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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leadingham et al. (2002/0031926).
With respect to claim 1, Leadingham discloses a collection device 2, as shown in figure 1, comprising a lid 4 including a first gasket 50 and a first mating surface 72 that are oriented concentrically to a central axis, as shown in figure 3. A fluid collector 6 includes a second gasket 64 and a second mating surface 34 that are oriented concentrically to the central axis, as shown in figure 3, wherein the second gasket 64 engages with the first mating surface 72 and the second mating surface 34 engages with the first gasket 50 when the lid 4 is selectively engaged with the fluid collector 6, as shown in figure 5.
With respect to claim 2, if the first gasket and the first mating surface are not engaged before negative pressure is imparted to the fluid collector, the introduction of negative pressure via the negative pressure source will inherently create suction within the fluid containment region that will cause the lid to engage.
With respect to claim 3, an outer radius of the second gasket 64 is smaller than an inner radius of the first gasket 50, as shown in figure 5.
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (WO 2020/246431; please see US 12,171,928 for English translation).
With respect to claim 6, Nakagawa discloses a collection device, as shown in figure 1, comprising a pressure containment means 10 having a fluid containment region 14 that is translucent, as disclosed in column 6, lines 19-26. A solids filtration means 82 is disposed within the fluid containment region 80, as shown in figure 2, and is translucent, as disclosed in column 9, lines 49-53. A first fluid communication means 56 is connected to the pressure containment means 10 and separated from the fluid containment region 14 by the solids filtration means 82, as shown in figure 2. A second fluid communication means 58 is disposed within the fluid containment region and a negative pressure source to impart negative pressure into the fluid containment region to draw fluid through the first fluid containment means 56 through the solids filtration means 82 into the fluid containment region, as disclosed in column 7, lines 55-63, and column 8, lines 47-55.
With respect to claim 7, an aerosol filtration means 68 is disposed within the fluid containment region and connected to the second fluid communication means 58, as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 8, the solids filtration means 82 is held in the fluid containment region via engagement features interfacing with a first through-hole 62 in the lid 16 that is positioned non-concentrically to a central axis of the pressure containment means 10, as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 9, the pressure containment means 10 includes a lid 16 and a fluid collector 14, as shown in figure 1, with a first sealing means 42 and a second sealing means 32, as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 10, the lid 16 comprises a plurality of first engagement means 72, as shown in figure 5, and the fluid collector comprises a plurality of second engagement means 32, as shown in figure 3, that engage with corresponding first engagement means via a downward force and a rotational force in a first direction applied to the lid 16 when in contact with the fluid collector 14 to seal the pressure containment means 10 via the first sealing means 42, as disclosed in column 9, lines 8-26.
With respect to claim 11, if the second sealing means is not engaged before negative pressure is imparted to the pressure containment means, the introduction of negative pressure via the negative pressure source will inherently create suction within the pressure containment means that will cause the lid to engage.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leadingham et al. (2002/0031926) in view of Blake, III (5,045,077).
With respect to claim 4, Leadingham discloses the lid 4 includes an intake port 46 defining a first through-hole, as shown in figure 2. Leadingham discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a solids filter defining a plurality of outlets, intake tubing, and a cap configured to secure the solids filter via a one-way valve. Blake discloses a collection device comprising a lid and a fluid collector, as shown in figure 5. The lid includes an intake port 62 that defines a through-hole 60, a solids filter, and a cap configured to secure the solids filter via a one-way valve to remove undesirable materials from the drained fluids, as disclosed in column 7, lines 14-20. A filter inherently a plurality of fluid outlets. Blake teaches that this configuration prevents backflow of gases, as disclosed in column 3, lines 33-48. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lid of Leadingham with a solids filter defining a plurality of outlets, intake tubing, and a cap configured to secure the solids filter via a one-way valve, as taught by Blake, to remove undesirable materials and prevent backflow.
With respect to claim 5, modified Leadingham discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the fluid collector and filter being translucent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fluid collector and filter of modified Leadingham translucent to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to view the contents of the fluid collector.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (WO 2020/246431) in view of Conley et al. (11,633,137).
With respect to claims 12-14, Nakagawa discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first and second engagement means comprising a first magnet and a second magnet. Conley teaches the functional equivalent of interference fit fasteners and magnets for use in a fluid collection device, as shown in figure 4E and disclosed in column 29, lines 24-41. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second engagement means of Nakagawa with a first magnet and a second magnet, since Conley teaches the functional equivalence of fasteners such as those taught by Nakagawa and magnets for use in fluid collection containers.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (WO 2020/246431).
With respect to claim 15, Nakagawa discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a pressure indicating means disposed in the fluid containment region and visible from outside the fluid containment region. The use of pressure indicating means is well-known in the art to show a user if the pressure within a fluid collection system is correct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the collection device of Nakagawa with a pressure indicating means to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to gauge the correct pressure within the system. It would further have been obvious to make the pressure indicating means visible from outside of the fluid containment region because the fluid containment region of Nakagawa is transparent or translucent and therefore elements within the region are visible from outside, and further to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to gauge the pressure without having to open the fluid containment region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents 11,945,001; 11,432,835; and 8,801,682 disclose fluid collection devices for use with negative pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights