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 claims 20-26 in the reply filed on 7 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 27-42 were cancelled by Applicant. Drawings 3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “elongated opening extends in at least two directions across the longitudinal axis” (claim 25) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 4. Claims 20 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 6 of claim 2 0, “the interior curved surface” should apparently read --the curved interior surface-- (in line with line 5); and at line 2 of claim 24, “the exterior curved surface” should apparently read --the curved exterior surface-- (in line with line 7 of claim 20). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 7. Claim s 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiegerinck et al. (WO 2006/033569) . Regarding claim 20 , Wiegerinck et al. (hereinafter Wiegerinck ) discloses an apparatus 1 (Fig. 1) comprising: a body 4 extending along a longitudinal axis located at a center of the body (Fig. 1), the body configured to receive a plunger 2 and to penetrate and extend into a vagina (Abstract and col. 2, lines 22-31) , the body including a proximal end and a distal end 8 (col. 7, lines 8-12 and as shown in Fig. 1) , the distal end 8 defining a portion of a cavity (occupied by “space 5”) extending from the proximal end, the cavity at the distal end defined by a curved interior surface of the body (see Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 8-31) , the body 4 further including a fluid passage 6 extending through the body from the interior curved surface on and along the longitudinal axis to a curved exterior surface of the body at the distal end 8 (see Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 8-14) , the fluid passage 6 having an elongated opening on the longitudinal axis at the exterior surface and configured to draw seminal fluid into the cavity via the elongated opening and to expel seminal fluid from the cavity via the elongated opening (see Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 8-14 and 26-33; and col. 8, lines 1-10) , the elongated opening having an oval shape, an elliptical shape, an hourglass shape, a rectangular shape (as shown in the cross-section of Fig. 1) , or a diamond shape to dispense and diffuse seminal fluid from the apparatus (col. 7, lines 8-14 and 26-33; and col. 8, lines 1-10) . Regarding claim 21 , the body 4 defines a barrel having the exterior surface (Fig. 1) and the apparatus further comprises a nub (shown in brackets below) extending outward from the barrel at the distal end (as seen in reproduction of Fig. 1 below) , and wherein the nub defines the elongated opening and at least a portion of the fluid passage 6 (as seen in reproduction of Fig. 1 below) . 1819275 80010 0 0 2657475 269240 0 0 3095625 128270 3343275 13970 “nub” “nub” 2505075 23495 2962275 23495 Regarding claim 2 2 , the nub has a substantially semi-spherical shape (as shown by the inserted, U-shape arrow in the reproduction of Fig. 1 above) . Regarding claim 2 3 , the body and the nub are monolithic (as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 1 above) . Regarding claim 2 4 , the fluid passage 6 is the only fluid passage between the cavity and the exterior curved surface (as element 7 is denoted as a “spray opening” – col. 7, lines 9-11) . Regarding claim 2 5 , the elongated opening extends in at least two directions (indicated by double-ended arrow below) across the longitudinal axis (as shown in the reproduction of Fig. 1 below) . 1285875 12064 0 0 3209925 185420 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiegerinck et al. (WO 2006/033569) in view of Baker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0184341) . Regarding claim 26 , Wiegerinck teaches that the fluid passage is at least partially cylindrical (see Figs. 1 and 2), however Wiegerinck fails to disclose explicitly that the fluid passage is at least partially non -cylindrical . Baker et al. (hereinafter Baker) disclose a handheld device for aspirating/irrigating an orifice, such as a vagina [0065], wherein the fluid passage for aspirating/sampling fluid is partially non-cylindrical (due to element 70 as shown in Figs. 4 and 5) in order to prevent backflow of the aspirant (as described at [0111]). I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a fluid passage for collecting a sample, as taught by Wiegerinck , to be at least partially non -cylindrical, as suggested by Baker, as Wiegerinck recognizes the need to prevent “unpleasant backflow” (col. 3, lines 24-29), and Baker teaches that a partially non -cylindrical fluid passage substantially or completely prevents backflow [0111]. Double Patenting 11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . 12. Claims 20-23 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,350,967 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 is unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of the disclosed patent; and claims 20-23 and 25 are unpatentable over claims 14 and 15 of the disclosed patent . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U.S. Patent No. 3,343,539 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9058 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4730 . 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. /CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791