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 Species B, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 06 March 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant asserts that the claims indicated in the PTO's chart is too restrictive and that the features of "fluid permeable support has a branched or wavy shape" appears to cover all of the claims, especially in view of paragraph [0071] and FIGS. 13A-14 (remarks p. 2). Examiner responds that claims 2, 15 and 18 appear incompatible with a branched or wavy shape, and therefore do not read on elected species B. Claim 2 calls for “… wherein the fluid collection assembly exhibits a generally rectangular prism shape . ” Figs. 7-10 show branched or zig-zag shapes which contradict or complicate the meaning of a generally rectangular prism shape. Claim 15 calls for “… wherein the opening is an elongated opening exhibiting a length and a width measured perpendicular to the length , the length is greater than the width, and wherein the length is about 3 cm to about 30 cm and the width is about 1 cm to about 5 cm.” Figs. 7-10 show various collection assemblies with branched or wavy shapes which diverge from a perpendicular axis, and where the opening follows the branched or wavy shape. Measuring “a width” appears contradictory or complicated by the assembly’s shape. Claim 18 calls for “… wherein at least one of the fluid permeable support or the fluid permeable membrane define a bore generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fluid collection assembly, the conduit extending in the bore from the sump to the fluid outlet.” Figs. 7-10 show branched or wavy shapes, which likewise contradict or complicate “a bore” parallel to the assembly’s longitudinal axis. Claims 2, 15 , 18 and 21-2 4 are withdrawn from further consideration and claims 1, 3 -1 4, 1 6 , 17, 19 , 20 , 25-27 are examined on their merits. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description. Fig. 1C shows an element 112 which appears to be the “outlet,” but this number is missing from ¶ [0031] , [0049] in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation Claim 1 calls for “… a sump … the fluid permeable support configured to completely occupy the chamber and the sump …” The specification describes a sump and also two variants where the support either occupies the sump (¶ [0050], In an embodiment, the sump 114 may be occupied by the fluid permeable support 102 and/or the fluid permeable membrane 104); or where the support does not occupy the sump (¶ [0052] In an embodiment, not shown, the fluid permeable support 102 and the fluid permeable membrane 104 do not completely occupy the sump 114. In other words, the sump 114 may include a substantially unoccupied reservoir). The specification further describes that the sump extends near the chamber’s expected gravimetric low point (¶ [0051], The hydrogen bonding … decreases the need to position the inlet 136 of the conduit 116 at or near the expected gravimetric low point of the chamber 108). O ccupying the sump with the permeable support raises the question of how to define the sump. C laim 1 specifies that the support completely occupies the sump, which implies that the sump is defined as a region or extension of the chamber near its expected gravimetric low point , rather than a void , cavity or empty space . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 3-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 25-27 a r e rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 calls for “…wherein the fluid collection assembly exhibits a thickness less than 3 mm .” This language appears to conflict with the specification which instead describes a thickness of only the fluid permeable support (¶ [0032], The fluid permeable support 102 may exhibit a thickness t measured from the first surface 120 to the second surface 122. The thickness t may be selected to be about 3 cm or less … about 3 mm or less , or in ranges of about 2 mm to about 4 mm … or about 2 cm to about 3 cm). Configuring the entire fluid collection assembly to have a n overall thickness less than 3 mm raises a question of how to accommodate all of the assembly’s components inside a 3 mm thickness. The assembly comprises, starting at its upper surface, an i mpermeable barrier, a permeable membrane and a permeable support, plus a conduit embedded in the permeable support (Fig. 1C). The specification does not explain how to construct a fluid collection assembly that contains all of its components within a 3 mm thickness, and which also drains urine through its conduit. An overall thickness of 3 mm does not appear sufficient to hold all of these components. For example, Suzuki; Miou et al. (US 20060015081 A1) discloses a fluid collection assembly including an impermeable barrier (¶ [0159], leak-proof part 22B ); a permeable membrane (¶ [0162] Air-impermeable sheet 21B is formed from hydrophilic fibers such as rayon ); a permeable support (¶ [0161] Suction part 26B is, for example, formed from fibrous frame material). Suzuki further discloses dimensions for the support (¶ [0126] Space retention material: styrofoam beads ( diameter of approximately 6 mm ); ¶ [0161] Suction part 26B …it is formed by polyethylene foam beads of 2 to 10 mm in diameter or 8- to 15-denier, 3 to 10 mm dimension air through nonwoven fabric); and dimensions for a conduit (¶ [0120] Silicone tube ( inner diameter of 4 mm, outer diameter of 6 mm , and length of 1500 mm); ¶ [0155] The urethral tube 11 is formed from polyvinyl, silicone, or PE, for example. The inner diameter of the tube is, for example, 1 to 10 mm ). Suzuki demonstrates workable dimensions for a u rine collecting system and suggests that an overall thickness of 3 mm or less is unworkable. In a second example, Machida, Shigeru et al. (US 20050033248 A1) discloses a fluid collection assembly comprising a conduit having a diameter greater than 3 mm (¶ [ 0027] In this embodiment, allowing for the maximum discharged urine flow rate to be two seconds … the inner diameter of the urine discharge pore and the urine collecting tube 4 is set to be 3 to 4 mm ) . Machida likewise suggests that all components of a functional fluid collection assembly cannot fit inside an overall thickness of 3 mm or less. In a third example, Newton; Camille Rose (US 20170312405 A1) discloses a fluid collection assembly having a thickness greater than 3 mm (¶ [[0028] In both of the above described embodiments, it is preferable that the container has a flattened, but not flat, lateral profile, and that the container is hollow, as shown in FIG. 3 … In some examples, such height is in the range of about 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm . In other embodiments, the container has some other profile, such as elliptical). Newton likewise suggests that all components of a functional fluid collection assembly cannot fit inside an overall thickness of 3 mm or less. Claims 3-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 25-27 are rejected for depending on a rejected parent claim. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 . Claim s 1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel; Eleanor et al. (US 20080287894 A1 ) in view of Lawrence; W. Thompson et al. (US 5678564 A ). Regarding claim 1, Van Den Heuvel discloses a fluid collection assembly (¶ [ 0001 ], a pad for use with a urine collection device; ¶ [0034] FIG. 1 shows an isometric view of a pad according to an embodiment of the invention ); comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier defining at least a chamber, at least one opening (¶ [ 0038] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, a preferred pad comprises an external layer 2; ¶ [0040] The external layer 2 is an impermeable conformable material such as flexible plastic or expanded polystyrene ); a fluid outlet ( annotated Fig. 3 shows a fluid outlet where the outlet tube 1 exits the external impervious layer 2 ); a nd 2604770 308522 0 0 a sump (annotated Fig. 3 shows a sump near the inlet of outlet tube 1 ); the fluid impermeable barrier including a distal end region and a proximal end region ( Figs. 1-4, impervious layer 2 extends in a longitudinal direction between distal and proximal ends ); a fluid permeable support (¶ [0038], The filling material 3 comprises a single layer of open low-density material that does not appreciably resist the flow of urine nor retain urine, and thereby allows urine to pass rapidly though ); having an absorbency of 15 wt % or less of the dry weight of the fluid permeable support (¶ [ 0039] The filling material 3 resists crushing but is still comfortable to wear. The density of the filling material 3 in this embodiment is 0.03-0.1 g/cm.sup.3. The porosity of the filling material 3 is in this embodiment between 50% and 99% of the volume of the pad ; ¶ [0050] The filling material 3 can be any suitable material that gives no effective resistance to a flow of urine. In other words, the urine should pass through the filling material as though it were not present ); the fluid permeable support configured to completely occupy the chamber and the sump (Figs. 3, 4 , filling material 3 substantially fills the entire space inside external layer 2 ); a conduit connected to the fluid outlet, the conduit including an inlet disposed in or adjacent to the sump (¶ [ 0042 ], The open end of the urine outlet tube 1 fits within the tapered end 4 of the pad ) . Van Den Heuvel does not extend a fluid permeable membrane across the opening . Lawrence discloses a fluid collection assembly (col. 1, lines 5-10, a female external catheter providing improved urine removal ; col. 5, lines 5-10, interface device 10 ); comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier defining at least a chamber (col. 5, lines 45-50 , plastic shell 28 which is preferably made of a flexible material that permits the device to conform to minor differences in each patient's physique ); at least one opening (col. 5, lines 25-30 , The body contact surface 17 is provided with a urine opening which may be generally rectangular, oval, or obround, and of a size and location so as to be aligned with the urethra; cols. 6-7, lines 65-5, As seen in FIG. 2b there is an impervious cover 23 with an opening 20 for liquid entry ); and a fluid permeable membrane disposed on at least a portion of the fluid permeable support, the fluid permeable membrane extending across the at least one opening ( col. 5, lines 30-45, The body contact surface 17 is provided with a urine opening … The interface device is provided with a coverstock material 21 over body contact surface 17 ) . Lawrence repels moisture from the wearer’s skin in order to reduce irritation (col. 5, lines 40-45 , The coverstock is capable of repelling moisture but retaining the capacity to "breathe" so that there is a reduced risk of irritation to the skin ) . One would be motivated to modify Van Den Heuvel with Lawrence’s fluid permeable membrane to minimize the user’s irritation . Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Van Den Heuvel with Lawrence’s membrane in order to avoid irritating the user by repelling moisture from their skin . Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence are silent regarding the collection assembly’s thickness. The overall assembly thickness is interpreted as a result-effective variable, subject to experimentation and testing. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. The assembly thickness determines its ability to remove fluids and through routine experimentation. Too thin The assembly will not have enough material to absorb fluids , will lack structural integrity and its conduit will convey fluids too slowly Optimized thickness The assembly will have sufficient structural integrity and will convey fluids quickly enough to avoid overflowing Too t hi ck The assembly will be too bulky and uncomfortable Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the assembly thickness in order to convey fluids rapidly while not irritating or discomforting the user . See MPEP 2144.05(II)( A,B ). Also see in re Boesch and Slaney, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Regarding claim 13, Van Den Heuvel does not explicitly disclose that the support has a rectangular cross-sectional shape. Lawrence discloses a fluid permeable support having a generally rectangular cross-sectional shape (Fig. 2a, fibrous foam or other filler material 24 has a generally rectangular cross-sectional shape). Lawrence configures a permeable support with another suitable shape that can be manufactured easily. One would be motivated to modify Van Den Heuvel with Lawrence’s generally rectangular cross-section to experiment with other known shapes, and since Van Den Heuvel suggests to alter the assembly’s features (¶ [0052] -[ 0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Van Den Heuvel with Lawrence’s generally rectangular cross-section in order to experiment with other known shapes. Regarding claim s 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 , Van Den Heuvel discloses an assembly wherein the fluid permeable support exhibits a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape (Figs. 3, 4, filling material 3 has upper corners with acute angles and lower corners with obtuse angles, therefore the filling material 3 has a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape ); wherein the fluid outlet is spaced from the distal end region and the proximal end region of the fluid impermeable barrier (Figs. 3, 4, urine outlet tube 1 is spaced from the external layer 2’s upper corners and therefore spaced from its distal and proximal ends ); wherein the sump is spaced from the distal end region and the proximal end region of the fluid impermeable barrier (Figs. 3, 4, urine outlet tube 1’s inlet is spaced from the external layer 2’s upper corners and therefore spaced from its distal and proximal ends ); wherein at least one of the fluid permeable support or the fluid permeable membrane define a bore that is not generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the fluid collection assembly, the conduit extending in the bore from the sump to the fluid outlet (Figs. 3, 4, urine outlet tube 1 extends through filling material 3 along a curved path ); wherein the conduit extends from the fluid outlet along a portion of a back surface of the fluid impermeable barrier or the conduit extends within a portion of the fluid impermeable barrier that forms the back surface, the back surface of the fluid impermeable barrier is opposite the opening (Figs. 3, 4, urine outlet tube 1 extends generally in contact with external layer 2’s bottom layer) . Claim s 3 and 5 -7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence in view of Tazoe , Wataru et al. (US 20040236292 A1 ). Regarding claim s 3 and 5 -7 , Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence lack a plurality of branches . Tazoe discloses an automatic urine disposal device (¶ [0001], [0008]], [0020] FIGS. 1 through 4 show an embodiment of the present invention ); comprising a fluid collection assembly that includes a plurality of branches extending from at least one common area, and wherein the plurality of branches form a gap therebetween ; wherein the plurality of branches and the at least one common area form a generally V- like shape or a generally Y- like shape ; wherein the at least one common area includes a plurality of common areas and at least one of the plurality of branches extends between at least two of the plurality of common areas (¶ [ 0063], FIGS. 11 and 12 … In the perforated urine drainage tube unit 115, one end of three perforated urine drainage tubes 125 are connected with a common tube 126 … The joint 113, which is installed at the end of the urine drainage tube 11 la, is connected to one end of the urine drainage tube lib ) . Tazoe distributes negative pressure more evenly through a collection assembl y . One would be motivated to modify Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with Tazoe ’s plural branches to more rapidly remove fluid from the permeable support as called for by Van Den Heuvel (¶ [0050], In other words, the urine should pass through the filling material as though it were not present) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with Tazoe ’s plural branches in order to accelerate the fluid movement towards the conduit . Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence in view of Caldwell; J. Michael et al. (US 6083602 A ). Regarding claim 25, Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence lack an anti-clotting protein. Caldwell discloses a fluid impermeable barrier (col. 1, lines 30-35, barrier fabrics that are substantially impermeable to water; col. 7, lines 15-30; col. 52, lines 25-35, FIG. 9, the disposable or non-disposable, breathable brief 50 consists of four parts. an outer shell or pant 55 … the outer shell or pant 55 is a barrier web made according to the present invention and is breathable but void resistant ); wherein the fluid impermeable barrier includes an anti-clotting protein disposed thereon ( cols. 52-53, lines 65-5, Other agents that can incorporated into the barrier webs of the present invention are acid mucopolysaccharides including, but are not limited to heparin, heparan sulfate, heparinoids , dermatan sulfate, pentosan polysulfate , chondroitin sulfate, hyaluronic acid, cellulose, agarose, chitin, dextran, and carrageenin ) . Caldwell applies heparin or related compounds as agents that reduce the spread of pathogens (col. 53, lines 10-15, The fabric is especially suited as a barrier to prevent or control the spread of infectious microorganisms, especially in career apparel for health care workers) . One would be motivated to modify Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with Caldwell ’s anti-clotting protein to prevent pathogens from adhering to the impermeable barrier, and thereby reduce the chance of infections . Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with Caldwell ’s anti-clotting protein in order to reduce the risk of spreading an infection . Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with incorporation of Wolff, Heinz Siegfried et al. (US 20020087131 A1 ). Regarding claim 27, Van Den Heuvel incorporates by Wolff reference (¶ [0005] WO 00/57784, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, discloses a urine collection device … a storage container). Wolff further discloses a fluid storage container; and a vacuum source (¶ [0022] (1) A rigid container which is connected by a tube to a small pump and pressure switch or vacuum transducer and switch; ¶ [0027] The large capacity devices of FIGS. 1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a, 2b preferably have a 1.5-2.5 liter capacity rigid storage container 1; ¶ [0028] The volume within the container is connected to the small diaphragm pump 4, via an outlet 20); wherein the chamber of the fluid collection assembly is in fluid communication with the fluid storage container and the vacuum source via one or more conduits (¶ [0029] Urine is drawn into the container through a tube 6 which goes into the top of the lid 11). Double Patenting The following patents are relevant to the claimed invention: Sanchez; Robert A. et al. US 12161579 B2 Knapp; Tracey E. et al. US 12208031 B2 Newton; Camille Rose US 11446174 B2 Newton; Camille Rose US 12233003 B2 Brooks; Christopher K. US 12465515 B2 Newton; Raymond J. et al. US 12257173 B2 Martin; Adam et al. US 12447042 B2 Each reference claims a fluid collection assembly or device comprising a permeable material . However, none of the cited references claims that the fluid permeable support completely occupies a chamber and a sump . Therefore none of the se references is cited in a double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 8-1 2 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Coulthard; Richard Daniel John et al. (US 20140343516 A1) discloses a fluid collection assembly that forms a zig-zag shape (¶ [ [0054] All of the fluid channel portions 390-396 may be substantially parallel to one another to form a plurality of rows. The fluid pouch 330 includes such a row-like structure. At least two of the fluid channel portions 390-396 are at least partially defined by a same baffle, including any one of baffles 370 ). However, Coulthard describes a wound dressing and is not concerned with collec t ing urine (¶ [ 0005 ], This treatment (frequently referred to in the medical community as "negative pressure wound therapy," "reduced pressure therapy," or "vacuum therapy"; ¶ [0026] Referring to FIG. 1, a reduced pressure treatment system 100 for applying a reduced pressure to a tissue site 105 ). Therefore, motivation is lacking to modify Van Den Heuvel and Lawrence with Coulthard’s zig-zag shape. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shan, Jian CN 105616072 A Maling ; George Reginald GB 996370 A Kuntz; David H. et al. WO 9309736 A2 Lawrence; W. Thompson et al. US 5678564 A Caldwell; J. Michael et al. US 6083602 A Wolff, Heinz Siegfried et al. US 20020087131 A1 Tazoe , Wataru et al. US 20040236292 A1 Machida, Shigeru et al. US 20050033248 A1 Suzuki; Miou et al. US 20060015081 A1 Van Den Heuvel; Eleanor et al. US 20080287894 A1 Edward; Bourke US 20110022011 A1 Coulthard; Richard Daniel John et al. US 20140343516 A1 Newton; Camille Rose US 20170312405 A1 Su; Sophia Hai Yun US 20180200101 A1 Davis; Gregory T. et al. US 20180228642 A1 Radl ; Christopher L. et al. US 20210113749 A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to: Tel 571-272-2590 Fax 571-273-2590 Email Adam.Marcetich@uspto.gov The Examiner can be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8am-4pm Mon-Fri . 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 is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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. /Adam Marcetich/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781