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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
The hinge and further living hinge of claim 4
The insert of claim 7
The draw string mechanism of claim 19
The absorbent material within the bag of claim 23
The two super absorbent polymer within the bag of claim 26
The lid of claim 28
The thermochromic or hydrochromic ink of claim 30
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1, 4,6-9,13-16,18-21,26-30 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 1, the limitations require (in lines 7-8) at least one protrusion as the attachment means, (in lines 12-13) at least two protrusions as the attachment means, and (in lines 16-18) again that the attachment means is at least two protrusions. The examiner notes that the at least one protrusion and at least two protrusions cannot both be possible in the claim since at least 1 could include only one protrusions and thus would not be “at least two”. The examiner notes that it is interpreted that at least two protrusions are required for the limitation. Further the second iteration of the two protrusions (line 16-18) is redundant. The limitation about the recess however is being examined as it.
Claim 6,18 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hook and loop fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 7 and 8, the limitation requires an insert that interfaces and seals with the user’s body. The examiner notes that as described in both the specifications and drawings, it is unclear as to what the insert is. The examiner notes that the insert cannot be reference (12) as this is repeatedly mentioned as the holder, despite this holder (12) appearing in the figures to be the only component that could be read as an insert. Therefore the examiner is unclear as to what the insert is. As such per the claimed limitation, it is interpreted that a component that fixes to the holder and allows sealing against a user is understood to be an insert.
Claim 20 requires that the collection bag is non-removably attached to the holder. The examiner notes that this claim is unclear as claim 1 specifically requires that the bag is released from the holder by applying light pressure (see last clause of claim 1). Therefore as claim 1 requires the bag to be removable, claim 20 cannot require the bag to be non-removable. The examiner notes that so long as the bag is not configured to be removed prematurely (i.e. the bag is secured in use and thus is nonremovable while in use but is then removed later, or the bag is only removable via direct action from the user) the prior art would read to the claimed limitation.
As claim 1 is rejected under 112b, all dependents (4,6-9,13-16,18-21,26-30) are rejected based on dependency
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,7,9,18,20,21,23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilhelm DE 202010006923, hereafter Wilhelm.
Regarding claim 1, Wilhem discloses a liquid capture device for bodily excreta (abstract) comprising: a collection bag (figure 1 and 2, bag (12)) comprising a collar portion (interpreted as portion above closing device (16)) and a bag portion (interpreted as portion below closing device 16); and a holder adapted to support the collection bag in use (figure 2, holder (20)); wherein the holder has an opening (14), and wherein the collar portion of the collection bag is adapted to conform to the holder (figure 2), and the bag portion of the collection bag is adapted to receive and store fluid (abstract), wherein the collection bag is removably or permanently attached to the holder (para. 0018 where bag is removed from the holder); wherein the attachment means comprises at least one protrusion on an external surface of the holder (projection (24)) and at least one complementary cut out in the collar of the collection bag (openings (26)); wherein the attachment means comprises at least two protrusions on the external surface of opposite sides of the holder and at least two complementary cut-outs in opposite sides of the collar of the collection bag (see figure 2, where at least two protrusions (24) can be seen [in view of the orientation in the figure] on the left and right of the device with their complimentary cutouts) and wherein at least two protrusions comprise a horizontal upper face (flat upper side seen in figure 2) and two side faces (side extending between the holder (20) and flat face of (24), best seen in figure 2) and wherein the protrusions further comprise recesses adapted to securely attach and retain the collection bag in place (the examiner notes that as seen in the figure 2, the flat face of the protrusion extends further than the portion that connects the face to the holder (20) this overlapping space is interpreted as a recess in which the bag is secured as seen in figure 2): and wherein in use the collection bag can be attached to and released from the holder (para. 0018) by applying light pressure to the ends of the collar of the collection bag resulting in slight deformation of the collar of the collection bag. The examiner notes that the bag is removed from the holder per para 0018. The examiner notes that pulling on the bag to remove it from the protrusion is interpreted to be applying a light pressure (where the pressure is pulling) and thus reads to the claimed limitation. Should applicant disagree, the examiner notes that per the MPEP section 2114 section II “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore as Wilhem teaches a urine collection bag where the bag with cutouts is placed on corresponding protrusions of a holder, and it is interpreted that the application of pressure to remove the bag is functional language, Wilhem reads to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, further comprising an insert adapted to fix to the holder (beak, funnel, or tab shaped attachment (34)). See also para. 0009, 0018.
Regarding claim 9, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the collar of the collection bag comprises a pliable material (para. 0014 where the bag is made of a flexible material).
Regarding claim 18, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the collection bag is further removably attached to the holder by one or more buttons on the holder and one or more complementary cut outs in the neck of the collection bag. The examiner notes that as provided under the rejection of claim 1, the projections (24) extend through cutouts (26) in the bag. The (in the orientation seen in the figure) left and right protrusions were used to read to the claimed limitation. The examiner notes that Wilhelm further provides at least a third iteration of this configuration (seen as the center or top one in figure 2), where said configuration is interpreted to be one or more button on the holder and one or more complimentary cutout. As such Wilhelm reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 20 the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the collection bag is non-removably attached to the holder. The examiner notes that as the bag is secured to the holder of Wilhelm, it is interpreted that the bag is non-removably attached, at least until it is desired to remove the bag.
Regarding claim 21 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein an inner surface of the holder comprises one or both of a fluid channel and a raised element, said fluid channel and/or raised element being configured to direct liquid towards the opening in use (attachment 34, para. 0009, 0018, where said attachment aids in directing fluid).
Regarding claim 23 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the collection bag further contains an absorbent material (36, para. 0014), such as one or more superabsorbent polymers or superabsorbent fibers (SAP per para. 0014,0018); and wherein the absorbent material is one or more superabsorbent polymers (para. 0014), optionally wherein the absorbent material is attached or applied to or embodied within the material forming the inside of the collection bag (figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8,13,27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Wilhelm in view of Hughes et al. US 9744068, hereafter Hughes.
Regarding claim 8, Wilhelm discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 7, but fails to specifically teach wherein the insert is shaped such that it conforms to the human pubic region or to human genitalia and when in use creates a seal with the human pubic region and/or human genitalia, or human anal region. The examiner notes that per para. 0009, 0018 of Wilhem the attachment (34) is used to facilitate introduction of liquid (urine) into the bag. The examiner notes that however, it is not expressly disclosed that said attachment allows for sealing with the human anatomy.
Hughes teaches a urine container and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hughes teaches that said device comprises a curved feature which allows for the device to be placed flushed against the source of urination(column 7, lines 13-23) and more specifically allows for sealing against the skin to avoid leakage (column 8, lines 45-67 see also figure 19). Per column 6, lines 1-5, the device is usable for both males and females. Therefore as Hughes teaches that urine collection devices may have curved interfaces such that the devices can seal to a user to prevent leakage, it would have been obvious to modify the attachment of Wilhem such that the collection interface sealed to the user, thus preventing leakage. As such the insert (attachment) would create a seal with the human pubic region. Said combination merely involves use of known technique (curved interface) to improve similar devices (urine collection devices) in the same way (to prevent leakage via forming a seal with the user), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 13, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the liquid capture device is adapted to capture human excreta (abstract) but fails to specifically teach and the holder is shaped such that it conforms to the human pubic region or human genitalia and when in use creates a seal with the human pubic region, human genitalia, or human anal region. The examiner notes that per para. 0009, 0018 of Wilhem the attachment (34) is used to facilitate introduction of liquid (urine) into the bag. The examiner notes that however, it is not expressly disclosed that said attachment allows for sealing with the human anatomy.
Hughes teaches a urine container and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hughes teaches that said device comprises a curved feature which allows for the device to be placed flushed against the source of urination(column 7, lines 13-23) and more specifically allows for sealing against the skin to avoid leakage (column 8, lines 45-67 see also figure 19). Per column 6, lines 1-5, the device is usable for both males and females. Therefore as Hughes teaches that urine collection devices may have curved interfaces such that the devices can seal to a user to prevent leakage, it would have been obvious to modify the attachment of Wilhem such that the collection interface sealed to the user, thus preventing leakage. As such the attachment would create a seal with the human pubic region. Said combination merely involves use of known technique (curved interface) to improve similar devices (urine collection devices) in the same way (to prevent leakage via forming a seal with the user), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 27 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1. However Wilhelm fails to disclose wherein the collection bag further comprises a gusset and wherein the gusset is configured to enable the collection bag to stand without further support
Hughes discloses a urine collection bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hughes teaches that said bag may be free standing and may comprise a gusset that allows the bag to have a modifiable size (see columns 7 lines 63-67, column 8 lines 1-21, column 9, lines 1-53). Therefore as a means to allow the bag to have a modifiable size it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag of Wilhelm to have a gusset to allow for a modifiable size of the bag. Doing so would merely require combining prior art elements (bag with a gusset) according to known methods to yield predictable results (modifying bag sizes) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Sharpe et al. US 2011/0270203, hereafter Sharpe.
Regarding claim 14, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the holder is shaped to conform to a female pubic region and wherein a first part of the holder is shaped to conform to an upper part of the vulva and a second part of the holder is shaped to conform to the area underneath a lower part of the vulva towards and beyond the perineum. The examiner notes that per para. 0009, 0018 of Wilhem the attachment (34) is used to facilitate introduction of liquid (urine) into the bag. The examiner notes that however, it is not expressly disclosed that said attachment .
Sharpe teaches a urine collection device and is this considered analogous to the claimed invention. Sharpe teaches that the collection interface of such devices (cup 110) may come in various sizes to accommodate a range of male and female users (para. 0030). Sharpe teaches that for female users, the device is sized at preferably 6 inches such that its upper end fits along the mons pubis and above the vulva and its lower end fits at the perineum (para. 0030), where said cup is rigid (para. 0031). Therefore as the collection portion (20) of Wilhelm is rigid and receives urine from a user (para. 0018 of Wilhelm) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the device of Wilhem to be preferably 6 inches such that it suitable conforms to female anatomy between the vulva and perineum. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The examiner notes that modifying the size of Wilhelm would still allow the device to collect urine from a user and thus said modification is obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the holder is shaped to conform to a male pubic region, preferably and wherein the opening of the holder is adapted to conform to the male penis. The examiner notes that per para. 0009, 0018 of Wilhem the attachment (34) is used to facilitate introduction of liquid (urine) into the bag. The examiner notes that however, it is not expressly disclosed that said attachment .
Sharpe teaches a urine collection device and is this considered analogous to the claimed invention. Sharpe teaches that the collection interface of such devices (cup 110) may come in various sizes to accommodate a range of male and female users (para. 0030). Sharpe teaches where said cup is rigid (para. 0031). Per para. 0053 the device of Sharpe is sized to receive a penis. Therefore as the collection portion (20) of Wilhelm is rigid and receives urine from a user (para. 0018 of Wilhelm) it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the device of Wilhem to be preferably 6 inches such that it suitable conforms to both male and female anatomy. Doing so merely involves use of known technique (sizing a urine collection device) to improve similar devices in the same way (allow for female and male fit) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 29 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, wherein the collection bag is angled in use to aid flow of liquid to a bottom of the collection bag by gravity. The examiner notes that the angling of the bag such that fluid flows through gravity is interpreted to be functional language. Per the MPEP section 2114 section II “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore as Wilhem teaches a urine collection bag where the bag with cutouts is placed on corresponding protrusions of a holder (per claim 1), where urine is voided into the device, and it is interpreted that the angling of the bag such that fluid flows through gravity is functional language, Wilhem reads to the claimed invention.
Should applicant disagree, the examiner provides a rejection in view of Hughes.
Hughes teaches a urine collection device and is this considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hughes teaches that the device in use can be angled at 45 degrees (figure 19) such that “this angled position may allow the child to minimally spread their legs, draws the stream of urine away from the body, and does not require fully removing any garments in the process.” (column 9 lines 54-58 and column 10, lines 1-2). Therefore to aid in the collection of urine away from the body, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to use the device of Wilhem at a 45 degree angle, as taught by Hughes. Doing so would merely involve the use of known technique (angling the collection device) to improve similar devices (urine collection) in the same way (to aid in drawing urine away from the body) and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Leon et al. US 2018/0014991, hereafter Leon.
Regarding claim 16, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the holder further comprises an angled arm at one end and at an acute angle to a longitudinal axis of the bag, wherein the angled arm is shaped to provide multiple alternative means for easy holding of the device.
Leon teaches a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Leon teaches that the device has a bellows structure (11) for storing urine and a neck portion (20) with an opening (18) for interfacing with a user. Leon teaches that the neck portion further comprises a handle (fig. 1, (23)) where said handle allows the user to manipulate positioning of the container (para. 0016). The examiner notes that as seen in the figure the handle can clearly be seen to extend at an angle less than 90 degrees of the bag and thus the angle of the handle is interpreted to be acute (see annotated figure below). Therefore as a means to allow for easier manipulation of the position of the urine collection bag attached to the interface (20) of Wilhelm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Wilhelm with a structure of a handle as seen in Leon (where said handle is at an acute angle). Said modification would merely involve combining prior art elements (urine bag with a handle) according to known methods to yield predictable results (easier positioning of the bag), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the holder further comprises a lid for sealing the device.
Leon teaches a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Leon teaches that the device has a bellows structure (11) for storing urine and a neck portion (20) with an opening (18) for interfacing with a user. Leon teaches that the neck portion. Per para. 0046, Leon teaches that an attachable lid is provided to cover the opening of the neck portion to avoid possible odors from escaping between the voiding process and the time to discard of the voided content. Therefore as a means to prevent odors from leaking out, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the collection interface of Wilhelm with an attachable lid. Doing so would merely involve Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (providing a lid on urine collection interfaces to prevent odors from leaking)in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Ikematsu et al. US 4707864 A, hereafter Ikematsu.
Regarding claim 19, Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the neck of the collection bag further comprises a draw string mechanism configured to tighten over the holder, optionally wherein the holder and/or bag has a rough or textured surface.
Ikematsu teaches a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Ikematsu teaches a device comprising a bag (3) with a handle (2) where said handle allows for holding of the bag, where the bag attaches to the handle (abstract). The bag comprises a string (cord (5)) and a hook (2f) for holding the cord on the handle, and where said cord allows for opening and closing the bag (column 4, lines 10-12). The examiner notes that Wilhelm does disclose a closure means on the bag (16,30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a string as the opening/closing mechanism of Wilhelm, where said string is able to be used to tighten the bag over the holder (As seen in Ikematsu). Said modification involves the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (that being closure or tightening of the bag) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Rasmussen et al. CN 101010049, hereafter Rasmussen.
Regarding claim 26 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 23 but fails to teach wherein two different superabsorbent polymers are either attached or applied to or embodied within the material forming the inside of the collection bag, the different superabsorbent polymers comprising a first polymer attached or applied to the collar portion of the collection bag and a second polymer attached or applied to or embodied within the material forming the collection bag, the second polymer having a higher absorption rate than the first polymer.
Rasmussen discloses a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Rasmussen teaches that said sheath portion (2, for receiving a user) and regions of rings where said regions may be 2-10 rings (para. 0012). Further absorbent material is provided between each of the rings (therefore depending on the amount of rings, at least 2 absorbent layers may be present) (para. 0015). Para. 0018 details that said absorbents may be different from the adhesive, where the adhesives themselves are absorbent as well (para. 0036). Therefore as Rasmussen teaches that adhesives are used to secure collection components around a user where said adhesives both are absorbent and comprise additional absorbent materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide at least an additional absorbent material in the form of an adhesive around the collar of the device of Wilhelm to aid in securing the device while in use. The examiner notes that as Wilhelm teaches that superabsorbent polymers are known for the use in such devices it is interpreted that the adhesive, alone or in combination with the extra foam component at least partially comprises a super absorbent polymer. As the adhesive and foam are a different material than the SAP disclosed in Wilhelm it is interpreted that the SAP of Wilhelm (further within the bag) has a higher absorption rate than the other. AS such Wilhelm in view of Rasmussen reads to the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm in view of Fallis US 8603056 and O'Toole et al. US 2008/0269700, hereafter Fallis and O’Toole.
Regarding claim 30 Wilhem discloses the liquid capture device according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the collection bag further comprises at least one of a thermochromic ink and/or dye and/or a hydrochromic ink and/or dye.
Fallis teaches a urine collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Fallis teaches that the collection container for urine is preferably made a thermochromic material such that the device will change color when in contact with urine and will thus indicate prior usage (column 3, lines 30-42). Therefore as a means to show if the urine collection container has been previously used, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bag of Wilhelm with a thermochromic material. Should applicant argue that the thermochromic material is not necessarily and ink or dye, the examiner relies on O’Toole.
O’Toole teaches a human waste collection device and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. O’Toole teaches that the collection bag component of the device may comprise a thermochromic ink such as to allow the user to known when the bag is in use as the bag will change color based on temperature (para. 0046). Alternatively per the same citation, the thermochromic material may include a ink forming a decal such that just the decal changes color. Therefore, as O’Toole teaches that thermochromic ink may be used as a thermochromic material for color changing components, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least a thermochromic ink as the thermochromic material of Wilhelm and Fallis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781