Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/771,704

LOW-PROFILE BEDPANS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 12, 2024
Examiner
LOEPPKE, JANIE MEREDITH
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
602 granted / 1107 resolved
-15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1147
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1107 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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) 1-2 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 10,022,286 (hereinafter Marshall). Regarding claim 1, Marshall discloses a bedpan (100) comprising: a housing (20) including a chamber (31) for holding urine and feces comprising: a top portion including: a top surface (26); an opening (30) in the top surface, the opening in fluid communication with an interior of the chamber when the top portion and a bottom portion (27) are coupled; an angled side wall (25) surrounding the top surface; and a rise portion on the top surface (note annotated fig. below), the rise portion being vertically higher than another portion of the top surface (note annotated fig. below); the bottom portion including a bottom surface (27), wherein the top portion is configured to be coupled with the bottom portion such that the interior of the chamber is liquid-tight (col. 2, ln. 61-col. 3, ln. 3). PNG media_image1.png 338 660 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Marshall discloses further comprising a handle (28), wherein the handle is formed integral to the housing (fig. 5). Regarding claim 6, Marshall discloses further comprising an apron (formed by from end 22), wherein the apron is sloped downward towards a distal surface (bottom) as it extends from an edge of a proximal surface to the edge of the opening (near leader line 20 in fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Marshall discloses wherein the opening (30) is generally ovoid in shape (fig. 2). Regarding claim 8, Marshall discloses wherein the housing (20) further comprises at least one support between an interior surface of the top portion and an interior surface of the bottom portion (the sidewall with leader line 29a that forms the internal cavity (31) as seen in fig. 1). Regarding claim 9, Marshall discloses wherein the housing further comprises a plurality of supports (walls) arranged around the chamber (note annotated fig. below). PNG media_image2.png 289 534 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, Marshall discloses wherein the top portion and the bottom portion are operable to be separated (there is nothing to preclude a user from separating the top wall (26) from the bottom wall (27) if so desired – for example by cutting, slicing, pulling, etc.). Regarding claim 11, Marshall discloses wherein the top portion is configured to be stacked on another top portion when the top portion and the bottom portion are separated (there is nothing to preclude a user from stacking top portions if so desired based on the inherent structural shape of the top portion (26)). Regarding claim 12, Marshall discloses wherein the bottom portion is configured to be stacked on another bottom portion when the top portion and the bottom portion are separated (there is nothing to preclude a user from stacking bottom portions if so desired based on the inherent structural shape of the bottom portion (27)). 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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of US Patent 8,869,318 (hereinafter Tanguay). Regarding claim 3, Marshall shows three handles (28) integrally formed and symmetrically spaced around the housing but fails to show further comprising four handles disposed in each of four corners of the housing, the four handles formed integral to the housing. Attention is turned to Tanguay in the same field of endeavor of bedpans which teaching including four handles (64, 64, 66, 66) disposed in four corners of a bedpan housing (fig. 1) as a design alternative to three symmetrically spaced handles (64a, 64b, 64c; fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the bedpan of Marshall to include four handles disposed in each of four corners of the housing, the four handles formed integral to the housing as a matter of design choice depending on a user’s needs, such modification being an obvious variant of 3 handles to achieve the same expected result as evidenced by the teachings above. Regarding claim 4, Tanguay shows wherein a first two handles (64) of the four handles include apertures having a first longitudinal axis, wherein a second two handles (66) of the four handles include apertures having a second longitudinal axis, wherein the first and second axis are aligned, with respect to each other, at an angle (fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, Tanguay shows wherein a first two handles (64) of the four handles are on a first side of the housing and a second two handles (66) of the four handles are on a second side of the housing, and the first side of the housing is adjacent to the second side of the housing (fig. 1). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 11,141,336 is directed to the state of the art of bedpans. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601196
SWIMMING POOL PLATFORM DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595647
FLUSH VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595644
NOISE-REDUCING INSTANT HEATING AND DRYING-TYPE FAUCET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590449
TOILET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582272
BODILY WASTE HARVESTING, PATHOGEN DESTROYING, WATERLESS TOILET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+30.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1107 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month