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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06MAR2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The tubular material of Jung is considered to have an attachment portion (where it attaches to the rest of the device), a central portion (along its length), and a terminal portion (the end opposite the attachment portion). Furthermore, the tubular material is worn over the penis of the user and is designed to accommodate the anatomy of any user, and is therefore reasonably considered to extend along the shaft of the penis. This arrangement is considered to necessarily form gaps as the tubular material extends away from the main body of the device, thereby forming a gap between the device and the user.
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.
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, 2, 5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101561497 B1 (Jung) in view of US 20070142794 A1 (Bester et al.), US 9308118 B1 (Dupree et al.), and further in view of US 5865824 A (Chen et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a male incontinence collection container comprising:
a walled absorbent cored absorption chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) with an elastic aperture (50) adapted to allow a penis to be in fluid communication with the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.), wherein the chamber is shaped to deflect urine away from a body during urination (pg. 3), and wherein the elastic aperture is defined further as a tubular material to aid in the placement and retention in place of the penis, wherein the tubular material is embossed, punched, printed, stamped, has raised bumps, or protrusions (pg. 4), and wherein the tubular material comprises a point of attachment (at (30), as seen in Fig. 3), a central portion (the main body along the extension length, as seen in Fig. 3), and a terminal portion (the end closest the body of the wearer);
a hydrophobic layer (10) positioned between the chamber and the body to prevent contact of the urine with the body (pg. 3),
wherein the point of attachment is attached to the hydrophobic layer (seen in Fig. 3); and
wherein the central portion and the terminal portion are configured and disposed along a shaft of the penis to form one or more air gaps between the penis and the absorbent material (said gaps occurring as the elastic aperture extends outward from the device, thereby causing a gap around the penis when worn, the material being placed around the penis of the user and designed to accommodate any size of anatomy, and thereby reasonably being considered to extend onto the shaft of the penis).
Jung further teaches the absorbent material absorbs and retains urine, while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact (pg. 3), but fails to teach an absorbent material in the chamber that converts fluid to gel in fluid communication with the chamber, and the construction material of the tubular material. Jung fails to teach the hydrophobic layer comprises polyamide 6 (PA6), polyamide 66 (PA66), nylon 6, nylon 66, modacrylic or copolymer thereof, a fluoropolymer selected from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA), or fluorinated ethylene-propylene (FEP), polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, poly(trimethylene terephthalate), polylactide, nylon, polyacrylonitrile, polybenzimidazole, a copolymers thereof, or a combination thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
1025
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Jung First Annotated Fig.)
Bester teaches a fabric sleeve (10) for retaining a penis, wherein the fabric sleeve is formed from fabrics such as cotton [0028] which are considered breathable.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular material of Jung with the breathable material of Bester to help keep moisture away from the user’s body [Bester 0001].
Jung in view of Bester fails to teach a gelling material or that the hydrophobic layer is constructed of a claimed material.
Dupree teaches a urine collection device (Abstract) comprising a gelling material which absorbs collected urine (Col. 3: ll. 23-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent material of Jung in view of Bester with the gelling material of Dupree to reduce the likelihood of leakage (Dupree Col. 3: ll. 61-63).
Jung in view of Bester and Dupree fails to teach the hydrophobic layer is constructed of a claimed material.
Chen teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the hydrophobic layer is constructed of PTFE or nylon (Col. 4: ll. 21-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic layer of Jung in view of Bester and Dupree with the PTFE or nylon of Chenin order to isolate the wearer’s skin from liquids held within the device, thereby reducing discomfort and irritation.
Regarding claim 2, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung further teaches the elastic aperture is defined further as comprising an elongated tube that protrudes from the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.).
Regarding claim 5, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung further teaches the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is integral with a brief (the device being brief shaped) and the device is capable of single-use and can be disposed of and is therefore considered to be a disposable brief with a single use container.
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches a male incontinence garment (Abstract) comprising:
an absorption chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) comprising an elastic aperture (50) adapted to allow a penis to be in fluid communication with the absorption chamber, (Jung First Annotated Fig.), wherein the chamber is shaped to deflect urine away from a body during urination (pg. 3), and wherein the elastic aperture is defined further as a tubular material to aid in the placement and retention in place of the penis, wherein the tubular material has raised bumps, or protrusions (pg. 4),
and wherein the tubular material comprises a point of attachment (at (30), as seen in Fig. 3), a central portion (the main body along the extension length, as seen in Fig. 3), and a terminal portion (the end closest the body of the wearer);
wherein the point of attachment is attached to the hydrophobic layer (seen in Fig. 3); and
a hydrophobic layer (10) positioned between the chamber and the body to prevent contact of the urine with the body (pg. 3)
wherein the central portion and the terminal portion are configured and disposed along a shaft of the penis to form one or more air gaps between the penis and the absorbent material (said gaps occurring as the elastic aperture extends outward from the device, thereby causing a gap around the penis when worn, the material being placed around the penis of the user and designed to accommodate any size of anatomy, and thereby reasonably being considered to extend onto the shaft of the penis).
Jung further teaches the absorbent material absorbs and retains urine, while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact (pg. 3), but fails to teach an absorbent material in the chamber that converts fluid to gel in fluid communication with the chamber, or the construction material of the tubular material.
Jung fails to teach the hydrophobic layer comprises polyamide 6 (PA6), polyamide 66 (PA66), nylon 6, nylon 66, modacrylic or copolymer thereof, a fluoropolymer selected from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA), or fluorinated ethylene-propylene (FEP), polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, poly(trimethylene terephthalate), polylactide, nylon, polyacrylonitrile, polybenzimidazole, a copolymers thereof, or a combination thereof.
Bester teaches a fabric sleeve (10) for retaining a penis, wherein the fabric sleeve is formed from fabrics such as cotton [0028] which are considered breathable.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular material of Jung with the breathable material of Bester to help keep moisture away from the user’s body [Bester 0001].
Dupree teaches a urine collection device (Abstract) comprising a gelling material which absorbs collected urine (Col. 3: ll. 23-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent material of Jung in view of Bester with the gelling material of Dupree to reduce the likelihood of leakage (Dupree Col. 3: ll. 61-63).
Chen teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the hydrophobic layer is constructed of PTFE or nylon (Col. 4: ll. 21-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic layer of Jung in view of Bester and Dupree with the PTFE or nylon of Chenin order to isolate the wearer’s skin from liquids held within the device, thereby reducing discomfort and irritation.
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the garment of claim 9.
Jung further teaches the elastic aperture is defined further as comprising an elongated tube that protrudes from the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.).
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester and Dupree, and further in view of US 6338729 B1 (Wada et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung fails to teach a deflector within the chamber that channels urine into the absorbent material.
Wada teaches a deflector (22) within the chamber (21) that channels urine into the absorbent material (13) (Col. 6: ll. 57-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber of Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen to incorporate the deflector of Wada to maximize urine absorption by the absorbent material (Wada Col. 6: ll. 57-65).
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the garment of claim 9.
Jung fails to teach a deflector within the chamber that channels urine into the absorbent material.
Wada teaches a deflector (22) within the chamber (21) that channels urine into the absorbent material (13) (Col. 6: ll. 57-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber of Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen to incorporate the deflector of Wada to maximize urine absorption by the absorbent material (Wada Col. 6: ll. 57-65).
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the method of claim 16.
Jung fails to teach a deflector within the chamber that channels urine into the absorbent material.
Wada teaches a deflector (22) within the chamber (21) that channels urine into the absorbent material (13) (Col. 6: ll. 57-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber of Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen to incorporate the deflector of Wada to maximize urine absorption by the absorbent material (Wada Col. 6: ll. 57-65).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen, and further in view of US 20180185201 A1 (DeGrave et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung further teaches the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is integral with a brief (the device being brief shaped), wherein the absorbent material (40) in the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is positioned down a front of a groin and in an area between the legs of the brief (as would necessarily occur when the device is worn) to prevent chafing, rash, and infections.
Jung fails to teach the absorbent material is made from a non-woven hydrophilic material selected from cellulose, modified-cellulose, linen, cotton, rayon fiber, viscose fiber, cotton fiber, lyocell fiber, or mixtures thereof, or wherein the chamber is shaped to contour around a leg portion of elongated briefs to evenly distribute the liquid throughout the chamber to reduce or eliminate bulging of the brief.
DeGrave teaches the formation of a fibrous web (22) for construction of the absorbent core wherein fibers, namely cellulosic fibers [0036], are air-laid to form the required shape and is therefore considered to teach a non-woven material hydrophilic material comprising cellulose [0035].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 1 with the cellulose of DeGrave by selecting a known absorbent material as taught by DeGrave [0036].
“[T]o prevent chafing, rash, and infections” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the garment of claim 9.
Jung further teaches the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is integral with a brief (the device being brief shaped), wherein the absorbent material (40) in the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is positioned down a front of a groin and in an area between the legs of the brief (as would necessarily occur when the device is worn) to prevent chafing, rash, and infections.
Jung fails to teach the absorbent material is made from a non-woven hydrophilic material selected from cellulose, modified-cellulose, linen, cotton, rayon fiber, viscose fiber, cotton fiber, lyocell fiber, or mixtures thereof, or wherein the chamber is shaped to contour around a leg portion of elongated briefs to evenly distribute the liquid throughout the chamber to reduce or eliminate bulging of the brief.
DeGrave teaches the formation of a fibrous web (22) for construction of the absorbent core wherein fibers, namely cellulosic fibers [0036], are air-laid to form the required shape and is therefore considered to teach a non-woven material hydrophilic material comprising cellulose [0035].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 1 with the cellulose of DeGrave by selecting a known absorbent material as taught by DeGrave [0036].
“[T]o prevent chafing, rash, and infections” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, Chen and further in view of US 20170367873 A1 (Grannum)
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen fails to teach the hydrophobic layer is channeled toward the chamber, and optionally the hydrophobic layer further comprises a channel, groove, or imprinting that channels urine toward the absorbent material in the chamber.
Grannum teaches a male incontinence collection container (Fig. 1A) comprising a hydrophobic layer (14) forming a channel (Fig. 1A) that channels urine towards the absorbent material (16) in the chamber (15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 1 to incorporate the channel of Grannum to direct urine away from the user, thereby limiting contact of waste with the skin [Grannum 0024].
Regarding claim 10, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen fails to teach the hydrophobic layer further comprises a channel, groove, or imprinting that channels urine toward the absorbent material in the chamber.
Grannum teaches a male incontinence collection container (Fig. 1A) comprising a hydrophobic layer (14) forming a channel (Fig. 1A) that channels urine towards the absorbent material (16) in the chamber (18).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 9 to incorporate the channel of Grannum to direct urine away from the user, thereby limiting contact of waste with the skin [Grannum 0024].
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the garment of claim 9.
Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen fails to teach the chamber is shaped to contour around a leg portion of elongated briefs to evenly distribute the liquid throughout the chamber to reduce or eliminate bulging of the elongated briefs.
Grannum teaches a male incontinence collection container (Fig. 1A) wherein the chamber (15) is shaped to contour around a leg portion of elongated briefs as seen in Fig. 1A and 1B where (15) is shown to be wider than the space between the legs and then would necessarily contour around a leg portion of the brief to evenly distribute the liquid throughout both the chamber and cavity (18). By distributing the urine to (15) and (18), the garment of Grannum would reduce or eliminate bulging of the brief.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of claim 9 with the shape of Grannum to provide a familiar device shaped like typical men’s undergarments [Grannum 0005].
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester and Dupree, and further in view of US 5776123 A (Goerg).
Regarding claim 8, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the container of claim 1.
Jung fails to teach the composition of the absorbent material.
Goerg teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the absorbent material comprises a hydrogel forming polymer (Col. 12: ll. 21-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed absorbent material of claim 1 with the hydrogel polymer of Goerg as a simple substitution of one known absorbent material for another with a reasonable expectation of retaining urine within the device MPEP 2143 I.
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the garment of claim 9.
Jung fails to teach the composition of the absorbent material.
Goerg teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the absorbent material comprises a hydrogel forming polymer (Col. 12: ll. 21-23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed absorbent material of claim 1 with the hydrogel polymer of Goerg as a simple substitution of one known absorbent material for another with a reasonable expectation of retaining urine within the device MPEP 2143 I.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen, and further in view of US 5542941 A (Morita).
Regarding claim 16, Jung teaches a method for male urine collection comprising:
fitting a male with a urine collection device that comprises:
a walled absorbent cored absorption chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) with an elastic aperture (50) adapted to allow a penis to be in fluid communication with the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.), wherein the chamber is shaped to deflect urine away from a body during urination (pg. 3), and wherein the elastic aperture is defined further as a tubular material to aid in the placement and retention in place of the penis, wherein the tubular material is embossed, punched, printed, stamped, has raised bumps, or protrusions (pg. 4);
a hydrophobic layer (10) positioned between the chamber and the body to prevent contact of the urine with the body (pg. 3), and wherein the tubular material comprises a point of attachment (at (30), as seen in Fig. 3), a central portion (the main body along the extension length, as seen in Fig. 3), and a terminal portion (the end closest the body of the wearer);
retaining the penis with the breathable tubular material, wherein a penis head is necessarily exposed to the interior of the chamber, but tubular material is capable of expanding and contracting with a size of the penis head (pg. 3);
wherein the point of attachment is attached to the hydrophobic layer (seen in Fig. 3); and
wherein the central portion and the terminal portion are configured and disposed along a shaft of the penis to form one or more air gaps between the penis and the absorbent material (said gaps occurring as the elastic aperture extends outward from the device, thereby causing a gap around the penis when worn, the material being placed around the penis of the user and designed to accommodate any size of anatomy, and thereby reasonably being considered to extend onto the shaft of the penis).
“[R]educes exposure to possible infection” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Jung further the absorbent material absorbs and retains urine, while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact (pg. 3), but fails to teach an absorbent material in the chamber that converts fluid to gel in fluid communication with the chamber, or the construction material of the tubular material.
Jung further teaches the absorbent material absorbs and retains urine, while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact (pg. 3), but fails to teach an absorbent material in the chamber that converts fluid to gel in fluid communication with the chamber, and the construction material of the tubular material. Jung fails to teach the hydrophobic layer comprises polyamide 6 (PA6), polyamide 66 (PA66), nylon 6, nylon 66, modacrylic or copolymer thereof, a fluoropolymer selected from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA), or fluorinated ethylene-propylene (FEP), polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, poly(trimethylene terephthalate), polylactide, nylon, polyacrylonitrile, polybenzimidazole, a copolymers thereof, or a combination thereof.
Bester teaches a fabric sleeve (10) for retaining a penis, wherein the fabric sleeve is formed from fabrics such as cotton [0028] which are considered breathable.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular material of Jung with the breathable material of Bester to help keep moisture away from the user’s body [Bester 0001].
Jung in view of Bester fails to teach a gelling material, the hydrophobic layer material, or a double-walled chamber.
Dupree teaches a urine collection device (Abstract) comprising a gelling material which absorbs collected urine (Col. 3: ll. 23-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent material of Jung in view of Bester with the gelling material of Dupree to reduce the likelihood of leakage (Dupree Col. 3: ll. 61-63).
Jung in view of Bester and Dupree fails to teach the hydrophobic layer material, or a double-walled chamber.
Morita teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1) with a double walled (Col. 11: lines 41-42) absorbent cored absorption chamber (4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Jung in view of Bester, and Dupree with the double-walled construction of Morita to reduce soiling of the user’s skin and preventing release of material (Morita Col. 11: lines 44-45).
Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Morita fails to teach construction using a claimed material.
Chen teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the hydrophobic layer is constructed of PTFE or nylon (Col. 4: ll. 21-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic layer of Jung in view of Bester and Dupree with the PTFE or nylon of Chenin order to isolate the wearer’s skin from liquids held within the device, thereby reducing discomfort and irritation.
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the method of claim 16.
Jung further teaches the elastic aperture is defined further as comprising an elongated tube that protrudes from the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.).
Regarding claim 19, Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen teaches the method of claim 16.
Jung further teaches the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is integral with a brief (the device being brief shaped), wherein the absorbent material (40) in the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) is positioned down a front of a groin and in an area between the legs of the brief (as would necessarily occur when the device is worn) to prevent chafing, rash, and infections.“[T]o prevent chafing, rash, and infections” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, Chen, and Morita.
Regarding claim 20, Jung teaches a method for male urine collection comprising: providing a male a walled absorbent cored absorption chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.) with an elastic aperture (50) adapted to allow a penis to be in fluid communication with the chamber (Jung First Annotated Fig.), wherein the chamber is shaped to deflect urine away from a body during urination (pg. 3), and wherein the elastic aperture is defined further as a tubular material to aid in the placement and retention in place of the penis, wherein the tubular material is embossed, punched, printed, stamped, has raised bumps, or protrusions (pg. 4);
retaining the penis with the breathable tubular material, wherein a penis head is necessarily exposed to the interior of the chamber, but tubular material is capable of expanding and contracting with a size of the penis head (pg. 3);
and wherein the tubular material comprises a point of attachment (at (30), as seen in Fig. 3), a central portion (the main body along the extension length, as seen in Fig. 3), and a terminal portion (the end closest the body of the wearer);
wherein the point of attachment is attached to the hydrophobic layer (seen in Fig. 3); and
wherein the central portion and the terminal portion are configured and disposed along a shaft of the penis to form one or more air gaps between the penis and the absorbent material (said gaps occurring as the elastic aperture extends outward from the device, thereby causing a gap around the penis when worn, the material being placed around the penis of the user and designed to accommodate any size of anatomy, and thereby reasonably being considered to extend onto the shaft of the penis).
“[R]educes exposure to possible infection while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact” is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Jung further teaches the absorbent material absorbs and retains urine, while keeping a user dry and free from urine contact (pg. 3), but fails to teach an absorbent material in the double-walled chamber that converts fluid to gel in fluid communication with the chamber, and the construction material of the tubular material. Jung fails to teach the hydrophobic layer comprises polyamide 6 (PA6), polyamide 66 (PA66), nylon 6, nylon 66, modacrylic or copolymer thereof, a fluoropolymer selected from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy polymer (PFA), or fluorinated ethylene-propylene (FEP), polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutyleneterephthalate, poly(trimethylene terephthalate), polylactide, nylon, polyacrylonitrile, polybenzimidazole, a copolymers thereof, or a combination thereof.
Bester teaches a fabric sleeve (10) for retaining a penis, wherein the fabric sleeve is formed from fabrics such as cotton [0028] which are considered breathable.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular material of Jung with the breathable material of Bester to help keep moisture away from the user’s body [Bester 0001].
Jung in view of Bester fails to teach a double-walled chamber containing gelling material or that the hydrophobic layer is constructed of a claimed material.
Dupree teaches a urine collection device (Abstract) comprising a gelling material which absorbs collected urine (Col. 3: ll. 23-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent material of Jung in view of Bester with the gelling material of Dupree to reduce the likelihood of leakage (Dupree Col. 3: ll. 61-63).
Jung in view of Bester and Dupree fails to teach the hydrophobic layer is constructed of a claimed material or a double-walled chamber.
Chen teaches an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein the hydrophobic layer is constructed of PTFE or nylon (Col. 4: ll. 21-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic layer of Jung in view of Bester and Dupree with the PTFE or nylon of Chenin order to isolate the wearer’s skin from liquids held within the device, thereby reducing discomfort and irritation.
Morita teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1) with a double walled (Col. 11: lines 41-42) absorbent cored absorption chamber (4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jung in view of Bester, Dupree, and Chen with the double-walled construction of Morita to reduce soiling of the user’s skin and preventing release of material (Morita Col. 11: lines 44-45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020138058 A1, US 20070005031 A1, US 20230338127 A1, US 5300052 A, and US 6817992 B1 teaches urine collection containers which form a gap between the user and the outer walls of the collection container (corresponding to the claimed hydrophobic 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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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 on (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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights