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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 should be amended to -each recess of the one or more [[of]] recesses being positioned between-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 should be amended to - each recess of the one or more [[of]] recesses being positioned-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 12-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0711536 A1 to Cawood.
Cawood discloses:
Regarding claim 10:
A urine collection container (figures 1-4), comprising:
a flexible bladder (11) having an interior region (interior of 11);
a baffle structure (33) having one or more baffles (33; column 4, lines 30-35) disposed within the interior region (interior of 11) of the bladder (11); wherein the baffle structure (33) includes one or more recesses (see the recess/gap C in figure 2 below) and a plurality of ridges (see the ridge 33 in figure 2 below) having an outer periphery (see the outer periphery A in figure 1 below) oriented towards an opposite interior surface (see the opposite interior surface B in figure 1 below) on the interior region (interior region of 11) of the flexible bladder (11), each recess (see the first recess C of the plurality of recesses within 11) of the one or more of recesses (see the recesses C in figure 1 below) being positioned between adjacent ridges (see the adjacent ridges E and D in figure 1 below of baffle structure 33) of the plurality of ridges (see the plurality of ridges/baffle 33); and
a port (29 and 34) secured or securable to the bladder (11), the port (29 and 34) including a collection connector (29) and a vacuum connector (34; forms a vacuum or lower pressure location at the interior of 11 in order for fluid to drain from the bladder 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 1 of Cawood, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 12:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the port (29 and 34) is positioned on an upper exterior surface (as shown in figure 1 connector 29 is located above the bottom surface 24 as shown in figure 1 which is consistent with the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above) of the bladder (11).
Regarding claim 13:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the ridges (33) and the bladder (11) are monolithically formed (the ridges are formed by heat applied to the bladder 23 which forms the ridge indicating the ridge and the bladder are of the same material; column 1, lines 25-30 and column 4, lines 20-25) from the same material.
Regarding claim 14:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the bladder (11) and the baffle structure (33) include a flexible material (column, lines 50-55 “flexible thermoplastic material”).
Regarding claim 15:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the bladder (11) includes at least one of a thermoplastic elastomer (column, lines 50-55 “flexible thermoplastic material”) or silicone rubber.
Regarding claim 17:
A method of collecting urine, the method comprising:
positioning (as shown in figure 1) a urine collection device (13) at least proximate to a urethra (18) of a user (“P”), the urine collection device (13) being in fluid communication with a flexible bladder (11) through a conduit (31)(column 2, lines 35-40);
collecting urine discharged by the user (“P”) in the urine collection device (13) (column 2, lines 35-40); and
drawing urine from the urine collection device (13) into an interior region (interior of 11) of the flexible bladder (11) (column 2, lines 5-10), the bladder (11) including a baffle structure (33) having one or more baffles (33; column 4, lines 30-35) positioned or positionable in the interior region (interior of 11) of the bladder (11), wherein the baffle structure (33) includes one or more recesses (see the recess/gap C in figure 2 above) and a plurality of ridges (see the ridge 33 in figure 2 above) having an outer periphery (see the outer periphery A in figure 1 above) oriented towards an opposite interior surface (see the opposite interior surface B in figure 1 above) on the interior region (interior region of 11) of the flexible bladder (11), each recess (see the first recess C of the plurality of recesses within 11) of the one or more of recesses (see the recesses C in figure 1 above) being positioned between adjacent ridges (see the adjacent ridges E and D in figure 1 above of baffle structure 33) of the plurality of ridges (see the plurality of ridges/baffle 33), wherein the urine contacts at least a portion (column 4, lines 30-40; contact the urine and reduce sloshing sounds) of the baffle structure (33) in the interior region (interior of 11) of the bladder (11).
Regarding claim 19:
The method of claim 17, wherein the plurality of ridges (see the ridge 33 in figure 2 above) and the bladder (33) are monolithically formed from the same material (as indicated in column 4, lines 15-25 the ridges 33 are made of the same material as the bladder 11 since ridges 33 are heated or melted material of the bladder 11).
Regarding claim 20:
The method of claim 17, further comprising disconnecting the conduit (31) from the bladder (11) and disposing (column 3, lines 15-20) of the bladder (11).
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0711536 A1 to Cawood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190247222 A1 to Ecklund et al. (Ecklund).
Regarding claim 16:
Cawood fails to disclose:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the baffle structure includes a non-rigid open-cell foam.
Ecklund teaches:
A urine collection device (900 of figure 9a) that includes a baffle/spacer (994). Further, the baffle/spacer can be made from an open foam material (¶0130). Further, the bladder (254) can include a vacuum pump (256; figure 2) that applies a vacuum to the bladder via a conduit (264) to aid in drawing urine into the bladder (¶0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawood to replace the material of the baffle with an open foam material as taught by Ecklund. This is a simple substitution of one known element (material of the baffle in Cawood) for another (open foam material of the baffle in Ecklund) to obtain predictable results (to control the flow of material through the bladder).
Regarding claim 18:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 16 by Cawood and Ecklund:
The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more baffles of the baffle structure includes a foam structure disposed within the bladder (see the open cell compressible foam of Ecklund incorporated into Cawood).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0711536 A1 to Cawood as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060155214 A1 to Wightman.
Regarding claim 11:
Cawood fails to disclose:
The urine collection container of claim 10, wherein the vacuum connector includes a membrane configured to prevent fluid from traversing the vacuum connector.
Wightman teaches:
A urine collection system that includes a conduit (16), a bladder (20), a pump (25) and a connector and a second conduit (19/19’’) between the pump and the bladder. The reference further teaches a membrane is located between the pump and the bladder that prevents fluid from contacting the pump (¶0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cawood to include a membrane between the pump and bladder (in the connector) as taught by Wightman in order to prevent fluid from reaching the pump and creating health and safety issues (Wightman, ¶0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1-3 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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections of claim 10 and 17:
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous rejection and provided arguments as to why the rejections is improper. However the office is not persuaded. The applicant has argued that the reference does not teach the ridges and recesses as required by the amended claim. However, as indicated in the claims and the annotated figure above the recesses and ridges are taught by the reference as required by the claims. For this reason, the above rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims are persuasive and for this reason the previous rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims are persuasive and for this reason the previous rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
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 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