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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/18/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 13 “a antimicrobial” should read –an antimicrobial--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 4, line 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the a antimicrobial additive” in line 3. It is unclear if this language refers to the antimicrobial additive recited in claim 1, line 10, or an additional additive. For examination purposes, “the a antimicrobial additive” is interpreted to read –the antimicrobial additive--.
Claim 5 recites “the one structural component” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the one structural component” is interpreted to read –the component--.
Claim 6 recites “the antimicrobially equipped structural component” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the antimicrobially equipped structural component” is interpreted to read –the at least one of the components having antimicrobial properties--.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the sanitary cubicle a disinfectant dispenser” in lines 2-4. It is unclear if this language is intending to claim the disinfectant dispenser and/or the soap dispenser and/or the paper-towel dispenser as part of the sanitary cubicle. For examination purposes, “wherein the sanitary cubicle a disinfectant dispenser” is interpreted to read –wherein the sanitary cubicle comprises a disinfectant dispenser--.
Claim 12 “the thermoplastic material” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the thermoplastic material” is interpreted to read –a thermoplastic material--.
Any remaining dependent claim(s) are indefinite insofar as they depend on a rejected base claim.
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, 3-4, 7-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reynaud (WO 2014108628; machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Reynaud discloses a sanitary cubicle (1) comprising:
a floor (2),
a roof (5),
a plurality of side walls (3), the floor, roof, and side walls each being a component of the cubicle (see Fig. 1-3);
a sanitary device (9) and a tank (tank of 9) for waste water and/or feces and also being a component of the cubicle (see Fig. 1-3), and
material including an antimicrobial additive in or forming a surface of at least one of the components of the sanitary cubicle (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-11; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5) and having antimicrobial properties (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-11; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Reynaud discloses a plurality of support or corner posts (corner posts of 1) connecting the side walls of the sanitary cubicle to one another (see Fig. 1-3) and also being components of the cubicle (see Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Reynaud discloses wherein at least some of the components of the sanitary cubicle substantially consist of plastic (p. 5, ll. 12-13), the sanitary device and/or the tank also substantially consisting of plastic (p. 5, ll. 12-13).
Regarding claim 7, Reynaud discloses wherein the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties is the sanitary device (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-11; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Reynaud discloses wherein one of the side walls of the sanitary cubicle is formed by a cubicle door (6) and is the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-11; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Reynaud discloses wherein the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties is one of the side walls and/or the tank (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-11; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Reynaud discloses wherein the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties is manufactured using a rotational process or by rotational molding (p. 2, l. 39 - p. 3, l. 5; p. 5, ll. 1-13; p. 5, l. 43 - p. 6, l. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaud (WO 2014108628; machine translation attached) Stevenson (US 20030141620).
Regarding claim 2, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose the antimicrobial additive contains or releases antimicrobially acting metal ions as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein the antimicrobial additive contains or releases antimicrobially acting metal ions (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the antimicrobial additive of Reynaud, to contain or release antimicrobially acting metal ions as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that anti-microbial activity is permanently applied to the surfaces of polyolefin objects by incorporating anti-microbial metals and metal salts into the surfaces (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 5, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose wherein the material containing the a antimicrobial additive of the one structural component provided with antimicrobial properties is a polyethylene containing the antimicrobial additive as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein the material containing the a antimicrobial additive of the one structural component provided with antimicrobial properties is a polyethylene containing the antimicrobial additive (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the material containing the antimicrobial additive of Reynaud, to be polyethylene as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that polyethylene is the polyolefin of choice as it has desirable properties and relative low cost (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose wherein the material of the surface of the antimicrobially equipped structural component contains 0.05 to 2.5% by weight of the antimicrobial additive as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein the material of the surface of the antimicrobially equipped structural component contains 0.05 to 2.5% by weight of the antimicrobial additive (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the material of the surface of the antimicrobially equipped structural component of Reynaud, to contain 0.05 to 2.5% by weight of the antimicrobial additive as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that anti-microbial activity is permanently applied to the surfaces of polyolefin objects by incorporating anti-microbial metals and metal salts into the surfaces and the composition can be diluted for ease of application (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 12, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
Reynaud further discloses a method of making a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the components is formed by a rotational process or rotational molding (p. 5, ll. 12-13).
However, Reynaud does explicitly disclose a mixture of the thermoplastic material and a antimicrobial additive is used for the rotational process or rotational molding as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein a mixture of the thermoplastic material and a antimicrobial additive is used for the rotational process or rotational molding (¶ 0005, 0010, 0015-0016, 0026-0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rotational process or rotational molding of Reynaud, to use a mixture of thermoplastic material and an antimicrobial additive as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that the anti-microbial composition can be applied to the inside surface of a rotational mold to incorporate the composition elements into the outside surface of a molded part during its formation (¶ 0005, 0010, 0015-0016, 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above and specifically Stevenson further discloses the step of:
providing a fine-particle or powdery mixture of a fine-particle or powdery thermoplastic material (¶ 0016-0020, 0026-0028) and a fine-particle or powdery antimicrobial additive (¶ 0016-0020, 0026-0028) and subsequently
using the mixture in the rotational process or in rotational molding (¶ 0005, 0010, 0015-0016, 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 14, the combination above and specifically Stevenson further discloses wherein the thermoplastic material is polyethylene (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 15, the combination above and specifically Stevenson further discloses the step of:
providing a proportion of the antimicrobial additive in the mixture or in the material of thermoplastic material at 0.05 to 2.5% by weight (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 16, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose wherein the component having the antimicrobial additive is made of polyolefin as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein the component having the antimicrobial additive is made of polyolefin (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the component having the antimicrobial additive of Reynaud, to be made of polyolefin as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that many articles which could be enhance with an anti-microbial surface are molded of polyolefins (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Regarding claim 17, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose the component having the antimicrobial additive is made of polyethylene as claimed.
Stevenson discloses surfacing of polyolefin objects with antimicrobial material including bathroom fixtures (¶ 0005) wherein the component having the antimicrobial additive is made of polyethylene (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the component having the antimicrobial additive of Reynaud, to be made of polyethylene as claimed, as taught by Stevenson, since it was known in the art that polyethylene is the polyolefin of choice as it has desirable properties and relative low cost (¶ 0005, 0013, 0017, 0028).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynaud (WO 2014108628; machine translation attached) in view of Stefani (ITFI20090222; machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Reynaud discloses substantially all the elements of the present invention as stated above in the rejection of claim 1.
However, Reynaud does not disclose wherein the sanitary cubicle a disinfectant dispenser and/or a soap dispenser and/or a paper-towel dispenser constituting a component of the sanitary cubicle, and the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties is the disinfectant dispenser and/or the soap dispenser and/or the paper-towel dispenser as claimed.
Stefani discloses a tissue sheet dispenser wherein the sanitary cubicle (p. 1, l. 8 – p. 2, l. 8) a disinfectant dispenser and/or a soap dispenser and/or a paper-towel dispenser (1; p. 1, l. 8 – p. 2, l. 8) constituting a component of the sanitary cubicle, and the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties is the disinfectant dispenser and/or the soap dispenser and/or the paper-towel dispenser (p. 1, l. 8 – p. 2, l. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the component of the sanitary cubicle provided with antimicrobial properties of Reynaud, to be a paper-towel dispenser as claimed, as taught by Stefani, since it was known in the art that dispensers are placed in areas or environments that may be contaminated with bacteria or other pathogenic microorganisms and to treat a surface of the dispenser with antibacterial material (p. 1, l. 8 – p. 2, l. 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 20140143945) is directed to the state of the art as disclosing a mobile toilet structure including a lid (50), panels (40), operable board (44), sleeve tubes (30), and a base (10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R KLOTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11AM-5PM.
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 P 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.
/WILLIAM R KLOTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights