DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 6 July 2026. Claims 14-
28 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 1-13 and
the addition of claims 14-28.
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 .
Drawings
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 “one…opening[s] form a lemniscate shape…” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In other words, the drawings do not show how one opening itself forms a lemniscate shape. As a reminder, claim 1 recites “one” (or more) openings in the alternative. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “….which in that embodiment would appear to be a single opening 16” as described in the specification at [0036]. This particular paragraph refers to Fig. 3, which does not show “a single opening 16”, rather it shows two openings 16. None of the figures appear to disclose a single opening, but two openings. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites “…an angle formed between the at least two channels by the convergence of the at least two channels is between 5 and 15 degrees.” However, the specification, as originally filed, appears to provide support for the angle being with respect to the centerline of the device ([0034]: “…each channel 18 is at an angle of approximately 4 degrees with respect to the centerline of the device 10”) or the angle being with respect to a longitudinal axis of each channel ([0034]: “The angle between longitudinal axis of each channel 18 shown in FIG. 3 is approximately 8 degrees”).
7. 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.
8. Claims 14-28 are 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.
9. Claim 14 at line 7 recites “the one or more openings form a lemniscate shape about the at least two channels”. Since “one or more openings” is presented in the alternative, it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, how one opening itself could form a lemniscate shape. All the figures appear to show two openings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 19 recites “the convergence of the at least two channels increases friction on the received male genitalia” which is a positive recitation of human subject matter. A suggested amendment is --the convergence of the at least two channels is configured to increase friction on the received male genitalia--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 14-20, 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamin (U.S. Patent No. 10,258,537) Regarding claim 14, Lamin discloses a mutual sexual stimulation device for receiving male genitalia, the mutual sexual stimulation device comprising:
a body including one or more openings 114,118 on a front face (Figs. 2-4 and col. 3, lines 39-50);
at least two channels, each of the at least two channels extending from the one or more openings (Figs. 2 and 4), the at least two channels converging to form a chamber, the chamber running internally along the body (chamber formed inside cylindrical tube 120 (Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 39-67); and
wherein the one or more openings 114,118 are shaped about the at least two channels (Figs. 1 and 4).
While Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the shape of the one or more openings about the at least two channels is a lemniscate shape, Lamin makes such obvious as Lamin teaches that the openings, and the channels extending therefrom, enable two male partners to insert their respective penises into the openings and channels for mutual pleasure (as shown in Fig. 1), and further that the inner tube is cylindrical to facilitate such insertion (as shown in Fig. 4), with material construction of the device being that of a flexible material allowing expansion and contraction during use (col. 3, lines 39-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally shape the one or more openings about the at least two channels in a circular/cylindrical fashion, (forming a lemniscate shape due to being adjacent each other), as Lamin teaches that the adjacent channels are cylindrical and allow for expansion/contraction during use to accommodate the respective penises of both male partners.
Regarding claim 15, the at least two channels are spaced apart by a barrier adjacent to the front face of the body (as shown in the reproduction below of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the barrier extends into the body (as shown in the reproduction below of Fig. 2).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“barrier”)]
Regarding claim 17, the at least two channels tend toward each other within the body (see Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 18, while Lamin teaches an angle formed between the at least two channels by the convergence of the at least two channels (see Figs. 1, 2 and 4), Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the angle is between 5 and 15 degrees. However, the courts have shown that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 11(A)). Therefore to discover the optimum angle between the two openings and/or channels would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Lamin further makes such obvious as Lamin recognizes that the device can be constructed with different angles to accommodate use by one, two or three users (col. 3, lines 55-67) and the device can be manufactured to provide for a wide variety of sizes, shapes and applications (col. 4, lines 21-31), and further allowing for expansion and contraction during use (col. 3, lines 65-67), which would afford a variance in angles.
Regarding claim 19, the convergence of the at least two channels increases friction on the received male genitalia (col. 3, lines 28-67).
Regarding claim 20, the device further comprises a rear opening (“third orifice”) on a rear face, the rear face being opposite the front face (Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 23, the body is one-piece (element 120 of Fig. 4; and col. 3, lines 39-54).
Regarding claim 24, the device further includes an outer sleeve 124 surrounding a portion of the body (Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 25, the body comprises a first material (soft, flesh-like material) and the outer sleeve 124 comprises a second material (pliable rubber) that is more rigid than the first material “to provide stability and grippability and during use” (col. 3, lines 39-60).
Regarding claim 27, Lamin discloses a generally “block shape” as Lamin teaches that the body may have an “I-shape” (col. 3, lines 55-60) with first and second opposing flat surfaces (as shown in Figs. 2-4) to facilitate one-handed operation for a user (col. 3, lines 55-60).
14. Claims 21, 22, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamin (U.S. Patent No. 10,258,537) in view of Wright, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 9,486,388). Regarding claim 21, while Lamin teaches that the body is made of a soft, flesh-like material designed to mimic genital flesh consistency (col. 1, lines 60-67 – col. 2, lines 1-26), Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the material is a thermoplastic elastomer. Wright, Jr. discloses a masturbatory stimulator apparatus (see Abstract and Figs. 3-4B), as likewise disclosed by Lamin, wherein the apparatus comprises multiple channels, wherein each channel may provide a variety of textures, diameters and mechanical features to provide different sensations and pressures to a user (col. 6, lines 44-55 and col. 7, lines 9-25) Wright, Jr. teaches that the channels may be constructed of a variety of materials, such as thermoplastic elastomers, to facilitate sliding of the male organ through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7 and col. 6, lines 3-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a channel for mimicking the genital flesh consistency as taught by Lamin, of a thermoplastic elastomer as suggested by Wright, Jr., as Lamin suggests the need of a material which is soft and flesh-like, and Wright, Jr. discloses that thermoplastic elastomers are soft substances which allow the male organ to slide easily through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 22, while Lamin teaches that the body is made of a soft, flesh-like material designed to mimic genital flesh consistency (col. 1, lines 60-67 – col. 2, lines 1-26), Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the material is silicone. Wright, Jr. teaches that the channels may be constructed of a variety of materials, such as silicone, to facilitate sliding of the male organ through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7 and col. 6, lines 3-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a channel for mimicking the genital flesh consistency as taught by Lamin, of silicone as suggested by Wright, Jr., as Lamin suggests the need of a material which is soft and flesh-like, and Wright, Jr. discloses that medical grade silicone is one of a variety of soft substances which allow the male organ to slide easily through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 26, while Lamin teaches that the body is made of a “first material” of soft, flesh-like material designed to mimic genital flesh consistency (col. 1, lines 60-67 – col. 2, lines 1-26), Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the material is silicone. Wright, Jr. teaches that the channels may be constructed of a variety of materials, such as silicone, to facilitate sliding of the male organ through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7 and col. 6, lines 3-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a channel of a body for mimicking the genital flesh consistency as taught by Lamin, of silicone as suggested by Wright, Jr., as Lamin suggests the need of a material which is soft and flesh-like, and Wright, Jr. discloses that medical grade silicone is one of a variety of soft substances which allow the male organ to slide easily through the channel(s) (col. 5, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 28, while Lamin teaches that the inner channels/chamber of the body provide stimulation to the user(s), and that such stimulation may involve vibrators (col. 1, lines 31-33), Lamin fails to disclose explicitly that the device further comprises one or more vibrating motors.
Wright, Jr. discloses a masturbatory stimulator apparatus (see Abstract and Figs. 3-4B), as likewise disclosed by Lamin, wherein the apparatus comprises multiple channels, wherein each channel may provide a variety of textures, diameters and mechanical features to provide different sensations and pressures to a user (col. 6, lines 44-55 and col. 7, lines 9-25), and further that the channels may include mechanical device to enhance the stimulation, such as a vibrating motor (col. 7, lines 15-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a male sexual stimulation device for providing pressure and massage to a male user or users as taught by Lamin, to include a mechanical device such as a vibrating motor, as suggested by Wright, Jr., as Lamin recognizes the use of a channel/chamber which provides stimulation to the male organ, and further that vibrators provide such stimulation and Wright, Jr. discloses that a channel/chamber may include a mechanical device to enhance the stimulation, such as a vibrating motor (col. 7, lines 15-25).
Terminal Disclaimer
15. The terminal disclaimers filed on 20 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 10,383,788 and U.S. Patent No. 11,382,826 have been reviewed and are accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new objections are presented above in light of the amendments.
17. Applicant’s arguments filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
18. Applicant’s arguments filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of their cancellation.
19. Applicant’s arguments filed 6 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Lamin in view of Wright, Jr. have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of their cancellation.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (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
