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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments January 21, 2026, have been entered. Claims 2, 5, 7- 10, 12-13 and 15-23 are currently pending. Claims 2, 5, 9, and 16 have been amended. Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026, have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive as the previously cited references do not teach the permeable material is a polyester.
The amendments necessitate a new grounds for rejection.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 9-13, 16-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington US 4886508 and evidenced by Peterson US 5246454 and Di Mauro M, Tonioni C, Cocci A, Kluth LA, Russo GI, Gomez Rivas J, Cacciamani G, Cito G, Morelli G, Polloni G, di Maida F, Giunti D; Trauma, Reconstructive Urology, Men’s Health Working Parties of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU). Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men. Andrologia. 2021 Jul;53(6):e14053. doi: 10.1111/and.14053. Epub 2021 Mar 21. PMID: 33748967; PMCID: PMC8243978 (here after referred to as Di Mauro) in view of Keane US 3349768 and Kubo US 5300052.
With regards to claim 2, Washington discloses a urine collecting device (abstract) comprising:
an impermeable material (the body 12, figure 1 is formed from silicone rubber Col 8 lines 46-48, Peterson is used as evidence that silicone rubber is impermeable Peterson Col 1 lines 16-18) having a top and bottom portion (see cross section of the body in figure 2 showing a top and bottom portion);
a first layer of permeable material having a first side oriented towards the top portion (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38 and since the impermeable material has a top and bottom portion and the insert resides within it will be oriented towards the top and bottom);
a second layer of permeable material positioned at least partially between the first layer of permeable material and at least a portion of the bottom portion of the impermeable material (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38 and since the impermeable material has a top and bottom portion and the insert resides within it will be oriented towards the top and bottom);
a chamber of void space (or cup receptacle, 39 Col. 5 lines 65-68) positioned at least partially within the impermeable material (see figure 4), the chamber being positioned between and defined by a portion of the second layer of permeable material and at least some of the impermeable material (see figure 4 and Col 5 lines 65-68, which shows a chamber of void space between and defined by the permeable material and concave section of the impermeable material);
a port extending through the impermeable material and in fluid communication with the chamber, the port being configured to transport urine from the chamber through the port (Figure 4 and Col 5 line 62 – Col 6 line 21 discloses a port or drainage outlet 38 extending from the impermeable material to the chamber that allow for the removal of urine from the chamber); and
a receptacle opening (24- figure 1) defined at least partially by the impermeable material (the opening 24 is formed in the body 12 which is formed from silicone rubber Col 8 lines 46-48, Peterson is used as evidence that silicone rubber is impermeable Peterson Col 1 lines 16-18) that is positioned generally opposite to the chamber (figure 4 shows the opening 24 generally opposite the chamber 39); and
wherein the top portion of the impermeable material is configured to be spaced from the first side of the first layer of permeable material (Fig 2 shows a gap between the impermeable material and the first side layer of the permeable material).
Washington fails to disclose wherein the top portion of impermeable material positioned about the receptacle opening is shaped such that and that the second layer of permeable material includes a polyester material.
Washington also fails to disclose the receptacle opening including a length and a width size and dimensions to receive at least a head of a penis of a male and retain the head of the penis disposed in the receptacle when the male is lying on his back such that the urine discharged from the head of the penis flows through the first layer of permeable material and the second layer of permeable material into the chamber when a partial vacuum is applied to the port or that the wherein the top portion of the impermeable material is configured to be spaced from the first side of the first layer of permeable material when the head of the penis is within the receptacle opening.
While Washington teaches a device shaped to surround and cover the female labia, the opening is similar shaped to the penis. Therefore, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user, where, for patentability, the functions of apparatus claims do not need to be taught by the prior art, but only have to have structures that are capable of performing the claimed function. Additionally, the opening of Washington is sized accordingly “The top opening 24 is about 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide and 3 1/4 inch (8.3 cm) long with about a 1 inch (2.5 cm) narrow slot 26 at one end for ease in inserting or removing an insert.” Col 11 line 68- Col. 12 line 4. According to the study by Di Mauro The average penis is 7-15cm* depending on erection status this translates to 2.76 – 5.91 inches in length as such the device of Washington should fit easily fit the tip of the penis from a length perspective. The width of Washington is about 1 inch or 2.5cm. The above study only provides the circumference of the penis. If the diameter is considered a suitable estimation for the width, the width can be calculated by the following modifying formula to find the circumference or girth: circumference = diameter* pi or simply put D=C/π.
