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 § 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.
Claims 1- 4, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Asbach et al. disclose disposable receptacle 150 (Figs. 7a-7c) comprising: an annular body comprising a top opening 180 with a first innermost diameter and a bottom opening 170 with a second innermost diameter smaller than the first innermost diameter 180; a wall 160 extending between the top opening 180 and bottom opening 170 and having an inside surface and an outside surface, the outside surface comprising ribs 181; and a rim 155 extending outwardly from the top opening 180, wherein the rim 165 comprises a convex shape (Figs. 7b, 7c). Asbach et al. does not teach the wall having a plurality of openings. Attention is directed to Borland et al. which teaches a receptacle comprising a tubular body 10 having a top opening 14 and a bottom opening 16, a wall 15 extending between the top opening 14 and a bottom opening 16 and having a plurality of openings 19 for inserting fingers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to provide a number of opening on the wall of Asbach et al. receptacle in view of the teaching of Borland et al. for inserting fingers to adjust the bag relative to the annular body.
Regarding claim 2, the ribs 181 extend axially between the top opening 180 and the bottom opening 170.
Regarding claim 3, the plurality of wall openings as taught by Borland et al. are capable of being configured to receive a zip tie.
Regarding claim 4, the disposable commode receptacle further comprises the inside surface of the wall comprises a first contoured shape having a smooth profile.
Regarding claim 9, an open end of the bag 700 is stretched over the top opening and the ribs of the annular body, and a closed end of the bag 700 is presented through the bottom opening of the annular body to hang underneath the annular body when in use such that the former outside surface of the bag defines an inner volume into which waste can be received.
Regarding claim 17, the inside-out bag 700 is friction fit to the annular body 160 such that the former outside surface of the bag 700 defines an inner volume into which waste can be received.
Claims 5-6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123) as described above in view of Landis (5,377,861).
Regarding claim 5, Asbach et al. do not disclose the ribs comprise a second contoured shape. Attention is directed to Landis which teaches a container closure 20 comprising ribs 62 having a second contoured shape configured to fit inside of the first contoured shape to enable nested stacking of multiple container closures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. ribs to have a second contoured shape configured to fit inside of the first contoured shape in view of the teaching of Landis for enabling to stack multiple commode receptacles.
Regarding claim 6, Asbach et al. do not disclose a nested stacking height of about 14 inches contains at least 40 disposable commode receptacles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art stack the commode receptacles to a certain height to best fit the desire and to optimize its performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Claim 7-8, 10, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123) as described above.
Regarding claim 7, Asbach et al. do not specifically disclose the first diameter is about 10.5 inches to about 11.5 inches, and the second diameter is about 9.0 inches to about 10.0 inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select the first diameter and second diameter for the receptacle of Asbach et al. within a certain range to best fit a particular receptacle design and to optimize the performance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, using the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Asbach et al. do not specifically disclose a maximum lateral projection of the ribs is between about 0.10 inches to about 0.15 inches from the outside surface of the wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select maximum lateral projection of the ribs for the receptacle of Asbach et al. within a certain range to best fit a particular receptacle design and to optimize the performance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, using the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Asbach et al. do not specifically disclose the bag maintains the friction fit with the annular body for more than 24 hours when holding at least 15 lbs of weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select a bag that is capable of maintaining the friction fit with the annular body for more than 24 hours when holding at least 15 Ibs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Asbach et al do not to specifically disclose a portion of the bag hanging beyond the bottom opening of the annular body has a length of at least about 12 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a bag having a portion hanging beyond the bottom opening of the annular body at least about certain distance to best fit the commode and to optimize its performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123) as described above and in view of Gilley (5,961,167).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Asbach et al do not to specifically disclose a seal and an overhang at the closed end of the bag, wherein the seal and the overhang are presented inside the inner volume of the bag. Attention is directed to Gilley which teaches a disposable waste collecting device comprising a seal 26 (Fig. 1) and an overhang (the portion between the seals 26 and 28) at a closed end of the bag 11, wherein the seal 26 and the overhang are presented inside an inner volume of the bag 11 (Figs. 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. bag in view of the teaching of Gilley in order to receive and secure the waste inside the bag.
Regarding claim 13, Asbach et al do to specifically disclose an absorbent material in the inner volume of the bag. Attention is directed to Gilley which teaches a disposable waste collecting device comprising an absorbent material 32 in the inner volume of the bag 11 (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. bag in view of the teaching of Gilley to have an absorbent material in order to retain the waste in the bag.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123) as described above and in view of Renn et al. (3,772,712)
Asbach et al. do not specifically disclose the bag comprises an opaque color sufficient to obscure the contents of the inner volume of the bag. Attention is directed to Renn et al. which teaches a disposable waste collecting the bag 12 comprises an opaque color sufficient to obscure the contents of the inner volume of the bag (col. 7, lines 40+). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. bag in view of the teaching of Renn et al. to have an opaque color so that to obscure the contents within the bag.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in view of Borland et al. (4,775,123) as described above and in view of Cottone et al. (5,707,173).
Asbach et al. and Gilley do not specifically disclose a splashback result is zero droplets according to a splashback test method. Attention is directed to Cottone et al. which teaches a disposable waste collecting device comprising a splashback result being zero droplets according to a splashback test method (col. 5, line 65, col. 6, lines 3, col. 3, lines 28-32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. device in view of the teaching of Cottone et al.to enable the device to resist to flashing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asbach et al. (5,535,913) in views of Borland et al. (4,775,123) and Gilley (5,961,157) as described above and further in view of Cottone et al. (5,707,173).
Regarding claim 19, Asbach et al do to specifically disclose an absorbent material in the inner volume of the bag. Attention is directed to Gilley which teaches a disposable waste collecting device comprising an absorbent material 32 in the inner volume of the bag 11 (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. bag in view of the teaching of Gilley to have an absorbent material in order to retain the waste in the bag.
Asbach et al do to specifically disclose a portion of the bag hanging beyond the bottom opening of the annular body has a length of at least about 12 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a bag having a portion hanging beyond the bottom opening of the annular body at least
Asbach et al. and Gilley do not specifically disclose a splashback result is zero droplets according to a splashback test method. Attention is directed to Cottone et al. which teaches a disposable waste collecting device comprising a splashback result being zero droplets according to a splashback test method (col. 5, line 65, col. 6, lines 3, col. 3, lines 28-32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Asbach et al. device in view of the teaching of Cottone et al.to enable the device to resist to flashing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 517-270-3735. 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.
HUYEN D. LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3754
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights