitable or manufacture for the device 10 is Alphamat.TM. manufactured by Artcare Systems of Nielsen & Bainbridge headquartered at 40 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, N.J. 07653.” This material is absorbent. See also Para. [0031], “As shown in FIG. 5, a further alternative embodiment of the device 10 can include a moisture absorbent surface 28 over at least a portion of the device 10.”).
Regarding claim 5, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the outer upstanding wall angles laterally outwardly from at least one of the head base wall or the handle base wall so as to extend beyond the outer perimeter of the head base wall or the handle base wall, respectively (Young FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” as the outer upstanding wall that angles laterally outwardly from the head of the base wall to extend beyond the perimeter of the head base wall as claimed.).
Regarding claim 6, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around the entire perimeter of at least one of the head base wall or the handle base wall (Young As shown in FIG. 1-3, the bowl 12 extends completely around the entire perimeter of the head base wall).
Regarding claim 7, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the plane of the head base wall and the plane of the handle base wall are substantially parallel (Fleshman As shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 7, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the plane of the head base wall and the plane of the handle base wall are substantially co-planar (Fleshman As shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified further discloses further comprising a rim extending laterally outwardly from an upper edge of the outer upstanding wall (Young FIG. 3, “raised skirt 32”).
Regarding claim 11, Fleshman discloses A stack of cup supports, each cup support having an upper side and a lower side and comprising (Abstract and entire document, FIG. 1 showing the upper side and the lower side is behind):
a. a head portion (i) comprising a head base wall having an outer perimeter and extending within a head base wall plane and (ii) in which is defined an aperture having an aperture opening adapted to receive, in a direction from the upper side to the lower side of the cup support, a specimen cup for collection of a stream of liquid (FIG. 1-7, para. [0028], “a collection vessel securing end 12” which has an outer perimeter and fits a cup, see [0030], “The collection vessel securing end 12 defines there through a vessel receptacle portal 20 that is sized and configured to receive any conventional urine collection vessel, such as that exemplified at 22 in FIG. 4.”); and
b. a handle portion extending from, and formed integrally with, the head portion and comprising a handle base wall having an outer perimeter and extending within a handle base wall plane (FIG. 1-7, para. [0028], “a connecting arm 14 to a grasping end 16” which has an outer perimeter as shown and handle base wall is 14/16),
Fleshman fails to disclose wherein the head portions and the handle portions of adjacent cup supports in the stack of cup supports are adapted to interlock to prevent relative movement between the adjacent cup supports.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches wherein the head portions and the handle portions of adjacent cup supports in the stack of cup supports are adapted to interlock to prevent relative movement between the adjacent cup supports (As shown in FIG. 1, stacked cup supports would interlock as claimed by adding the bowl 12 as the outer wall as taught by Young by effectively the same modification with respect to claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the stack of cup supports as taught by Fleshman to include wherein the head portions and the handle portions of adjacent cup supports in the stack of cup supports are adapted to interlock to prevent relative movement between the adjacent cup supports as taught by Young to minimize and catch spillage (Abstract and Col. 2 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 12, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 11, Fleshman as modified further discloses where each cup support further comprises an outer upstanding wall that extends (i) from the head base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the head base wall plane so as to extend non- coplanar and non-parallel with the head base wall and (Young FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” as the outer upstanding wall that extends to the upper side from the head base wall and the handle base wall nonparallel and non-coplanar)
(ii) around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the head base wall, wherein the head portion of an upper cup support in the stack of cup supports is at least partially received within the outer upstanding wall of a cup support located immediately below the upper cup support in the stack of cup supports (Young FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” extends around the entirety of the outer perimeter of the head base wall and a portion of the outer perimeter of the handle base wall. Handle 18 is also shaped with an outer upstanding wall. See also Col. 2 lines 10-20 discussing catching and minimizing spillage by the shape of the outer upstanding wall adapted to contain liquid. stacked cup supports would interlock as claimed by adding the spill guard as taught by Young ).
Regarding claim 13, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 12, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around the entire perimeter of the head base wall (Young As shown in FIG. 1-3, the bowl 12 extends completely around the entire perimeter of the head base wall).
Regarding claim 14, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 12, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein each cup support further comprises a rim extending laterally outwardly from an upper edge of the outer upstanding wall (Young FIG. 3, “raised skirt 32”).
Regarding claim 15, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 12, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the outer upstanding wall further extends (i) from the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support and at an angle to the handle base wall plane so as to extend non-coplanar and non-parallel with the handle base wall and (Young FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” as the outer upstanding wall that extends to the upper side from the head base wall and the handle base wall nonparallel and non-coplanar)
(ii) around at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the handle base wall, wherein the handle portion of the upper cup support is at least partially received within the outer upstanding wall of the cup support located immediately below the upper cup support in the stack of cup supports (Young FIG. 1-3, “bowl 12” extends around the entirety of the outer perimeter of the head base wall and a portion of the outer perimeter of the handle base wall. Handle 18 is also shaped with an outer upstanding wall. See also Col. 2 lines 10-20 discussing catching and minimizing spillage by the shape of the outer upstanding wall adapted to contain liquid. stacked cup supports would interlock as claimed by adding the spill guard as taught by Young ).
Regarding claim 16, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 15, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the outer upstanding wall extends around the entire perimeter of the handle base wall (Young As shown in FIG. 1-3, the bowl 12 extends completely around the entire perimeter of the head base wall. The handle base wall 18 also extends around the entire perimeter of the handle, as the modified cup support taught by Fleshman modified by Young, the handle and head portions are integral as shown in Fleshman, and the outer walls as taught by Young would extend around the entire perimeter of the cup support).
Regarding claim 18, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 11, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the cup support is formed from a cellulose material (Fleshman Para. [0029], “Non-limiting examples of suitable materials for manufacture of the device 10 include paper, cardboard, pressed paper laminate, plasticized coating material on any of the preceding materials, or any other material or combination of materials having combined characteristics of flexibility and resiliency to provide the bending and shape memory retention required of the invention when used. A non-limiting commercial example of a suitable alpha-cellulose material that is considered suitable or manufacture for the device 10 is Alphamat.TM. manufactured by Artcare Systems of Nielsen & Bainbridge headquartered at 40 Eisenhower Drive, Paramus, N.J. 07653.” This material is absorbent. See also Para. [0031], “As shown in FIG. 5, a further alternative embodiment of the device 10 can include a moisture absorbent surface 28 over at least a portion of the device 10.”).
Regarding claim 19, Fleshman as modified discloses The stack of cup supports of claim 11, Fleshman as modified further discloses wherein the head base wall plane and the handle base wall plane are substantially co-planar (Fleshman As shown in FIG. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleshman (US 2010/0174209 A1) (“Fleshman”) in view of Young (US 6,299,606 B1) (“Young”) in further view of Moore (US 2021/0015468 A1) (“Moore”).
Regarding claim 10, Fleshman as modified discloses The cup support of claim 1, Fleshman as modified fails to disclose further comprising an upstanding rib extending from the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moore teaches further comprising an upstanding rib extending from the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support ([0037], “Gripping structures 38 include raised textures such as circles, grid patterns, ribs, or other suitable structures or patterns for enhancing grip.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cup support as taught by Fleshman as modified to include further comprising an upstanding rib extending from the handle base wall towards the upper side of the cup support as taught by Moore to enhance grip ([0037], “Gripping structures 38 include raised textures such as circles, grid patterns, ribs, or other suitable structures or patterns for enhancing grip.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 20 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791