The girth ranges from 7-15cm* which equates to a diameter (or width) of 2.23- 4.77cm (0.88- 1.88 inches) which falls into the approximate opening dimension of Washington. As such while not designed for males the opening is still sized for some males.
*The date is pulled from tables 2-4 which breaks down the measures based on geographical location.
MPEP 2114 discuses functional language and notes “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. In short applicant’s functional limitation for the device to be sized for a male is still met even though Washington is designed to be used for a female as the opening does not prevent some men from using the device based on the evidence above and all the structural limitations are met as modified in the rejection below.
Additionally, Keane teaches a urinary device there by being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Keane teaches that the device, as a whole, narrows along the top view at least partially along the opening and continues to narrow beyond the opening as illustrated in the figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the device according to Washington such that it narrows beyond the opening as taught by Keane, and one skill would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide improved fit. Furthermore, changing the shape to a known configuration as taught by Keane can be obtained by one of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious design choice. The courts have held that the configuration or shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Additionally, Kubo teaches a urine collection system thereby being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Kubo teaches a permeable layer can be form from polyester or a plastic net (Col 5 lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed one known material such as polypropylene or similar plastic (Washington Col 12 line 17-23) to another known material such as polyester with a reasonable expectation of success given that Kubo teaches the use of polyester and polypropylene interchangeably (Kubo Col 5 lines 25-35).
With regards to claim 7, Washington discloses a portion of the first layer of permeable material is positioned opposite to the receptacle opening and adjacent to the portion of the second layer of permeable material defining the chamber (see figure 4 which shows the permeable material opposite the chamber).
With regards to claim 8, Washington discloses the impermeable material includes a lip (29 and 31, figure 1) at least partially surrounding the receptacle opening (Col. 5 lines 36-40).
With regards to claim 9, Washington discloses a urine collecting device (abstract) comprising: an impermeable material (discloses the body 12, figure 1 is formed from silicone rubber Col 8 lines 46-48, Peterson is used as evidence that silicone rubber is impermeable Peterson Col 1 lines 16-18) including a first region and a second region generally opposite to the first region (see annotated figure below (the term surface is used instead of region); a first layer of permeable material (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38) positioned at least partially between the first surface and the second surface (see figure below) and having a first side oriented towards the top portion (since the impermeable material has a first and second region and the insert resides within it will be oriented accordingly); a second layer of permeable material positioned at least partially between the first layer of permeable material and at least a portion of the second region of the impermeable material (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38 and since the impermeable material has a top and bottom portion and the insert resides within it will be oriented towards the top and bottom); and a chamber of void space (or cup receptacle, 39 Col. 5 lines 65-68) positioned at least partially within the impermeable material between the first region and the second region (see figure 4 and annotated figure below), the chamber being positioned between and defined by a portion of the second layer of permeable material and at least some of the impermeable material (see figure 4 and Col 5 lines 65-68, which shows a chamber of void space between and defined by the permeable material and the impermeable material); a receptacle opening in the impermeable material (opening 24 in figure 2 and 4); and a port extending through the impermeable material to the chamber, the port being configured to transport urine from the chamber through the port (Figure 4 and Col 5 line 62 – Col 6 line 21 discloses a port or drainage outlet 38 extending from the impermeable material to the chamber that allow for the removal of urine from the chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Washington fails to disclose wherein the top portion of impermeable material positioned about the receptacle opening is shaped such that, a profile of the top portion of the impermeable material from a top view that narrows beyond the opening and the receptacle opening including a length and a width size and dimensions to receive at least a head of a penis of a male and retain the head of the penis disposed in the receptacle when the male is lying on his back such that the urine discharged from the head of the penis flows through the first layer of permeable material and the second layer of permeable material into the chamber when a partial vacuum is applied to the port and that the second layer of the permeable material is polyester.
