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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, species B in the reply filed on 8/11/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because each group and species requires different search strategies, such as text queries for the distinct structural features, database usage, and the different considerations required to search and examine methods over apparatuses. This is burdensome.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims containing all of the limitations of an allowable claim will be considered for rejoinder.
Claims 6 and 13 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/11/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
In line 4, insert --and-- in front of “at least one sanitary facility.
In line 11, delete “or” and replace it with –of--.
In claim 5:
In line 8, delete “and” in front of “which”.
In line 8, delete “a” in front of “connection” and insert –the--/
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: blocking element in at least claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and 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 § 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, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tagg (US 5,398,465).
Regarding claim 1, Tagg discloses a sanitary cabin (Fig. 2) having at least one floor part (25), at least one ceiling part (40), a plurality of side wall parts (13, 14, 15, 16), at least one waste tank (103), and at least one sanitary facility (116) arranged in the sanitary cabin, and at least one collecting tank (111) configured for collecting waste water from the at least one sanitary facility, wherein the waste water collected in the collecting tank is transferable into the waste tank (via 124) as a liquid supply in the course of maintenance or cleaning of the sanitary cabin (col. 9, ln. 11-19).
Regarding claim 2, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows at least one toilet bowl (106) arranged above the waste tank and wherein waste and or waste water from the bowl are received directly (via 126) into the waste tank (103). See Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 4, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the at least one collecting tank (111) is arranged at least partially outside of the waste tank (Fig. 8)(Fig. 7), and is arranged below the at least one sanitary facility (116)(Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the collecting tank has at least one drain opening (interface of 124 with tank 111)(Fig.8) through which the waste water collected in the collecting tank can be transferred to the waste tank, and further comprising a blocking element (120) that is configured for blocking a connection or fluid connection between the drain opening and the waste tank (col. 9, ln. 3-5) during operation of the cabin and which is releasable from the connection or fluid connection between the drain opening and waste tank during maintenance or cleaning of the cabin (col. 9, ln. 11-16).
Regarding claim 10, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the sanitary cabin has at least one fresh water reservoir (26) which is connected to and in fluid connection with the at least one sanitary facility. See Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 12, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further show that the at least one sanitary facility is in fluid connection with the collecting tank (Fig. 8) and the collecting tank has at least on inlet opening (drain outlet of sink 116) for the inlet of the waste water from the sanitary facility to the collecting tank.
Regarding claim 16, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows that the at least one sanitary facility comprises at least one handwash basin (116)(Fig. 8)(Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freeman (US 2004/0148690).
Regarding claim 1, Freeman discloses a sanitary cabin (Fig. 1) having at least one floor part (13), at least one ceiling part (47), a plurality of side wall parts (side walls of 11), at least one waste tank (22), and at least one sanitary facility (56) arranged in the sanitary cabin, and at least one collecting tank (58 and 40) configured for collecting waste water from the at least one sanitary facility, wherein the waste water collected in the collecting tank is transferable into the waste tank (waste water is collected in 40, pumped through 62 into 46, which is delivered to the sanitary facility at 38 and then back into 22) as a liquid supply in the course of maintenance or cleaning of the sanitary cabin (para. [0034]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Freeman shows all of the instant invention as discussed above and further shows at least one toilet bowl (56) arranged above the waste tank and wherein waste and or waste water from the bowl are received directly (via drain extending downwardly from toilet bowl fixture) into the waste tank (22). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, Freeman shows that the at least one collecting tank (58, 40) is arranged at least in sections (portion 58) in the waste tank (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Freeman shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the at least one collecting tank (58, 40) is arranged at least partially outside of the waste tank (portion 40)(Fig. 1), and is arranged below the at least one sanitary facility (56)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Freeman shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, and further shows that the collecting tank contains a solid treatment agent for the waste water (para. [0035], charcoal and worm castings).
Regarding claim 16, Freeman shows that the at least one sanitary facility comprises a urinal (56, note that the toilet is functional as a urinal).
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) 9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagg.
Regarding claim 9, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but does not show that the capacity of the collecting tank is 5 to 35 liters. However, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed volume presents a novel or unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05(III)). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the tank of Tagg to perform equally well as applicant's. It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Tagg to have the volume as claimed since such a modification is a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Tagg shows all of the instant invention as discussed above, but is silent is to the colleting tank being rotationally molded from at least one plastic. However, Tagg does teach that it is common in the portable toilet arts to form the components out of a thermoformable plastics material (col. 5, ln. 43-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the collecting tank from thermoformable plastics, since such materials are inexpensive, workable, and durable. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
The recitation of "rotationally molded" has been treated as a product by process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though Tagg is silent as to the process used to form the tank, the apparatus disclosed is the same as that claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winter et al. (US 9,909,293) shows a portable toilet that redirects grey water for flushing and cleaning purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN L DEERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur, 7:30am - 4:30pm; Fri 8:00am-12:00pm.
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.
/ERIN DEERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights