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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0155354 (McLean).
Regarding claim 1, 5, McLean teaches a personal lubricant delivery apparatus (Fig 7, para 29) comprising: a container, said container having a body composed of a dissolvable membrane (Fig 7, para 34-37); wherein said body is three dimensional (Fig 7; three dimensional to hold lubricant); wherein said body exhibits an elongated oval shape (Fig 7); a first divider, said first divider present within said body (annotated below); a second divider, said second divider present within said body (annotated below); wherein said first divider and said second divider segment said body into a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment (annotated below); wherein said first segment is present at a top end of said body (top end construed as the end with the first segment); wherein said first segment of said body contains a first substance (lubricant or substance inside the first segment; para 68-74, claim 6); wherein said second segment is present within a center of said body (annotated below); wherein said second segment contains a second substance (lubricant or substance inside the second segment); wherein said third segment is present at a bottom end of said body (bottom end construed as the end with the third segment); and wherein said third segment contains a third substance (lubricant or substance inside the third segment), wherein the first substance is a lubricant (para 29, 37, claim 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2-4, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155354 (McLean) in view of US 2022/0218618 (Poropat).
Regarding claim 2-4, 9-11, McLean teaches wherein the first substance is a lubricant (para 29, 37, claim 6), but fails to teach said first divider differs in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance. However, McLean teaches that different membranes may comprise different thicknesses in order to release their substances at different times (para 69). Poropat further teaches that walls may comprise different thicknesses in order to dissolve the walls faster or slower than other walls of the container, thereby releasing the substances at different times (para 8-9, 18), and that a container having multiple compartments/segments may provide different substances in each compartment (para 8, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said first divider differ in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, and wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance, in order to release the first, second, and third substances in a desired manner and order, as taught by Poropat. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the first divider differ in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance yields predictable results (controlled, ordered release of the first, second, and third substances).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155354 (McLean) in view of US 2022/0218618 (Poropat) and WO 2021/262141 (Tremblay).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, McLean further teaches the second substance is a soothing lubricant (McLean para 7-33; lubricants treating dryness are construed as “soothing”) but fails to teach the second substance exhibiting a solubility and viscosity that differs from that of said first substance. However, McLean teaches that different membranes may comprise different thicknesses in order to release their substances at different times (para 69). Poropat further teaches that walls may comprise different thicknesses in order to dissolve the walls faster or slower than other walls of the container, thereby releasing the substances at different times (para 8-9, 18). Poropat further teaches that a container having multiple compartments/segments may provide different substances in each compartment (para 8, 18). Tremblay teaches that lubricants may vary in solubility and viscosity (para 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the second substance exhibiting a solubility and viscosity that differs from that of said first substance, in order to provide a desired effect of the different substances in a desired manner and order, as taught by Poropat and Tremblay. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the second substance exhibiting a solubility and viscosity that differs from that of said first substance yields predictable results (controlled, ordered effect of the first and second substances).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155354 (McLean) in view of US 2018/0153800 (Memin).
Regarding claim 7-8, McLean fails to teach the third substance is a warming lubricant or a cooling lubricant. However, Memin teaches that lubricants may be warming or cooling lubricants (para 6, 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the third substance a warming or cooling lubricant in order to provide different sensations, as taught by Memin. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the third substance a warming or cooling lubricant yields predictable results (desired sensation).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155354 (McLean) in view of US 2022/0218618 (Poropat) and further in view of US 2018/0153800 (Memin).
Regarding claim 13, McLean fails to teach the third substance is a warming lubricant. However, Memin teaches that lubricants may be a warming lubricant (para 6, 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the third substance a warming lubricant in order to provide a desired sensation, as taught by Memin. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the third substance a warming lubricant yields predictable results (desired sensation).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0155354 (McLean) in view of US 2022/0218618 (Poropat) and US 2020/0405631 (Li).
Regarding claim 14, McLean teaches a personal lubricant delivery apparatus (Fig 7, para 29) comprising: a container, said container having a body composed of a dissolvable membrane (Fig 7, para 34-37); wherein said body is three dimensional (Fig 7; must be three dimensional to hold lubricant); wherein said body exhibits an elongated oval shape (Fig 7); a first divider, said first divider present within said body (annotated below); a second divider, said second divider present within said body (annotated below); wherein said first divider and said second divider segment said body into a first segment, a second segment, and a third segment (annotated below); wherein said first segment is present at a top end of said body (top end construed as the end with the first segment); wherein said first segment of said body contains a first substance (lubricant or substance inside the first segment; para 68-74, claim 6); wherein said second segment is present within a center of said body (annotated below); wherein said second segment contains a second substance (lubricant or substance inside the second segment); wherein said third segment is present at a bottom end of said body (bottom end construed as the end with the third segment); and wherein said third segment contains a third substance (lubricant or substance inside the third segment), wherein the first substance is a lubricant (para 29, 37, claim 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McLean fails to teach said first divider differs in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance. However, McLean teaches that different membranes may comprise different thicknesses in order to release their substances at different times (para 69). Poropat further teaches that walls may comprise different thicknesses in order to dissolve the walls faster or slower than other walls of the container, thereby releasing the substances at different times (para 8-9, 18), and that a container having multiple compartments/segments may provide different substances in each compartment (para 8, 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said first divider differ in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, and wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance, in order to release the first, second, and third substances in a desired manner and order, as taught by Poropat. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the first divider differ in thickness from said second divider; and wherein said first divider dissolves at a slower rate than said second divider which is thinner, wherein said first segment dissolves to release said first substance before said second segment dissolves to release said second substance, wherein said second segment dissolves to release said second substance before said third segment dissolves to release said third substance yields predictable results (controlled, ordered release of the first, second, and third substances).
McLean in view of Poropat fails to teach said first substance, said second substance, and said third substance are personal water-based lubricants that vary in viscosity. However, Poropat teaches that a container having multiple compartments/segments may provide different substances in each compartment (para 8, 18) and Li teaches that lubricants may be water-based and vary in viscosity (para 31, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make said first substance, said second substance, and said third substance personal water-based lubricants that vary in viscosity in order to provide a desired effect in a desired order, as taught by Poropat and Li. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making said first substance, said second substance, and said third substance personal water-based lubricants that vary in viscosity yields predictable results (controlled, ordered release of the first, second, and third substances, with a desired ordered effectiveness).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0015044 teaches a container comprising three segments and dividers, the dividers decomposing at different rates (Fig 1C, 1D, para 40). US 2003/0108705 teaches a container comprising three segments and dividers, the dividers decomposing at different rates (Fig 10B, para 34).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741