While Washington teaches a device shaped to surround and cover the female labia, the opening is similar shaped to the penis. Therefore, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user, where, for patentability, the functions of apparatus claims do not need to be taught by the prior art, but only have to have structures that are capable of performing the claimed function. Additionally, the opening of Washington is sized accordingly “The top opening 24 is about 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide and 3 1/4 inch (8.3 cm) long with about a 1 inch (2.5 cm) narrow slot 26 at one end for ease in inserting or removing an insert.” Col 11 line 68- Col. 12 line 4. According to the study by Di Mauro The average penis is 7-15cm* depending on erection status this translates to 2.76 – 5.91 inches in length as such the device of Washington should fit easily fit the tip of the penis from a length perspective. The width of Washington is about 1 inch or 2.5cm. The above study only provides the circumference of the penis. If the diameter is considered a suitable estimation for the width, the width can be calculated by the following modifying formula to find the circumference or girth: circumference = diameter* pi or simply put D=C/π.
The girth ranges from 7-15cm* which equates to a diameter (or width) of 2.23- 4.77cm (0.88- 1.88 inches) which falls into the approximate opening dimension of Washington. As such while not designed for males the opening is still sized for some males.
*The date is pulled from tables 2-4 which breaks down the measures based on geographical location.
MPEP 2114 discuses functional language and notes “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. In short applicant’s functional limitation for the device to be sized for a male is still met even though Washington is designed to be used for a female as the opening does not prevent some men from using the device based on the evidence above and all the structural limitations are met as modified in the rejection below.
While Washington teaches a device shaped to surround and cover the female labia, the opening is similarly shaped to the penis. Therefore, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user, where, for patentability, the functions of apparatus claims do not need to be taught by the prior art, but only have to have structures that are capable of performing the claimed function.
Additionally, Keane teaches a urinary device there by being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Keane teaches that the device, as a whole, narrows along the top view at least partially along the opening and continues to narrow beyond the opening as illustrated in the figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the device according to Washington such that it narrows beyond the opening as taught by Keane, and one skill would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide improved fit. Furthermore, changing the shape to a known configuration as taught by Keane can be obtained by one of ordinay skill with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious design choice. The courts have held that the configuration or shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Additionally, Kubo teaches a urine collection system thereby being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Kubo teaches a permeable layer can be form from polyester or a plastic net (Col 5 lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed one known material such as polypropylene or similar plastic (Washington Col 12 line 17-23) to another known material such as polyester with a reasonable expectation of success given that Kubo teaches the use of polyester and polypropylene interchangeably (Kubo Col 5 lines 25-35).
With regards to claims 4 and 10, Washington discloses a receptacle defined at least partially by the first layer of permeable material (or inside cavity 56, figure 2 and 4 that is defined by a first layer of the permeable material). Washington discloses the urine flowing through the first and second layer prior to entering the chamber (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38 and figure 4). Therefore, while not intended, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user.
With regards to claim 12, Washington discloses a portion of the first layer of permeable material is positioned opposite to the receptacle opening and adjacent to the portion of the second layer of permeable material defining the chamber (see figure 4 which shows the permeable material opposite the chamber).
With regards to claim 13, Washington discloses the impermeable material includes a lip (29 and 31, figure 1) at least partially surrounding the receptacle opening (Col. 5 lines 36-40).
With regards to claim 16, Washington discloses a urine collecting device (abstract) comprising: an impermeable material (discloses the body 12, figure 1 is formed from silicone rubber Col 8 lines 46-48, Peterson is used as evidence that silicone rubber is impermeable Peterson Col 1 lines 16-18) including a first region and a second region generally opposite to the first region (see annotated figure above in claim 9); one or more layers of permeable material (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38) positioned at least partially between the first surface and the second surface (see figure 4); a port extending through the impermeable material to the chamber, the port being configured to transport urine from the chamber through the port (Figure 4 and Col 5 line 62 – Col 6 line 21 discloses a port or drainage outlet 38 extending from the impermeable material to the chamber that allow for the removal of urine from the chamber); an receptacle opening (24, figure 1) in the first surface of the impermeable material of the urine collection device distal to the port (see opening 24 in figure 4 as annotated above in claim 9); a receptacle of void space (or inside cavity 56, figures 2 and 4) extending into the urine collection device from the receptacle opening and defined at least partially by the impermeable material and at least one layer of permeable material of the one or more layers of permeable material (figure 2 and 4 that is defined by a first layer of the permeable material and impermeable material).
