DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/17/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 should be amended to -drawing urine from the urine collection device into an interior region of the flexible bladder having
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3:
The claim limitation “the baffle structure includes a ridge disposed on an interior surface of the bladder” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 establishes that the baffle can be made from “a foam structure including a non-absorbent cellulose foam disposed within the bladder” but there is no embodiment indicating the baffle includes the foam structure and the ridge as indicated by claim 3. In the figures, the baffle structure with the ridges is the embodiment shown in figure 3a and the baffle structure with the foam structure is shown in the embodiment shown in figures 3b-3c. there is not embodiment where they are both combined. For this reason, the combination of embodiments is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 10-20 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.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim recites the limitation "the one or more recesses" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The office has interpreted the limitation to refer to the “one or more first recesses” in line 9.
Claims 11-16 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 10.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim recites the limitation "the one or more recesses" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The office has interpreted the limitation to refer to the “one or more first recesses” in line 13.
Claims 18-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1-2 and 7-9 is/are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the one or more baffles of the baffle structure includes a foam structure including a non-absorbent cellulose foam disposed within the bladder” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 1.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “one or more second recesses and a second plurality of ridges on the second interior surface having an outer periphery oriented towards and spaced from the first interior surface on the interior region of the flexible bladder, each recess of the one or more second recesses being positioned between adjacent ridges of the second plurality of ridges” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 10; and
the prior art of record does not teach “one or more second recesses and a second plurality of ridges on the second interior surface having an outer periphery oriented towards and spaced from the first interior surface on the interior region of the flexible bladder, each recess of the one or more second recesses being positioned between adjacent ridges of the second plurality of ridges” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 17.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 5/18/26, with respect to the final office action filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 10-20:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior art rejections and for this reason they are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 3:
The previous allowance of claim 3 is withdrawn which is now rejected as new matter since the claim combines embodiments in a manner not previously disclosed. For this reason, the claim is rejected above.
Regarding the claim objections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have addressed the previous claim objections and for this reason they have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights