DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending.
This is in response to the amendment filed 12/22/2025.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that once the toilet is installed and then placed on the floor for use, one would not be able to remove the cartridge from the bottom, which is understood, however, there are no positive limitations in the claim that require this type of requirement.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cartridge being removed from the bottom due to insufficient space and the floor on which the toilet is installed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125.
Here, the drawings in Figure 3 clearly show that the bottom part 14b can be removed from 14a, therefore at this time the device of Imai is capable of meeting the limitations as recited.
The drawing objections are being maintained, since the latest submission reduced the sizes of some of the drawings and also did not increase the size of Figure 4 for clarity and reproduction purposes.
Since applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, this action is made Final.
Drawings
The drawings received 12/22/2025 are objected to for clarity purposes, as shown below (original filed drawings on the left and replacement drawings on the right) the latest submission actually reduced the size of the drawings significantly and the size of figure 4 did not appear to increase to assist in the clarity of the drawing, in a similar manner to figure 10 for clarity of structure and for satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
PNG
media_image1.png
959
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior objections therefore are maintained.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 110.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "108" and "250" have both been used to designate the top part, and the reference characters "270" and "250" have both been used to designate the sleeve.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the level sensor (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to for clarity purposes, for the request of adding of additional reference characters 510,520,530 for figures 6 and 9, and to increase the size of figure 4 in a similar manner to figure 10 for clarity of structure and for satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the prior objections.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15 recites the limitation "the cartridge". This is suggested to be changed to - -the waste cartridge - -.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the attachment means”. This is suggested to be changed to - - the attachment part - -.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 9 recite the limitation “ports” which are unclear as to which ports from claim 1 are intended to be defined. This is suggested to be changed to - -the waste cartridge ports - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-3,5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Imai et al. (JP 2019-13727A, as supplied by applicant, further referred to as “Imai”). The claims being rejected as best understood based on the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses a waste tank assembly (10, see Figs. 1-11) for receiving waste from a system (the system of the person as shown in Figure 4) from which waste is expelled, the waste tank assembly comprising: a tank (14,14a,14b) having a top end (the top end of 14a) provided with one (the port of 14a surrounding 54) or more ports, the one or more ports including an inlet port (the port of 12 leading into 150, best seen in Fig. 10) configured to receive a waste inlet pipe for receiving, in use, from the system,
and an open bottom end (the bottom end of 14a, see Fig. 3), the tank defining an interior; a waste cartridge (50) removably received in the tank interior and having one (the upper opening within 50 for 150) or more ports configured to be fluidly connected to the one or more ports of the tank to receive the waste in an interior volume of the cartridge; and a closure part (14b) for securing the waste cartridge inside the tank interior, the closure part openable to allow removal of the cartridge from the tank interior via the open bottom end (see Fig. 3,7,8; para.0013 in the translation provided by applicant, “cartridge 50 can be removed and carried”; Figure 3 showing the bottom section end 14b removed from 14A, as shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
680
1343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Imai discloses the tank top end provided with fittings (150, the opening of 12 within 150) for advancing waste into the cartridge in the tank.
Regarding claim 3, Imai discloses the cartridge is provided with a top part (the uppermost surface of 50,52) having one (the port within 50 having 150) or more ports arranged to be in fluid communication with the one or more ports of the tank.
Regarding claim 5, Imai discloses a support (140, see Fig. 7,8) configured to hold the cartridge in position inside the tank.
Regarding claim 9, Imai discloses a seal (the uppermost U-flange of 150 surrounding the uppermost flange of 50, see Fig. 6, or, item 56 could be considered as a seal) to close the cartridge ports.
Regarding claim 10, Imai discloses the seal comprises a plug assembly (150 with the uppermost flange, considered as the seal) secured to the cartridge and moveable between a port open position and a port closed position (para.0030 of the translation supplied by applicant).
Regarding claim 11, Imai discloses the cartridge is fully disposable (inherently, since the cartridge is removable it can be disposed, see also para.0013, top of page 4).
Regarding claim 12, Imai discloses the cartridge is fully re-usable (para.0035).
Regarding claim 13, Imai discloses a top part of the cartridge (para.0035), containing the one or more ports is re-usable (the upper part of 50 is reusable) and a body of the cartridge in which the waste accumulates is disposable (inherently, since 150, considered as a body of the cartridge, (para.0063, “replacement of the valve 150”) is capable of being removed from the cartridge it can be disposed).
Regarding claim 14, Imai discloses an inlet tube (150, See Fig. 6) extending through a port of the one or more ports, in the tank via which waste enters the tank assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Imai discloses a level sensor (para.0120) for providing an indication of the level of waste in the cartridge.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘727 in view of Olsson et al. (US 11187822).
Regarding claim 4, Imai discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that the closure part is a lock nut arranged to be fastened to the open end of the tank to retain the cartridge in the tank.
Olsson et al. teach the use of the closure part is a lock nut (lock nut, 220, col.6, lns. 25-32) arranged to be fastened to the open end of a tank (210) to retain a cartridge (510) in the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a threaded connection as taught by Olsson et al. for the bottom/upper tank end connection/joint in Imai to have the closure part being a lock “not” arranged to be fastened to the open end of the tank to retain the cartridge in the tank, in order to permit a user to dis-assemble by hand the two tank halves to easily remove the inner cartridge (col.6,lns. 25-32), and since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one connection joint for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the shape/form of the connection joint between the two mating tank halves, since it has been held, that a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai ‘727 in view of Parola et al. (US20150367725).
Regarding claims 6-8, Imai discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that the support includes a base to support the cartridge and an attachment part to releasably attach the cartridge to the support, wherein the attachment means includes a snap-fit structure from which the cartridge can be released by lifting the cartridge relative to the support, wherein the support includes an alignment feature and the tank has, on its interior, a mating structure to secure and align the support relative to the tank.
Parola et al. teach the use of a support includes a base (22) to support a cartridge (12) and an attachment part (32) to releasably attach the cartridge to the support, wherein the attachment means includes a snap-fit structure (para.0031, “32 are made to snap engage”) from which the cartridge can be released by lifting the cartridge relative to the support, wherein the support includes an alignment feature (the side edges of 32) and the tank (10, para.0025, tank body) has, on its interior, a mating structure (18,20) to secure and align the support relative to the tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a snap-fit connection as taught by Parola et al. for the connection/joint between the tank and support in Imai, to have the support includes a base to support the cartridge and an attachment part to releasably attach the cartridge to the support, wherein the attachment means includes a snap-fit structure from which the cartridge can be released by lifting the cartridge relative to the support, wherein the support includes an alignment features and the tank has, on its interior, a mating structure to secure and align the support relative to the tank, in order to permit a user to assemble by hand the two pieces without the use of a special tool (para.0031, Parola et al.) that will provide a secure connection (para.0012, Parola et al.) and permits the device to be removed if necessary (para.0009, Parola et al.), and since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one connection joint for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Conclusion
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 Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
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) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights