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 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.
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, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1) and Schneider (Patent No. US 6,007,524 A).
Regarding claim 1, Otto teaches a fluid collection system (urine collection system 10; Figure 9; Paragraph 0052), comprising: a fluid collection device configured to collect fluid discharged from a user (collection receptacle 18 collects fluid from user; Paragraph 0052; Figure 9); a fluid collection container configured to receive the fluid from the fluid collection device (reservoir 26 receives fluid from receptacle 18; Paragraph 0053; Figure 10), wherein the fluid collection container is a rectangular shape (reservoir is rectangular in shape; Figure 10 and 13); and a pump (vacuum pump applies vacuum to pull urine from receptacle 18 to reservoir 26; Figure 9 and 10; Paragraph 0052); wherein the fluid collection container includes a drainage port and a drainage tube (reservoir 26 has a port 132 for drainage with a drainage tube 136; Figure 26; Paragraph 0068).
Otto does not teach the pump in fluid communication with the fluid collection container configured to pull an at least partial vacuum on an interior region of the fluid collection container effective to draw fluid from a fluid collection device into the fluid collection container.
However, Wolff teaches wherein the pump is configured to pull an at least partial vacuum on an interior region of the fluid collection container effective to draw fluid from the fluid collection device through the first tube into the fluid collection container (pump 4 provides a vacuum in the container 21 to pull fluid through tube 22; Paragraph 0028 and 0035; Figure 3b).
Otto and Wolff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto to incorporate the teachings of Wolff to have the container comprising a lid of Wolff with the connection of the pump at a second tube as the container with the pump connection of Otto. This would allow for urine to be drawn into the container while preventing direct contact of fluid to the pump and the pump monitors the delivery of vacuum based on the vacuum level of the system, including the pressure in the container (Wolff; Paragraph 0026-0028).
The combination of Otto in view of Wolf does not teach wherein the drainage port activates a valve that opens when the drainage tube is coupled to the drainage port.
However, Schneider teaches wherein the drainage port activates a valve that opens when the drainage tube is coupled to the drainage port (valve 42 is located in the drainage port and will open when tube 41 is connected; Figures 6-7; Column 3, lines 35-48).
Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff to incorporate the teachings of Schneider to have the valve of Schneider in the drainage port of Otto in view of Wolff. This would allow for the sealing of the fluid when not connected to a discharge tube and open when the discharge tube is connected (Schneider; Column 3, lines 35-48).
Regarding claim 3, Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider teaches the system of claim 1. Otto further teaches wherein the fluid collection container is sized and dimensioned to be disposed within a portable carrying case (reservoir 26 is within a case/enclosure 12 with a handle 14 for portable carrying; Paragraph 0022 and 0051; Figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider teaches the system of claim 1. Otto further teaches wherein the fluid collection container includes a capacity from about 800mL to about 1000mL (reservoir 26 can hold approximately 1 to 2 liters; Paragraph 0054).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the volume of the fluid collection container of Otto to be from about 800 to about 1000 mL since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the device of Otto would not operate differently with the claimed volume/capacity since the device is constructed with similar components, structure, and material characteristics (see disclosed above) and is intended to remove fluid from the user. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the capacity is to be “about” the claimed range (claim 9; specification; paragraph 0027).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1) and Schneider (Patent No. US 6,007,524 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burns et al. (Publication No. US 2004/0002687 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider does not teach wherein the rectangular shape includes a cubic shape.
However, Burns teaches wherein the container can be shaped cubic, spherical, conical, pyramidal, tetrahedral, or cylindrical (Paragraph 0028).
Since the prior art of Burns recognizes that a cubic shaped container is a type of waste collection container and is analogous to the claimed invention in the field of waste collection devices, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the reservoir of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider to be a cubic shape, as taught by Burns, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent waste collection containers recognized in the art, with the function of collecting waste from the user, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another, substituting the reservoir of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider, to be a cubic shaped container, as taught by Burns, is obvious when predictable results are achieved, with the results of collecting waste from the user. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1) and Schneider (Patent No. US 6,007524 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wisniewski (Publication No. US 2017/0049605 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider does not teach wherein the fluid collection container includes a durable plastic.
However, Wisniewski teaches wherein the fluid collection container includes a durable plastic (bag is made of a durable plastic material; Paragraph 0051).
Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider and Wisniewski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Wisniewski to have the container of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider to be made of a durable plastic material, as taught by Wisniewski. This allows for the bag to hold fluid in a sealed manner, even under applied external forces (Wisniewski; Paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider does not teach wherein the drainage tube includes a valve that opens to drain the fluid collection container.
However, Wisniewski teaches wherein the drainage tube includes a valve that opens to drain the fluid collection container (outlet tube 22 has a drainage valve 22.2 on the second end portion 22.2; Figure 1; Paragraph 0053).
Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider and Wisniewski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Wisniewski to have the drainage tube of Otto in view of Wolff and Schneider to have the drainage valve, as taught by Wisniewski. This allows for the user to manually control fluid drainage from the container (Wisniewski; Paragraph 0053).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Otto teaches a portable fluid collection system (a portable urine collection system 10; Figure 9; Paragraph 0051-0052), comprising: a fluid collection device configured to be positioned at least proximate to a urethra of a user (collection receptacle 18 collects fluid from user where the collection receptacle is a cup that is to be placed against the urethra of the user; Paragraph 0052 and 0061; Figure 9); a first tube in fluid communication with the fluid collection device (conduit for receiving urine is connected to reservoir; Figure 26; Paragraph 0067); a fluid collection container exhibiting a rectangular shape (reservoir 26 is rectangular in shape; Figure 10, 13, and 26); a pump (pump pulls urine from collection receptacle 18 through conduit and into reservoir; Paragraph 0067); a power supply operatively coupled to the pump (battery is power supply that powers pump; Paragraph 0074-0075); and a drainage tube configured to couple to the fluid collection container (reservoir 26 has a drainage tube 136; Figure 26; Paragraph 0068), wherein the pump de-energizes when the drainage tube is coupled to the fluid collection container (when reservoir 26 passed fullness threshold, pump is deactivated to be emptied - drainage tube 136 can be attached to empty reservoir 26 when the reservoir 26 needs emptying; Paragraph 0056 and 0068). Otto does not teach the pump in fluid communication with the fluid collection container through a second tube, wherein the pump is configured to pull an at least partial vacuum on an interior region of the fluid collection container effective to draw fluid from the fluid collection device through the first tube into the fluid collection container.
However, Wolff teaches the pump in fluid communication with the fluid collection container through a second tube (pump 4 is in fluid communication with container 21 through tube 22; Figure 3b; Paragraph 0028 and 0035), wherein the pump is configured to pull an at least partial vacuum on an interior region of the fluid collection container effective to draw fluid from the fluid collection device through the first tube into the fluid collection container (pump 4 provides a vacuum in the container 21 to pull fluid; Paragraph 0028; Figure 3b).
Otto and Wolff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto to incorporate the teachings of Wolff to have the container comprising a lid with two connectors for the first and second tube, as taught by Wolff, with the connection of the pump at a second tube as the container with the pump connection of Otto. This would allow for urine to be drawn into the container while preventing direct contact of fluid to the pump and the pump monitors the delivery of vacuum based on the vacuum level of the system, including the pressure in the container (Wolff; Paragraph 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 11, Otto in view of Wolff teaches system of claim 10. Otto further teaches wherein the fluid collection system is sized and dimensioned to be disposed within a portable carrying case (reservoir 26 is within a case/enclosure 12 with a handle 14 for portable carrying; Paragraph 0022 and 0051; Figure 8).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Patterson (Patent No. US 3,356,091 A).
Regarding claim 12, Otto in view of Wolff teaches the system of claim 10. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff does not teach wherein the first tube is configured to be disposed within a fabric sleeve.
However, Patterson teaches wherein the first tube is configured to be disposed within a fabric sleeve (tube 26 is covered with a fabric tubular member 18; Figure 1; Column 2, lines 40-54, Column 2, lines 60-64, and Column 4, lines 17-30).
Otto in view of Wolff and Patterson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff to incorporate the teachings of Patterson to have the fabric sleeve of Patterson to cover the first tube of Otto in view of Wolff. This allows for the comfort of the user when the tube contacts the user’s skin (Patterson; Column 4, lines 17-30).
Regarding claim 13, Otto in view of Wolff and Patterson teaches the system of claim 10. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Patterson further teaches wherein at least a portion of the fabric sleeve includes an opaque covering (obvious that cotton fabric sleeve of Patterson is opaque and not transparent; Patterson; Column 4, lines 16-30).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Lin (Publication No. TW 202123903 A).
For the purposes of examination, the USPGPUB of Lin (Publication No. US 2021/0315726 A1) will be referenced in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 15, Otto in view of Wolff teaches the system of claim 10. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff further teaches further comprising a lid for the fluid collection container (Wolff; lid 22 of container 21; Figure 3b; Paragraph 0035).
The combination of Otto in view of Wolff does not teach the lid including a dispensing spout and a vent.
However, Lin teaches the lid including a dispensing spout and a vent (two vents 27, one is vent and the other is dispensing spout; Figure 1; Paragraph 0022). The term “dispensing spout” is interpreted to be an outlet that can release a substance, such as air or fluid. In this case, one out of the two vents of Lin is a dispensing spout, since it is an outlet that dispenses excessive air. Furthermore, the term “dispensing spout” is not defined in the instant application’s specification.
Otto in view of Wolff and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff to incorporate the teachings of Lin to have the two vents with plugs of Lin on the lid of the container of Otto in view of Wolff. This would allow for the urine to quickly flow through the device without resistance (Lin; Paragraph 0022 and 0028).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1) and Lin (Publication No. TW 202123903 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Slautterback (Patent No. US 3,369,940 A).
Regarding claim 16, Otto in view of Wolff and Lin teaches the system of claim 15 above. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin further teaches wherein the dispensing spout includes a first removable cover and the vent includes a second removable cover (Lin; first and second vents 27 have plugs 271 that are removable; Paragraph 0022 and 0028; Figure 1; see rejection of claim 15 above). The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin does not teach wherein the first removable cover and the second removable cover are connected.
However, Slautterback teaches wherein the first removable cover and the second removable cover are connected (flanges 30 are connected by cover 26; Figure 2; Column 2, lines 51-68).
Otto in view of Wolff and Lin and Slautterback are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because the inventor of Slautterback is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, more specifically the amount of time required to remove individual plugs/coverings from multiple vent openings (see Slautterback; Column 1, lines 35-40; Specification of instant application; Paragraph 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Wolff to have the two plugs of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin to be connected by a cover, as taught by Slautterback. This would allow for the effective opening and closing of the vents by the user (Slautterback; Column 1, lines 49-56).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Wolff et al. (Publication No. US 2002/0087131 A1) and Lin (Publication No. TW 202123903 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Holbrook (Patent No. US 3, 727,788 A).
Regarding claim 17, Otto in view of Wolff and Lin teaches the system of claim 15. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin teaches wherein the lid includes a first connector coupled to the first tube (Wolff; inlet 13 has a connector end to connect with tube 6; Figure 2a; Paragraph 0031) and a second connector coupled to the second tube (Wolff; second connector is connected to tube that delivers vacuum produced by pump 4 to container 21; Figure 3b). The combination of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin does not teach wherein the first connector and the second connector include elbow connectors.
However, Holbrook teaches wherein the first connector and the second connector include elbow connectors (elbows 14 and 15 are connected to ports 12 and 13; Figures 1 and 2; Column 3, lines 1-17).
Otto in view of Wolff and Lin and Holbrook are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid collection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Wolff and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Holbrook to have the first and second connectors of Otto in view of Wolff and Lin to have the elbow connectors of Holbrook. This would prevent the pinching of the conduits when the conduits are connected to the ports of the container (Holbrook; Column 3, lines 25-32).
Regarding claim 18, Otto in view of Wolff, Lin, and Holbrook teaches the system of claim 15. The combination of Otto in view of Wolff, Lin, and Holbrook further teaches wherein the elbow connectors include a tapered opening (Holbrook; elbow connections 14 and 15 have tapered ends; Figure 3; Claim 9; Column 3, lines 6-11).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (Publication No. US 2007/0225668 A1) in view of Schneider (Patent No. US 6,007524 A) and Wisniewski (Publication No. US 2017/0049605 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Otto teaches a method of draining a fluid collection system (urine collection system 10 is drained when full; Figure 26; Paragraph 0056 and 0068), the method comprising: de-energizing the fluid collection system (when reservoir 26 passed fullness threshold, pump is deactivated to be emptied - drainage tube 136 can be attached to empty reservoir 26 when the reservoir 26 needs emptying; Paragraph 0056 and 0068), wherein the fluid collection system includes a fluid collection container having a drainage port (reservoir 26 has a port 132 for drainage; Figure 26; Paragraph 0068); attaching a drainage tube to the drainage port (reservoir 26 has a port 132 for drainage to attach with a drainage tube 136; Figure 26; Paragraph 0068); opening a vent on the fluid collection container (vent 142 is opened to release excessive pressure in reservoir 26; Figure 26; Paragraph 0069). Otto does not teach wherein the drainage port includes a first valve that opens when the drainage tube is attached to the drainage port.
However, Schneider teaches wherein the drainage port includes a first valve that opens when the drainage tube is attached to the drainage port (valve 42 is located in the drainage port and will open when tube 41 is connected; Figures 6-7; Column 3, lines 35-48).
Otto and Schneider are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of urinary drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto to incorporate the teachings of Schneider to have the valve of Schneider in the drainage port of Otto. This would allow for the sealing of the fluid when not connected to a discharge tube and open when the discharge tube is connected (Schneider; Column 3, lines 35-48). The combination of Otto in view of Schneider does not teach wherein the drainage tube includes a second valve; and opening the second valve to discharge a fluid from the fluid collection system.
However, Wisniewski teaches wherein the drainage tube includes a second valve (outlet tube 22 has a drainage valve 22.2 on the second end portion 22.2; Figure 1; Paragraph 0053); and opening the second valve to discharge a fluid from the fluid collection system (valve 22.2 allows for drainage of fluid from container; Paragraph 0053).
Otto in view of Schneider and Wisniewski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid drainage systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Otto in view of Schneider to incorporate the teachings of Wisniewski to have the drainage tube of Otto in view of Schneider to have the drainage valve, as taught by Wisniewski. This allows for the user to manually control fluid drainage from the container (Wisniewski; Paragraph 0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781