Washington fails to disclose wherein the top portion of impermeable material positioned about the receptacle opening is shaped such that, a profile of the top portion of the impermeable material from a top view that narrows beyond the opening and the receptacle opening including a length and a width size and dimensions to receive at least a head of a penis of a male and retain the head of the penis disposed in the receptacle when the male is lying on his back such that the urine discharged from the head of the penis flows through the first layer of permeable material and the second layer of permeable material into the chamber when a partial vacuum is applied to the port, and that the at least one layer of the one or more layers of permeable material includes a polyester material.
While Washington teaches a device shaped to surround and cover the female labia, the opening is similar shaped to the penis. Therefore, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user, where, for patentability, the functions of apparatus claims do not need to be taught by the prior art, but only have to have structures that are capable of performing the claimed function. Additionally, the opening of Washington is sized accordingly “The top opening 24 is about 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide and 3 1/4 inch (8.3 cm) long with about a 1 inch (2.5 cm) narrow slot 26 at one end for ease in inserting or removing an insert.” Col 11 line 68- Col. 12 line 4. According to the study by Di Mauro the average penis is 7-15cm* depending on erection status this translates to 2.76 – 5.91 inches in length as such the device of Washington should fit easily fit the tip of the penis from a length perspective. The width of Washington is about 1 inch or 2.5cm. The above study only provides the circumference of the penis. If the diameter is considered a suitable estimation for the width, the width can be calculated by the following modifying formula to find the circumference or girth: circumference = diameter* pi or simply put D=C/π.
The girth ranges from 7-15cm* which equates to a diameter (or width) of 2.23- 4.77cm (0.88- 1.88 inches) which falls into the approximate opening dimension of Washington. As such while not designed for males the opening is still sized for some males.
*The date is pulled from tables 2-4 which breaks down the measures based on geographical location.
MPEP 2114 discuses functional language and notes “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. In short applicant’s functional limitation for the device to be sized for a male is still met even though Washington is designed to be used for a female as the opening does not prevent some men from using the device based on the evidence above and all the structural limitations are met as modified in the rejection below.
Washington also fails to disclose the opening being sized and dimensioned to receive at least a head of a penis of a man and the receptacle being shaped to receive at least the head of the penis inserted through the opening, wherein the receptacle is configured to draw urine flowing from the head of the penis through the one or more layers of permeable material to the port when the head of the penis is disposed within the receptacle when the man is lying on his back.
While Washington teaches a device shaped to surround and cover the female labia, the opening is similar shaped to the penis. Therefore, while not intended, the device of Washington is interpreted to be fully capable of functioning as claimed and receiving at least the head of the penis of a user.
Keane teaches a urinary device there by being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Keane teaches the device as a whole narrow along the top view at least partially along the opening and continues to narrow beyond the opening as illustrated in the figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the device according to Washington such that it narrows beyond the opening as taught by Keane, and one skill would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide improved fit. Furthermore, changing the shape to a known configuration as taught by Keane can be obtained by one of ordinay skill with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious design choice. The courts have held that the configuration or shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Additionally, Kubo teaches a urine collection system thereby being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Kubo teaches a permeable layer can be form from polyester or a plastic net (Col 5 lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed one known material such as polypropylene or similar plastic (Washington Col 12 line 17-23) to another known material such as polyester with a reasonable expectation of success given that Kubo teaches the use of polyester and polypropylene interchangeably (Kubo Col 5 lines 25-35).
With regards to claim 17, Washington discloses a chamber of void space (or cup receptacle, 39 Col. 5 lines 65-68, figure 4) extending into the urine collection device from the opening and defined at least partially by the impermeable material and at least one layer of permeable material of the one or more layers of permeable material (see figure 4 and Col 5 lines 65-68, which shows a chamber of void space between and defined by the permeable material and impermeable material) and wherein the chamber is positioned at least partially within a concave portion of the impermeable material (see cross section of the body in figure 2 showing a curved body).
With regards to claim 18, Washington discloses a chamber of void space (or cup receptacle, 39 Col. 5 lines 65-68, figure 4) extending into the urine collection device from the opening and defined at least partially by the impermeable material and at least one layer of permeable material of the one or more layers of permeable material (see figure 4 and Col 5 lines 65-68, which shows a chamber of void space between and defined by the permeable material and impermeable material) the chamber is void space positioned between the portion of the at least one layer of permeable material and the portion of the impermeable material defining the chamber (see figure 4 showing the void space therebetween).
With regards to claim 19, Washington discloses the receptacle opening extends through the impermeable material that is positioned generally opposite to the port (see figure 1 and 4) and the receptacle is defined at least partially by two opposing portions of the one or more layers of permeable material (see cross section in figure 2 which shows the receptacle is defined by the permeable material and Col. 6 lines 21-38 which notes a multilayer permeable material).
With regards to claim 20, Washington discloses a chamber of void space (or cup receptacle, 39 Col. 5 lines 65-68, figure 4) extending into the urine collection device from the opening and defined at least partially by the impermeable material and at least one layer of permeable material of the one or more layers of permeable material (see figure 4 and Col 5 lines 65-68, which shows a chamber of void space between and defined by the permeable material and impermeable material) and wherein the one or more layers of permeable material include a first layer of permeable material and a second layer of permeable material positioned between the first layer of permeable and the chamber (insert 46, figure 1 is noted as a fluid permeable insert that is multi-layered Col 6 lines 21-38), a portion of the first layer of permeable material being positioned opposite to the receptacle opening and adjacent to the portion of the second layer of permeable material defining the receptacle (see figure 4 which shows the permeable material opposite to the opening).
With regards to claim 22 and 23, Washington clearly discloses the receptacle opening includes a first end region having a first maximum width and a second end region having a second maximum width less than the first maximum width of the first end region (see figure 3 and where the opening narrows at one end).
Claims 5, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washington US 4886508 and evidenced by Peterson US 5246454 and Di Mauro M, Tonioni C, Cocci A, Kluth LA, Russo GI, Gomez Rivas J, Cacciamani G, Cito G, Morelli G, Polloni G, di Maida F, Giunti D; Trauma, Reconstructive Urology, Men’s Health Working Parties of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU). Penile length and circumference dimensions: A large study in young Italian men. Andrologia. 2021 Jul;53(6):e14053. doi: 10.1111/and.14053. Epub 2021 Mar 21. PMID: 33748967; PMCID: PMC8243978 (here after referred to as Di Mauro) in view of Keane US 3349768 and Kubo US 5300052 and in further view of Kuntz US 4747166 and Wolff US 6740066 B2.
With regards to claim 5, 15, and 21, Washington fails to disclose wherein the first layer of permeable material includes a wicking material and the second layer of permeable material includes a web of spun material.
However, Kuntz teaches a urine collect device being in the same field of endeavor as Washington. Kuntz teaches wherein the first layer of permeable material includes a wicking material to help the user feel dry Col 4 lines 48-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added a layer of wicking material to the device of Washington to help improve the user’s sensation of dryness as taught by Kuntz.
Washington and Kuntz fail to teach as modified the second layer of permeable material includes a web of spun material.
However, Wolff teaches a urine collection device thereby being in the same field of endeavor with three layers, one of which is a spacing layer (or porous material layer) made from polyester that is in between the wicking and impermeable layers (Col. 6: lines 14-18, Wolff teaches polyester or open cell foam/ like materials maybe used to allow fluid flow thereby implying they are porous).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the insert of Washington using the specific polyester material of Wolff since polyester provides comfort to the user while not obstructing the fluid flow. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness, as per In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and also in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki US 7220250 B2 discloses a multi-layer urine vacuum device that has a chamber filled with a spacer to prevent collapse of the chamber, while not directly related because of the spacer within the chamber, the layers and function is pertinent.
Lawrence US 5678564 discloses a multi-layer urine vacuum device with a chamber having a void but is specified for females instead of males.
SU 2018/0200101 A1 discloses urine collection device without a second porous material layer.
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 GABRIELLA E BURNETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9574. The examiner can normally be reached M-S: 0830-1900 EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/GABRIELLA E BURNETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights