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 Election/Restrictions Claims 89-107 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 3/6/2026 has been entered : Claims 71, 73-74, 83, and 85-107 remain pending in the present application. Claims 71, 87, 102, and 106 are currently amended. Claims 71, 73-74, 83, and 85-88 are examined on the merits. Claims 89-107 are withdrawn. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 88 recites “the thickness of the porch structure is less than the width of the porch structure” . This language is not found in the specification, nor is it clearly shown in the figures. 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. Claims 71 , 73- 74, 83, and 85 -86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ecklund (US 2019/0247222 A1) , in view of Villari ( US 3 , 740 , 770 A ) . Regarding claim 71, Ecklund teaches a urine collection device (Fig. 10A; Abstract), comprising a collection member extending from a proximal end to a distal end (collection member 1012), wherein the collection member defines an internal cavity to collect urine discharge from a body of a user (¶ 155); and an outlet in fluid communication with the internal cavity (inherent to the function of outlet 1078; best seen in Fig. 9D at aperture 993), wherein the outlet comprises: a port support structure at the distal end of the collection member (Fig. 10A shows a grommet structure at outlet 1030), and a port extending from the port support structure, wherein the port is configured to couple to a drain tube (1030). Ecklund does not explicitly teach the port structure being in the internal cavity of the collection member, where the port structure defines a recess at a proximal side of the port structure, wherein the port structure has a width that is greater than a width of the port, and wherein the width is a dimension extending between a first lateral side of the collection member and a second lateral side of the collection member. Villari discloses a urine collection bag (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a port support structure in an internal cavity of a collection member (support members 22; Fig. 3 most clearly shows how flexible walls 12 and 14 surround the edges of said support member 22 at surfaces 62, thus comprising a support member 22 being inside the internal cavity of the bag 10), wherein the port support structure divides a recess at a proximal side of the port support structure (drip site chamber 46), wherein the port support structure has a width that is greater than a width of the port (particularly via wings 36 and 38; Figs. 1-2 show how the support member 22 extends the width of the bag and beyond the width of the port at passageway 60), and wherein the width is a dimension extending between a first lateral side of the collection member and a second lateral side of the collection member (the width is defined between side edges 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port structure being in the internal cavity of the collection member, where the port structure defines a recess at a proximal side of the port structure, wherein the port structure has a width that is greater than a width of the port, and wherein the width is a dimension extending between a first lateral side of the collection member and a second lateral side of the collection member. Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Regarding claim 73, Villari further teaches the port support structure extends across the width of the collection member, wherein the width is a dimension that extends between a first lateral side and a second lateral side collection member ( particularly via wings 36 and 38; Figs. 1-2 show how the support member 22 extends the width of the bag to side edges 28). As previously stated, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port structure extends across a width of the collection member , and wherein the width is a dimension extending between a first lateral side of the collection member and a second lateral side of the collection member. Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Regarding claim 7 4 , Villari further teaches the port support structure is formed from a material having rigidity that is greater than a rigidity of a material of the collection member ( Col. 1, lines 37-40 indicate the edge structure being rigid while the bag itself is flexible ). As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port structure being formed of a material having a rigidity that is greater than a rigidity of a material of the collection member. Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Regarding claim 83 , Villari further teaches the port support structure extends entirely across the width of the collection member, wherein the width is a dimension that extends between a first lateral side and a second lateral side collection member (particularly via wings 36 and 38; Figs. 1-2 show how the support member 22 extends the width of the bag to side edges 28). As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port structure entirely extends across a width of the collection member, and wherein the width is a dimension extending between a first lateral side of the collection member and a second lateral side of the collection member. Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Regarding claim 85, Villari further teaches that the port support structure and the port may be integrally formed in a single, monolithic structure (Col. 3, lines 36-52). As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port structure in the port being integrally formed as claimed . Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Regarding claim 8 6 , Villari also discloses the port support structure and the port may be integrally formed in a single, monolithic structure (Col. 3, lines 36-52). As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the port being rotationally fixed relative to the port structure in the collection member ( Ecklund also does not disclose any rotation of the port relative to the port support structure and the collection member ) . Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Claim s 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ecklund and Villari as applied to claim 71 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 6,394,993 B1) . Regarding claim 8 7 , the combination of Ecklund and Villari substantially disclose the invention of claim 71. The combination does not explicitly teach the recess is elongated in the width of the port support structure. In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being support structures for flexible containers, Chang teaches a port support structure (port 18 in Fig. 2) comprising a recess elongated in a width of the port support structure (faces 26 and 28; Col. 4, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the port support structure of Ecklund and Villari to comprise the elongated recess as taught by Chang. Doing so with thus comprise the recess being elongated in the width of the port structure. Doing so would be advantageous in providing a still rigid support structure that may also be gripped and adjusted by the user in order to align access through the port and port structure (Col. 4, lines 46-59 of Chang). Regarding claim 8 8 , Villari further teaches the port support structure has a length along a dimension that extends between the proximal end and the distal end (Figs. 1-3 show the support member 22 having a length which extends from a proximal end to a distal end i.e. that is parallel with side edges 28), and wherein the port support structure has a thickness along a dimension that is perpendicular to the width and the length, and wherein the thickness of the port structure is less than a width of the port support structure (Fig. 3 shows a cross-section across the thickness of support member 22; Figs. 1-3 all show said thickness being substantially less than the width of the port support structure) . As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ecklund to comprise the port support structure of Villari. Doing so would thus comprise the thickness of the port support structure being less than the width of the port support structure . Doing so would be advantageous in preventing undesired flexing or collapsing of the bag (Col. 1, lines 20-33 of Villari). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9902 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30 . 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 Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5879 . 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. /ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /GUY K TOWNSEND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781