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
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: measuring/computing device and an indicator in claim 1, a detector in claim 11, measuring/computing device and an indicator in claim 15, and an act of detecting a use of the urinal cartridge and providing use information in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a system for indicating when the consumption factor reaches a predetermined threshold.
The limitation of indicating when the consumption factor reaches a predetermined threshold is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an indicator,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an indicator” language, “indicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the urinal to see if the urinal has been used and has passed a predetermined threshold. Similarly, the limitations of measuring/computing are processes, that under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with in the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a “measuring/computing device” and an “indicator” the generally recite general purpose computer elements and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a measuring/computing device” for measuring a consumption factor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 further define a general purpose computer implementing an abstract idea. As the above process is abstract for the reasons set forth above, merely repeating the abstract process again does not contribute significantly more when considered as a whole.
Claim 15 recite the same limitation as recited in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16-20 is directed toward a method that carries out the same process as recited in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins (US Patent 20020163432).
Regarding Claim 1, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge (20) usage determination (paragraph 50) and indication comprising: a measuring/computing device (60) for measuring a consumption factor (paragraph 51) where the consumption factor represents a usage measure of a waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 50); and an indicator (68) for indicating when the consumption factor reaches a predetermined threshold (paragraphs 5 & 8, 51).
Regarding Claim 2, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the consumption factor is a use-based consumption factor (paragraphs 50 and 51).
Regarding claim 3, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the time-based consumption factor is time (paragraph 52) and wherein the indicator indicates when a predetermined amount of time has passed since an installation of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 52 and 53).
Regarding Claim 4, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the use-based consumption factor is a number of usages of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 51) and wherein the indicator indicates when a predetermined number of usages has accumulated since an installation of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 5, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the time-based consumption factor is time (paragraph 50) and the use-based consumption factor is a number of usages of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 51) and wherein the indicator (change signal) indicates when a predetermined amount of time (paragraph 52) has passed or when a predetermined number of usages (paragraph 51) has accumulated since an installation of the waterless urinal cartridge, whichever occurs first (paragraph 53).
Reading Claim 6, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the time-based consumption factor is time (paragraph 50), the use-based consumption factor is a number of usages of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 51), and the frequency-based consumption factor is a frequency of use of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraphs 50 and 51), and wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraphs 49-53) is a function of the time-based consumption factor, the use-based consumption factor, and the frequency-based consumption factor .
Regarding Claim 7, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the time-based consumption factor is time (paragraph 62), and the frequency-based consumption factor (paragraph 50) is a frequency of use of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 51) and wherein the predetermined threshold is a function of the time-based consumption factor and the frequency-based consumption factor (paragraph 51 and 62).
Regarding Claim 8, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the use-based consumption factor is a number of usages of the waterless urinal cartridge (use counter; paragraph 51), and the frequency-based consumption factor is a frequency of use of the waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 50), and wherein the predetermined threshold is a function of the use-based consumption factor and the frequency-based consumption factor (predetermined number; paragraph 50).
Regarding Claim 9, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the physical characteristic-based consumption factor is a measurement of fluid flow through the cartridge (through a flow meter; 50).
Regarding Claim 10, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (change signal; paragraph 51) and wherein the indicator (68) indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 11, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 1, further comprising a detector (62, 64) for detecting a use of the urinal cartridge, the detector communicatively connected with the measuring/computing device (60) to provide use information to the measuring/computing device when a use occurs (paragraph 50) and where the measuring/computing device tracks the consumption factor based on the use information (paragraph 50).
Regarding Claim 12, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 11, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (change signal; paragraph 51) and wherein the indicator indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 13, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 11, wherein the acts of measuring (60), indicating (68), and detecting (64) are performed in body selected from a group consisting of a cartridge body (50; Fig.2; paragraph 8 line 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 13, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (change signal; paragraph 51) and wherein the indicator (68) indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 15, Higgins shows a system for waterless urinal cartridge (20) usage determination and indication comprising: a measuring/computing device (60) for measuring a consumption factor where the consumption factor represents a usage measure of a waterless urinal cartridge (use counter; paragraph 51); and a detector (62, 64) for detecting a use of the urinal cartridge (paragraph 51), the detector communicatively connected (through alerts; paragraph 8) with the measuring/computing device to provide use information to the measuring/computing device when a use occurs and where the measuring/computing device tracks the consumption factor based on the use information (paragraphs 8, 50, and 51).
Regarding Claim 16, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication comprising acts of: measuring a consumption factor (paragraphs 49-51) where the consumption factor represents a usage measure of a waterless urinal cartridge (paragraph 50); and indicating when the consumption factor reaches a predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 17, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 16, wherein the consumption factor is selected from a group consisting of a time-based consumption factor (paragraph 52) and a use-based consumption factor (paragraph 50).
Regarding Claim 18, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 16, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (paragraph 51) and wherein the act of indicating (flashing LED; paragraph 51) indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 19. A method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 16, further comprising an act of detecting a use (paragraph 8 lines 6-7) of the urinal cartridge and providing use information for use in the measuring act when a use occurs (paragraph 49 abd 51) and where in the measuring act, the consumption factor is tracked based on the use information (paragraphs 49-51).
Regarding Claim 20, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 16, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (paragraph 51) and wherein the act of indicating (flashing LED; paragraph 51) indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Regarding Claim 21, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 19, wherein the acts of measuring (60), indicating (68), and detecting (64) are performed in body selected from a group consisting of a cartridge body (50; Fig.2; paragraph 8 line 5).
Regarding Claim 22, Higgins shows a method for waterless urinal cartridge usage determination and indication as set forth in Claim 21, wherein the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51) determines when the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced (paragraph 51) and wherein the act of indicating (flashing LED; paragraph 51) indicates that the waterless urinal cartridge should be replaced when the consumption factor reaches the predetermined threshold (paragraph 51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goldsmith (US Patent Publication 20150204710) is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a waterless urinal that includes an indicator (700) in order to determine the levels of fluid in the urinal cartridge (paragraph 54).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm.
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.
/LAUREN A CRANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754