Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/644,482

Menstrual cup with replaceable absorbent liner

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
KIDWELL, MICHELE M
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 1163 resolved
-6.2% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1214
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1163 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "100" and "150" have both been used to designate an absorbent liner. 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. 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “150” has been used to designate both an absorbent liner and an absorbent layer. 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. 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 Objections Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: for enhanced clarity, it is suggested that the word “is” should be inserted after the word “mechanism” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: for enhanced clarity, it is suggested that the word “is” should be inserted after the word “mechanism” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claim 4, 10 and 16, each claim require “the one or more flexible internal wall is a first flap and a second flap;” This language is unclear and not supported by the originally filed specification. If there is only one flexible internal wall (which the claim language includes), then it is unclear how one wall includes two elements (i.e., a first flap and a second flap). The inclusion of a first and second flap appears to necessitate at least more than one flexible internal wall. However, the claim allows for one wall to include two flaps. As supported by the originally filed specification, an embodiment includes a first and second flap derives from flexible internal walls (emphasis added). See page 5, lines 16-19 of the originally filed specification. Correction and/or clarification are required. 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)(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. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2025/174625 With reference to claim 1, WO 2025/174625 (hereinafter “Brinskele”) discloses a menstrual cup with a reusable reservoir (abstract) and disposable absorbent layer (311), the menstrual cup comprising: a reservoir (115) defined by a rim (103) and an external wall (101); an absorbent layer (311); an internal retaining mechanism (158); the internal retaining mechanism coupled to the reservoir (figures 19-20); the internal retaining mechanism configured to removably hold the absorbent layer against an interior surface of the external wall [00061]; wherein the absorbent layer is replaceable from an interior of the reservoir as set forth in [00064]. As to claim 2, Brinskele discloses a menstrual cup with reusable reservoir and disposable absorbent layer wherein the internal retaining mechanism (158) coupled to the rim (103) of the reservoir as shown in figures 19-20. With respect to claim 3, Brinskele discloses an internal retaining mechanism (158) as a flexible internal wall as shown in figures 19-20 where the wall has a first position within the reservoir (figures 11 and 19-20) and a second position extended outside of the reservoir as shown in figure 3. Brinskele also discloses that the absorbent layer is able to be accessed by moving the one or more flexible internal walls to the second position whereby a position of the one or more flexible internal walls either holds the absorbent layer in place against the interior surface of the external wall, or allows for removal of the absorbent layer as set forth in [00061] and in [00064]. Regarding claim 6, Brinskele discloses a menstrual cup with reusable reservoir and disposable absorbent layer wherein in the absorbent layer is formed from a disposable material such as cotton as set forth in [00057]. With respect to claim 7, Brinskele discloses a partially-reusable menstrual cup (abstract) comprising: a rim (103) and external wall (101) defining a reservoir (115); an internal retaining mechanism (158,321); the internal retaining mechanism configured to removably hold an absorbent layer against an interior surface of the external wall during use [00059,00061]; wherein the absorbent layer is replaceable from an interior of the partially-reusable menstrual cup as set forth in [00055]. As to claim 8, Brinskele discloses a partially-reusable menstrual cup wherein the internal retaining mechanism (158) coupled to the rim of the reservoir as shown in figures 19-20. With reference to claim 9, see the rejection of claims 3 and 7. Regarding claim 12, Brinskele discloses a partially-reusable menstrual cup wherein the absorbent layer is formed from a disposable material such as cotton as set forth in [00057]. With respect to claim 13, Brinskele discloses a menstrual cup device (abstract), comprising: a reusable cup body (abstract) having a rim (103) and an external wall (101); an internal structure (158, 321) coupled to the reusable cup body; the internal structure configured to removably hold a disposable absorbent pad against an inner surface of the external wall [00059,00061]; wherein the disposable absorbent pad is replaceable by accessing an interior of the reusable cup body through the rim as set forth in [00055]. As to claim 14, Brinskele discloses a menstrual cup device wherein the internal structure (158,321) is coupled to the rim of the reusable cup body as shown in figures 19-20. With reference to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 3 and 13. Regarding claim 18, Brinskele discloses a menstrual cup device wherein the disposable absorbent pad is formed from a disposable material such as cotton as set forth in [00057]. 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. Claims 5, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2025/174625. With reference to claim 5, Brinskele teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The difference between Brinskele and claim 5 is the provision that the internal retaining mechanism is multiple individual protrusions, the multiple individual protrusions acting to hold the absorbent layer within the reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the device of Brinskele with multiple individual protrusions because Brinskele recognizes the advantage of providing the device with such as set forth in [00029]. Brinskele includes multiple protrusions in the form of holes (111) which provide the benefit of maintaining similar pressures on opposite sides of the cup in order to prevent pain as taught by Brinskele in [00029]. As to claims 11 and 17, see the rejection of claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sheu discloses an analogous menstrual cup with a removable collection bag. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM 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. /MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599509
CAT DIAPER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599181
MOISTURE LOCK FLUID RETENTION ASSEMBLIES, GARMENTS INCLUDING THE SAME, AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589022
FLUID COLLECTION ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING ONE OR MORE MOVEMENT ENHANCING FEATURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582561
ABSORBENT ARTICLES WITH FRANGIBLE PATHWAYS WITH SIMULTANEOUSLY PROPAGATING TEAR ZONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582562
ABSORBENT ARTICLES WITH FRANGIBLE PATHWAYS ADAPTED FOR TEAR PROPAGATION BETWEEN REGIONS OF LAMINATES HAVING DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF LAYERS OF SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+19.7%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1163 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month