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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant needs to add the “Related Application” to the Specification, that is now abandoned.
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 1-20 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.
In regard to claim 1, line 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the first end” and “the second end”.
In claim 4, line 2, there is no antecedent basis for “the buttocks” and “labia”.
In regard to claims 7 and 19, lines 1-2, the terms “puffy” and “thin” are relative terms and the metes and bounds o f the terms are not clear. IT is not clear as to what “puffy” encompasses and how “Thin the outer layer is or as to what “thin material” encompasses. In claim 9, line 2. “are” appears to be a typo for “area” . Correction is needed.
In claim 9, line 3 “buttocks or labia” have no antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 5, there is no antecedent basis for “The pocket”.
In claim 20, line 2, applicant tis claiming a human body part that I s non -statutory subject matter. The claim needs to be amended to state that the “Tubular member is constructed of a flexible material and is configured to conform to the crotch of an individual wearing the undergarment”.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 5, 7-10,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticiapted by O’Leary (US 20110023216 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 11, O’Leary discloses an undergarment 200 comprising a body portion having a front portion, a back portion and a crotch portion positioned between the front portion and back portion wherein the crotch portion has a first end and a second end as in figure 18 B; a pocket 202 as in claim 1 and channel 202 as in claim 11, extending between a first end and a second end of the crotch portion (0137); and a tubular member 162 positioned in the channel of the crotch portion of the body portion of the undergarment as set forth in (0137) and as shown in figure 18B. In regard to claim 11, O’Leary discloses the pocket as being a channel (202).
In regard to claim 2, O’Leary discloses the undergarment wherein the crotch portion has an outer surface and an inner surface wherein the pocket is formed on the inner surface of the crotch portion as shown in figure 18B where the dotted line of the crotch portion represents the inner crotch side where the pocket 202 is formed.
In regard to claim 3, O’Leary discloses the undergarment of figure 18b and in para. (0037) with the pocket 202 that has a first end and a second end of an opening 206 as in (0034) with an open end.
In regard to claims 4 and 9 , O’Leary discloses the tubular member as being positioned as claimed as seen in the figures.
In regard to claim 5 O’Leary discloses the top end of the pocket 202 as being a closure in that it can be pressed closed. No specific sealing structure has been claimed.
IN regard to claim 8, O’Leary discloses the undergarment wherein the pocket 202 is configured to be larger than the tubular member that is positioned with the pocket and movable therein. As in (0133).
In regard to claims 10 and 20, O’Leary discloses an undergarment wherein the tubular member is constructed of a flexible material s set forth in (0133).
The material of O’Leary is antibacterial – microbial as claimed in claims 7 and 19 as disclosed in O’Leary in claim 43
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.
Claim(s) s 6,7 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Leary in view of Wilson (US 6023789).
In regard to claims 6, 7 and 12-20, O’Leary discloses the undergarment substantially as claimed except for the tubular member as having an inner and outer layer that envelops the inner layer as in claims 6 and 18; the inner layer of the material as claimed in claims 7 and 19, and the v-shaped narrowing channel as in claims 12, 13, 16 and 17. O’Leary discloses the tubular member within the channel as claimed. However, “O’Leary does not disclose the v-shaped structure. Wilson discloses the undergarment with a crotch portion including a channel with the v-shaped ends as in col. 4, lines 36-37.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an open ended pouch or pocket of O’Leary with the partial, substantially v-shape as taught by Wilson in order to regulate discharge and/or to improve comfort of the article as taught by Wilson in col. 4, lines 36-41.
In regard to claims 6 and 18 it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to moody the ends of the O’Leary pocket with the v-shape of Wilson in order to help regulate discharge and to improve comfort of the article as taught by Wilson in col. 4, lines 16-41.
Also shaping the pocket as in Wilson also helps to retain the insert within the pocket as in col. 5, lines 5-6 of Wilson.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA M HALE whose telephone number is (571)272-4984. The examiner can normally be reached MON.-THURS..
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 1-571-272-3425. 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.
/GLORIA M HALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732