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 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.
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: attachment mechanism in claim 2.
Regarding the limitation, “attachment mechanism,” the following application of the 3 prong analysis was utilized to determine a 112(f) interpretation:
Prong (A): the claim limitation uses a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder: “mechanism”
Prong (B): the generic placeholder is modified by functional language: “secures the body component to a tree or tree stand”
Prong (C): the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function: no additional structure pertaining to the drying system is recited.
Accordingly, the limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) and cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as a hook, loop, screw, nail and functional 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 § 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.
Claims 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the term “can” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually required or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Their dependent claims are similarly rejected as they inherit the issue.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are actually required or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Their dependent claims are similarly rejected as they inherit the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,212,691 (hereinafter Heberer).
Regarding claim 1, Heberer discloses a tree stand urinal device (10) that provides a user with a portable urinal for hunters (fig. 1), the tree stand urinal device comprising: a body component (16); and a hose (46); wherein the hose is secured to the body component (at discharge nipple 44); wherein an open end of the hose is buried in ground (fig. 1; col. 3, ln. 53-55); and further wherein users can urinate in the body component and have it drain through the hose and into the ground to prevent human scent from being detected by potential game (col. 3, ln. 50-60).
Regarding claim 2, Heberer discloses the tree stand urinal device of claim 1, wherein the body component (16) comprises an attachment mechanism (48) that secures the body component to a tree or tree stand (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Heberer discloses the tree stand urinal device of claim 2, wherein the body component has a top end (18), a bottom end (20), and a curved sidewall (funnel shape is curved).
Regarding claim 4, Heberer discloses the tree stand urinal device of claim 3, wherein the body component (16) is a generally elongated cylindrical shaped canister which is open at the top end (18) and tapers at the bottom end (18) to a discharge opening (44) (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Heberer discloses the tree stand urinal device of claim 4, wherein the body component has a handle (22).
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.
Claim(s) 6-13 and 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herberer in view of US Patent 6,370,701 (hereinafter Siegrist).
Regarding claim 6, Heberer discloses the tree stand urinal device of claim 5, wherein the open top end (18) of the body component is secured via a lid (24) that secure the lid to the body component during use to allow a user to easily remove the lid as evidenced by the teachings of Siegrist mentioned above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 6, wherein Heberer shows the lid hinges about a pin (25) and pivots between a closed position and an open position (fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 7, wherein Heberer shows the lid (24) includes a lever (28) having a locking mechanism (30) slidably mounted thereon.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 8, wherein a flexible gasket (42) is disposed at the top end (18) of the body component (16) between the body component (16) and the lid (24).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 9, but Heberer fails to show a plurality of indicia. Attention is again turned to Siegrist which shows further comprising a plurality of indicia (fig. 1) on the urinal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include indicia on the tree stand urinal device of Heberer to provide visual markings which may be beneficial to the user as evidenced by the teachings of Siegrist mentioned above; such inclusion being well-known and established in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 10, wherein Heberer shows the tree stand urinal device is manufactured in various colors, or camouflaged to blend in (camouflaged, col. 4, ln. 26-28).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 11, wherein Heberer shows the discharge opening (44) is adapted to receive an upper end of the hose (46) (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 12, wherein Heberer shows a lower end of the hose is buried underground to contain odor of urine (fig. 1; col. 3, ln. 50-60).
Regarding claim 15, Heberer discloses a tree stand urinal device (10) that provides a user with a portable urinal for hunters (fig. 1), the tree stand urinal device comprising:
a body component (16) has a top end (18), a bottom end (20), and a curved sidewall (funnel is curved); and
a hose (46) with an upper end and a lower end (fig. 1);
wherein the body component (16) is a generally elongated cylindrical shaped canister which is open at the top end (18) and tapers at the bottom end (18) to a discharge opening (44) (fig. 2);
wherein the open top end (18) of the body component is secured via a lid (24) that
wherein a flexible gasket (42) is disposed at the top end (18) of the body component (16) between the body component (16) and the lid (24);
wherein the body component (16) comprises an attachment mechanism (48) that secures the body component to a tree or tree stand (fig. 2);
wherein the discharge opening (44) is adapted to receive an upper end of the hose (46) (fig. 1);
wherein the lower end of the hose is buried underground to contain odor of urine (fig. 1; col. 3, ln. 50-60);
wherein the tree stand urinal device is manufactured in various colors, or camouflaged to blend in (camouflaged, col. 4, ln. 26-28); and
further wherein users can urinate in the body component and have it drain through the hose and into the ground to prevent human scent from being detected by potential game (col. 3, ln. 50-60).
Heberer fails to show the lid screws on and a strap to secure the lid to the body component during use. Attention is turned to Siegrist, in the same field of endeavor of portable urinals, which shows attaching a lid (40) to a urine receptacle with threads and a strap (42) to retain the lid to the body during use (fig. 1, 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Heberer to have the lid screw on and a strap to secure the lid to the body component during use to allow a user to easily remove the lid as evidenced by the teachings of Siegrist mentioned above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 15, wherein Heberer shows the body component has a handle (22).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 15, wherein Heberer shows the lid hinges about a pin (25) and pivots between a closed position and an open position (fig. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claim 17, wherein Heberer shows the lid (24) includes a lever (28) having a locking mechanism (30) slidably mounted thereon.
Regarding claim 20, Heberer shows a method of expelling urine without having to get in and out of the tree stand, the method comprising the following steps: providing a tree stand urinal device comprising a body component with an open top end secured with a lid and a tapered bottom end that is secured to a hose that reaches the ground (col. 3, ln. 50-60); .
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heberer and Siegrist as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2005/0262621 (hereinafter Dalton).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the combination of Heberer and Siegrist shows the tree stand urinal device of claims 13 and 15 as set forth above, but fails to show wherein a bottommost section of the hose includes a plurality of drain holes. Attention is turned to Dalton, in the same field of endeavor of tree stand urinals, which shows including a plurality of drain holes (50) in the bottommost section of a drainage hose to discharge and permeate urine into the ground. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to include having a bottommost section of the hose includes a plurality of drain holes to better discharge and permeate urine into the ground as evidenced by the teachings of Dalton mentioned above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0275352 is directed to the state of the art of hunting blind urinals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754