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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “wherein the backflow barrier is located between the discharge opening and the air filter to inhibit vomit discharged through the discharge opening into the interior cavity from hitting the air filter” in claim 11 renders the claim indefinite. From the drawings it does not appear that this relationship is true. The discharge opening 42 appears to directly connect to the backflow barrier 16. The air filter is item 26. It doesn't appear that the backflow barrier is between the air filter and discharge opening.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A) and Lee (KR 101155387 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Gold discloses an emesis containment system comprising: a face mask (18) with a discharge opening (opening within 18); a container (14) for receiving vomit into an interior cavity thereof, the container having a first opening (opening of 14) aligned with the discharge opening; an air filter (26) disposed adjacent the first opening into the container.
Gold failed to disclose of a backflow barrier configured to allow passage of vomit into the interior cavity of the container from the discharge opening and to inhibit passage of vomit out of the interior cavity through the discharge opening. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely emesis containers, Fleury teaches of back flow barrier (24), namely a duck-bill valve in order to prevent the vomit from escaping (col 2 lines 0-8). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emesis bag of Gold to include a duckbill as taught by Fleury in order to prevent the vomit from escaping.
The references failed to disclose a dissolvable charge disposed inside the container, wherein the dissolvable charge comprises a surfactant that foams when contacted by liquid of the vomit. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely waste management, Lee taught of the use of a deodorizer to remove bad smells from food (page 1 [0001]) or prevent unsanitary bacterial infection (page 3 second paragraph under “Description”), this deodorizer also incorporates sodium lauryl sulfate (page 3 [0003]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waste container of Gold to include a dissolvable charge as taught by Lee in order to allow for removal of unpleasant smells.
Examiner Note: Vomit can have many different compositions. Therefore, the act of foaming or dissolving can also be dependent upon the composition of the vomit. Regardless, dissolvable is not given relativity, many things are considered dissolvable when exposed to Hydrofluoric Acid.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the dissolvable charge comprises an anionic surfactant. (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate as taught on page 3 [0003] of Lee reference, see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.)
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the anionic surfactant comprises sodium lauryl sulfate. (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate as taught on page 3 [0003] of Lee reference, see claim 1 rejection above for combination rationale.)
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the air filter (26 of Gold) comprises a filter ring disposed between the face mask (18 of Gold) and to the container (14 of Gold).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the backflow barrier is located between the discharge opening and the air filter to inhibit vomit discharged through the discharge opening into the interior cavity from hitting the air filter.
Examiner Note: Can consider only a portion of the backflow barrier as taught by Lee that intersects or is between the discharge opening and air filter. One can also only consider the top of 18 as the mask, meaning the rest of the feature can be considered as the backflow barrier.
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the backflow barrier comprises a duck-bill check valve. (as taught by Lee see claim 1 for combination rationale.)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A), Lee (KR 101155387 B1), and Wang (US 20250114324 A1).
With respect to claim 4, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the dissolvable charge comprises a cationic surfactant. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely food matter, Wang teaches of a cationic surfactant (that specifically includes cetyltrimethylammonium bromide on page 1 [0011]). The overall composition enabling antimicrobial properties. Lee teaches of the necessity for antibacterial properties. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Gold, Lee, and Fleury to include a formulation with a cationic surfactant as taught by Wang in order to allow for antimicrobial properties.
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the cationic surfactant comprises cetyltrimethylammonium bromide.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A), Lee (KR 101155387 B1), and Bark (EP 2033911 A1).
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the dissolvable charge comprises absorbent particles that absorb the liquid of the vomit. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely waste containers, Bark taught of trash bags with absorbent granules in order to absorb the liquid in the waste (page 2 [0002]-[0003]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trash container of Gold to include absorbent beads as taught by Bark in order to allow for absorption of liquid.
With respect to claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further teach wherein the absorbent particles comprise absorbent beads . (granules as taught by Bark see claim 1 rejection above)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A), Lee (KR 101155387 B1), and Chandler (WO 9205089 A1).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the dissolvable charge comprises a thickening agent that increases the viscosity of the liquid of the vomit. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely biological waste containers, Chandler taught of a waste container that contains a material that can change liquid into a highly viscous state in order to minimize the possibility of liquid leakage (page 4 lines 8-20). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waste bag of Gold to include a thickening agent in the dissolvable charge as taught by Chandler in order to allow for less chances of leakage.
Examiner Note: Even without the Chandler reference, it is known that Sodium Lauryl Sulfate has been able to thicken certain compositions. Vomit comes in a variety of compositions. It is possible that Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or other components taught by the prior art would inherently act as a thickening agent.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A), Lee (KR 101155387 B1), and Kurani (US 20210188541 A1).
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for further comprising a pathogen sensor disposed inside the container to detect the presence of a pre-selected pathogen in vomit. However in a similar field of endeavor, namely waste bins, Kurani taught of a waste bin with a pathogen sensor (abstract) in order to display biosafety information to allow waste collection workers to have appropriate provisions and PPE (pages 8-9 [0128]).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20220023154 A1) in view of Fleury (US 4990145 A) and Brooks (US 20080179330 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gold discloses an emesis containment system comprising: a face mask (18) with a discharge opening (opening within 18); a container (14) for receiving vomit into an interior cavity thereof, the container having a first opening (opening of 14) aligned with the discharge opening; an air filter (26) disposed adjacent the first opening into the container.
Gold failed to disclose of a backflow barrier configured to allow passage of vomit into the interior cavity of the container from the discharge opening and to inhibit passage of vomit out of the interior cavity through the discharge opening. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely emesis containers, Fleury teaches of back flow barrier (24), namely a duck-bill valve in order to prevent the vomit from escaping (col 2 lines 0-8). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emesis bag of Gold to include a duckbill as taught by Fleury in order to prevent the vomit from escaping.
The references failed to disclose a dissolvable charge disposed inside the container, wherein the dissolvable charge comprises a surfactant that foams when contacted by liquid of the vomit. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely waste management, Brooks taught of the use of an absorbent material (26) that comes in the forms of pellets, particles, etc. (pages 5 and 6, [0045] - [0048]) capable of removing bad odors (page 1 [0008]), some surfactants are listed on page 8 [0080] and additionally seeks to inhibit the growth of bacteria (page 1 [0008]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waste container of Gold to include a dissolvable charge as taught by Brooks in order to allow for removal of unpleasant smells and bacteria.
Examiner Note: Vomit can have many different compositions. Therefore, the act of foaming or dissolving can also be dependent upon the composition of the vomit. Regardless, dissolvable is not given relativity, many things are considered dissolvable when exposed to Hydrofluoric Acid.
With respect to claim 9 the references as applied to claim 1, above, further disclose wherein the dissolvable charge is in the form of a fast-dissolving pellet (page 6 [0047]) comprising dry powder forms of the surfactant (page 8 [0080]), absorbent particles (page 6 [0045]) and a thickening agent (page 7 [0063], propylene glycol, etc.) pressed together in a dry pressed pellet.
Examiner Note: Brooks teaches of pellets; the term dry seems to be applicable by the fact that these are in pellet form and consider absorbents. Fast is a relative term. For any arguments against these components not being in the form of a dry powder, it would be obvious to try. As the references teach of the desired properties using other forms. Dry forms of all these features are already taught prior to the effective filing date of the present invention. There are only so many options for all of these features to be produced (liquid or solids). Further when combined in the pellet form of Brooks teachings, it only makes sense to have dry features.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-4990145-A OR US-6602230-B1 OR US-5647670-A OR US-7029463-B1 OR US-6554810-B1 OR US-20250114324-A1 OR US-20220023154-A1 OR US-20210188541-A1 OR US-20080179330-A1 OR US-20250134110-A1 OR US-20250136826-A1 OR US-20220280682-A1 OR US-20200261320-A1 OR US-20200133598-A1 OR US-20200047951-A1 OR US-20150239664-A1 OR US-20100083621-A1 OR US-20090034886-A1 OR US-20080221537-A1 OR US-20070106238-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights