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 06/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 12, 17 and 19 have been amended. Claims 5, 16, 18 are cancelled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17, 19-22 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections and 112(b) rejections and such objections and rejections are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brooks alone for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made over Brooks in view of Wagner.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Tazoe teaches at least one of cardstock or cardboard, as discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brooks in view of Wolff for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made over Brooks in view of Tazoe and further in view of Wolff.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0247968 A1) in view of Wagner (US Pat. No.: 5,991,932).
Regarding claim 1, Brooks discloses (fig. 1-4) a liner assembly configured to be disposed within a urine collection container (rigid canister 12 for a medical suction device, ¶ 0001), the liner assembly comprising:
A lid (16) configured to be removably attached to the urine collection container (¶ 0019), the lid including a vacuum port (58a, ¶ 0028) and a collection port (port 58b, ¶ 0032); and
A liner (14) configured to extend from the lid into the urine collection container (fig. 4, ¶ 0016), the liner defining an interior of the liner assembly (fig. 4),
Wherein the lid further includes a dispensing spout (port 58d, ¶ 0029) and a vent spout (port 58c) in fluid communication with the interior of the liner (¶ 0023), and wherein the vacuum port and the collection port are configured to be in direct fluid communication with the interior of the liner assembly (¶ 0023).
Brooks fails to disclose wherein the liner includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard.
Wagner teaches (fig. 1-2) a urinary aid device (10) and thus in the same field of endeavor including at least one of cardstock or cardboard (col. 3, ln. 51-55), as such material is suitable for contact with urine and can be disposed of after one use or wiped and reused (col. 4, ln. 45-50).
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 liner of Brooks such that it includes the cardstock or cardboard of Wagner, as such material is suitable for contact with urine and can be disposed of after one use or wiped and reused (Wagner col. 4, ln. 45-50).
Regarding claim 3, Brooks in view of Wagner disclose wherein the liner includes at least cardstock having a weight of about 100 lb. cardstock to about 125 lb. cardstock (col. 3, ln. 51-57) which falls within the claimed range of about 65 lb. cardstock to about 140 lb. cardstock.
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 4, Brooks discloses wherein at least one of the liner or the lid is configured to be connected to the urine collection container (¶ 0019).
Regarding claim 6, Brooks discloses wherein the lid further includes a first cap (64d) configured to cover the dispensing spout and a second cap (64c) configured to cover the vent spout (fig. 1, ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 10, Brooks in view of Wagner fail to disclose wherein the liner is configured to be reusable.
Wagner teaches wherein the cardstock is reusable (col. 4, ln. 46-50) in order to configure the device to be wiped and reused (col. 4, ln. 46-50).
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 liner of Brooks in view of Wagner such that it is configured to be reusable, as taught b Wagner, in order to allow the liner to be wiped and reused (Wagner, col. 4, ln. 46-50).
Regarding claim 11, Brooks discloses wherein the liner is configured to be disposable (¶ 0016).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Wagner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tippet et al. (Pub. No.: US 2012/0215187 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Brooks in view of Wagner fail to disclose that the liner is configured to be non-collapsible under a vacuum pressure of up to about 300 mmHg.
Tippet teaches (fig. 4) a liner assembly (¶ 0001) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a liner (42) wherein the liner is configured to be non-collapsible under a vacuum pressure of up 29 inches Hg (¶ 0025) or 736.6 mmHg, which encompasses the claimed range of up to about 300 mmHg, in order to provide a liner that retains its structural integrity during and after repeated subjection to vacuum pressures (¶ 0025).
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
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 liner of Brooks in view of Wagner such that it is configured to be non-collapsible under a vacuum pressure of up to about 300 mmHg, as taught by Tippet, in order to configure the liner to retain its structural integrity during and after repeated subjection to vacuum pressures (Tippet ¶ 0025).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Wagner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wormser et al (Pub. No.: US 2022/0287691 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Brooks in view of Wagner fail to disclose a urine-solidifying agent.
Wormser teaches (fig. 1) a liner assembly (urine container 100) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a urine-solidifying agent (water-absorbent resin, ¶ 0020).
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 liner assembly of Brooks in view of Wagner such that it comprises a urine-solidifying agent, as taught by Wormser, in order to aid in easier disposal of urine such that urine does not spill or splash.
Regarding claim 9, Brooks in view of Wagner and further in view of Wormser disclose wherein the urine-solidifying agent includes a film coated on an interior surface of the liner (Wormser, ¶ 0020).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Wagner and further in view of Wormser, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bryant et al. (Pat. No.: 5,234,419).
Regarding claim 8, Brooks in view of Wagner and further in view of Wormser fails to disclose wherein the urine-solidifying agent includes a packet included in the interior of the liner.
Bryant teaches (fig. 1-2) a liner assembly (liner 14, abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a solidifying agent (reservoir 40 and germicide and/or absorbent 44), wherein the solidifying agent includes a packet (reservoir 40) included in the interior of the liner (col. 3, ln. 62-col. 4, ln. 2) in order to allow for the capture and transfer of waste in a solid or semi-solid state (col. 2, ln. 27-30).
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 urine-solidifying agent of Brooks in view of Wagner and further in view of Wormser such that it includes a packet included in the interior of the liner, as taught by Bryant, in order to allow for the capture and transfer of waste in a solid or semi-solid state (Bryant col. 2, ln. 27-30).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Tazoe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2005/0070862 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Brooks discloses (fig. 1-4) a urine collection system (medical suction system 10), comprising:
A collection line configured to collect a substance discharged from a user (¶ 0029);
A pump configured to draw the substance from the collection line by applying at least a partial suction force to the collection line (¶ 0028, ¶ 0033);
A urine collection container (rigid canister 12) in fluid communication with the collection line (see port 58b, ¶ 0033);
A lid (16) configured to be removably attached to an upper portion of the urine collection container (¶ 0017, ¶ 0019); and
A liner assembly configured to be disposed within the urine collection container, wherein the liner assembly includes a liner (14) configured to extend from a lid (16) to a closed bottom portion (bottom 40) (fig. 4) and defining an interior of the liner assembly (fig. 3); and
Wherein the lid includes a dispensing spout (port 58d, ¶ 0029) and a vent spout (port 58c) in fluid communication with the interior of the liner (¶ 0023).
Brooks fails to disclose wherein the system comprises a urine collection device configured to collect urine discharged from a user; and the pump configured to draw urine from the urine collection device by applying at least a partial suction force to a reservoir within the urine collection device, and wherein the liner includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard.
Tazoe teaches (fig. 1-2) a urine collection system (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
A urine collection device (urine receptacle 1) configured to collect urine discharged from a user (¶ 0021); and a pump (51) configured to draw urine from the urine collection device by applying at least a partial suction force to a reservoir within the urine collection device (¶ 0037), wherein the urine collection device is able to provide an improved urine collection efficiency and reduce the amount of residual urine (¶ 0022); and
A liner (urine pack 31), wherein the liner includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard (i.e., heavy paper, ¶ 0025), the liner configured to be disposed of as burnable waste (¶ 0040).
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 system of Brooks such that it comprises the urine collection device of Tazoe connected to the collection line in order to configure the system to collect urine with a urine collection device that is able to provide an improved urine collection efficiency and reduce the amount of residual urine (Tazoe ¶ 0022).
Further, 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 liner of Brooks such that it includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard, as taught by Tazoe, in order to configure the liner to be disposed of as burnable waste (Tazoe ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 13, Brooks discloses wherein the liner is configured to be removable and replaceable (¶ 0016).
Regarding claim 14, Brooks in view of Tazoe fail to disclose wherein the liner assembly includes a urine-solidifying agent.
Tazoe teaches (fig. 5) a liner assembly comprising a liner (urine bag 34), wherein the liner assembly includes a urine-solidifying agent (superabsorbent polymers 37, ¶ 0049) in order to prevent the swaying of the collected urine and prevent leaking of urine (¶ 0038).
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 liner assembly of Brooks in view of Tazoe such that it includes a urine-solidifying agent, as taught by Tazoe, in order to prevent the swaying of the collected urine and prevent leaking of urine (Tazoe ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 15, Brooks in view of Tazoe fail to disclose wherein the urine collection container includes a rectangular shape.
Tazoe teaches wherein the system comprises a urine collection container (urine tank 30), wherein the urine collection container includes a rectangular shape (fig. 1, ¶ 0025), wherein the urine collection container is shaped to be portable (¶ 0026).
Changes in shape are a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47, see MPEP § 2144.04 IV. B.) as the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of this limitation.
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 urine collection container of Brooks in view of Tazoe such that it includes a rectangular shape, as taught by Tazoe, in order to configure the urine collection container to be portable (Tazoe ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 17, Brooks discloses wherein the lid further includes a vacuum port (58a, ¶ 0028) configured to be in fluid communication with the pump (¶ 0028) and a collection port (port 58b, ¶ 0032) configured to be in fluid communication with a collection line (¶ 0029).
As discussed in claim 12 above, Brooks in view of Tazoe disclose wherein the collection port is configured to be in fluid communication with the urine collection device via the collection line.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (Pub. No.: US 2002/0087131 A1) in view of Tazoe and further in view of Simiele et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0160949 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wolff discloses (fig. 1a) a method of collecting urine (abstract), the method comprising:
Inserting a liner (bag 2) within a urine collection container (storage container 1, ¶ 0027), the liner defining an interior (fig. 1a);
Placing a urine collection device (layered female interface 27) at least proximate to a urethra of a user (¶ 0045);
Receiving urine discharged from the user in the urine collection device (¶ 0045);
Receiving the urine from the urine collection device in the interior of the liner disposed within the urine collection container (¶ 0029); and
Emptying the urine from the liner (¶ 0034), wherein the urine collection container comprises a lid (11) configured to be removably attached to an upper portion of the urine collection container (¶ 0027), wherein the lid includes a dispensing spout (tap 19) in fluid communication with the interior of the liner (¶ 0034).
Wolff fails to disclose the liner including at least one of cardstock or cardboard.
Tazoe teaches (fig. 5) a method of collecting urine (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: a liner (urine pack 31), wherein the liner includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard (i.e., heavy paper, ¶ 0025), the liner configured to be disposed of as burnable waste (¶ 0040).
Further, 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 liner of Wolff such that it includes at least one of cardstock or cardboard, as taught by Tazoe, in order to configure the liner to be disposed of as burnable waste (Tazoe ¶ 0040).
Wolff in view of Tazoe fail to disclose wherein the lid includes a vent spout in fluid communication with the interior of the liner.
Simiele teaches (fig. 1A) a method of collecting urine (¶ 0009) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
Inserting a liner (collection bag 170) within a urine collection container (collection container 130) (¶ 0035);
Wherein the urine collection container comprises a lid, wherein the lid includes a vent spout (outlet vent 136) in fluid communication with the interior of the liner (¶ 0037, fig. 1A) in order to allow air or similar gas to be released (¶ 0037).
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 method of Wolff in view of Tazoe such that the lid includes a vent spout in fluid communication with the interior of the liner, as taught by Simiele, in order to allow air or similar gas to be released (¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 20, Wolff in view of Tazoe and further in view of Simiele fail to disclose solidifying the urine and disposing of the urine.
Tazoe further teaches (fig. 5) solidifying the urine (¶ 0038) and disposing of the urine (¶ 0050) in order to prevent the swaying of the collected urine and prevent leaking of urine (¶ 0038).
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 method of Wolff in view of Tazoe and further in view of Simiele such that it comprises solidifying the urine and disposing of the urine, as taught by Tazoe, in order to prevent the swaying of the collected urine and prevent leaking of urine (Tazoe ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 21, Wolff discloses disposing of the liner (¶ 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest a liner including cardboard having a single face board, a single wall board, a double wall board, or a combination thereof. Hjorth et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0311069 A1) discloses a female urination aid comprising cardboard. Davies et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0193215 A1) discloses a liquid container for urine comprising corrugated board. Hughes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0000027 A1) discloses a urine receptacle comprising cardboard. The prior art of record is silent to the cardboard having a single face board, a single wall board, a double wall board, or a combination thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Doherty (US Pat. No.: 3,648,698) discloses a liner assembly. Cocks et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0358108 A1) discloses a cardboard liquid container.
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 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 MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights