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 Invention Group I in the reply filed on 2 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22-24 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a deployment tube" in line 3. Since a deployment tube was previously claimed, it is unclear if this limitation is intended to further limit the previously disclosed deployment tube or to disclose an additional deployment tube. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered to further limit the previously disclosed deployment tube.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 21-24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund (10,022,276) in view of Williams et al. (7,250,129).
With respect to claim 1, Lund discloses an apparatus for delivering a tampon or a functional additive to an anatomical cavity of a mammalian patient, as shown in figure 1 and disclosed in column 1, lines 6-18. The apparatus comprises a deployment tube 20 having a proximal end 24 and a distal end 22, as shown in figure 2, the deployment tube having an outer wall and an inner wall defining an interior chamber, as shown in figure 3b. A plunger 40 is disposed within the interior chamber of the deployment tube 20, as shown in figure 3b, and slidably movable towards and away from the distal end of the deployment tube, as disclosed in column 4, lines 47-48. A grip 44 is coupled to the plunger, as shown in figure 2, and configured to enable slidable movement of the plunger, as disclosed in column 5, lines 3-10. A compressed tampon 50 and a functional additive 60 are disposed within the interior chamber of the deployment tube, as shown in figure 3b.
Lund discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the deployment tube being flexible. Williams teaches an apparatus for delivering a tampon (i.e. tampon applicator) having a deployment tube (i.e. barrel) that is flexible to improve comfort and ease of insertion for the user, as disclosed in column 1, lines 21-35. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the deployment tube of Lund flexible, as taught by Williams, to improve ease of insertion and comfort.
With respect to claim 21, Lund discloses a constricted cross section having an element 70 disposed in the deployment tube 20, as shown in figure 3d, for rupturing a pouch 60 containing a functional additive responsive to protraction of the plunger to release the functional additive, as disclosed in column 4, lines 29-45.
With respect to claim 22, the element 70 comprises circumferentially spaced barbs, as shown in figure 7d and disclosed in column 4, lines 36-41.
With respect to claim 23, the element 70 includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced vanes cantilevered from the inner wall of the deployment tube, as shown in figure 3d and disclosed in column 4, lines 38-41. The plunger further comprises a plate 42 opposed to the grip 44 that is capable of rotation responsive to the longitudinal advance of the plunger, as disclosed in column 5, lines 49-58. The deployment tube and plunger of Lund are therefore fully capable of performing the claimed function, mixing at least two mutually different functional additives.
With respect to claim 24, the barb 70 is cantilevered from the inner wall of the deployment tube, as shown in figure 3d, whereby a pouch 60 disposed in the tube and propelled towards the barb by the plunger is ruptured to release the functional additive, as disclosed in column 4, lines 32-45.
With respect to claim 26, Lund discloses that the grip 44 extends outwardly from the proximal end of the deployment tube 20, as shown in figure 10a. The plunger 40 includes a plate 42 opposed to the grip 44, as shown in figure 9, the plate 42 being slidably movable towards and away from the distal end 22 of the deployment tube, as shown in figure 7b, via actuation of the grip to expel the tampon and the functional additive through the distal end of the tube.
With respect to claim 27, Lund discloses the functional additive is a lubricant, as disclosed in column 4, lines 21-24, which is considered to be a medication.
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lund (10,022,276) in view of Williams et al. (7,250,129), and further in view of Chase et al. (2007/0032758).
With respect to claims 6 and 25, modified Lund discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a housing having a distal and juxtaposed with the proximal end of the deployment tube and having a larger cross section than the deployment tube. Chase discloses providing an apparatus for delivering a tampon comprising a deployment tube 12, as shown in figure 2, and having a housing 30b having a larger cross section than deployment tube with a distal end juxtaposed with the proximal and of the deployment tube and a proximal end longitudinally opposed to the distal end. The housing forms a pouch having at least one functional additive, as disclosed in paragraph [0027]. Chase teaches that providing a housing with a pouch of functional additive therein allows for lubrication of the deployment tube prior to insertion, as disclosed in paragraph [0023], to provide cleansing and freshness to the user. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Lund with a housing having a distal and juxtaposed with the proximal end of the deployment tube and having a larger cross section than the deployment tube, as taught by Chase, to lubricate the deployment tube prior to insertion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents and Publications 9,615,977; 7,666,160; 6,592,540; and 5,676,647 disclose applicators for tampons and functional additives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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 at 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781