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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11/17/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further review, the claims do not require that the contact surface be disposed external to the internal volume such that all of the contact surface is spaced from the impermeable housing defining the opening. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is made below introducing Davis (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0228642 A1), Gravdahl (U.S. Patent No. 3,424,163 A), and Koot (US 4,713,065 A) are introduced in the present rejection for disclosing and rendering obvious the limitations presented in the claims.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0228642 A1) in view of Gravdahl (U.S. Patent No. 3,424,163 A).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches: A fluid collection device (Abstract), comprising:
a fluid impermeable housing (see external covering 20 in Figs. 1-7 and para. [0052]) defining an internal volume (see Figs. 1-7), the fluid impermeable housing defining an opening (see fenestration 30 in para. [0052]) in fluid communication with the internal volume (see para. [0052]), the opening in the fluid impermeable housing being defined by one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing (see Figs. 1-7); and
a porous material (see outer collection layer 40 at least in para. [0056]) disposed within and substantially filling the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) such that the porous material is continuous in a longitudinal direction within the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) and in fluid communication with the opening (see Figs. 1-7),
wherein the porous material is configured to be placed at least proximate to a urethra of a female user when the fluid collection device is disposed in a pubic region of the female user (see para. [0052]).
However, Davis fails to explicitly teach the porous material partially disposed within the internal volume, or that the porous material including a contact surface having a first portion disposed in the internal volume and a second portion protruding from the fluid impermeable housing such that the second portion is disposed external to the internal volume and at least some of the second portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from the one or more edges of the impermeable housing defining the opening, wherein the contact surface is curved, as required by the claim.
Gravdahl teaches an analogous fluid collection device (see Abstract) that includes a porous material (see pad 8 in Figs. 1-5 and col. 3, lines 17-29; as broadly recited, cellulose and/or cotton are porous) partially disposed within an internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, pad 8 is partially disposed within the internal volume of wrapper 2 such that a portion extends from the opening edge 10). Gravdahl further teaches that the porous material (8) including a contact surface (see liquid pervious layer 12 in Figs. 2-5 and col. 3, lines 20-29) having a first portion disposed in the internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, the pervious layer 12 is disposed in the internal volume at the edges) and a second portion protruding from the fluid impermeable housing (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, the pervious layer 12 protrudes from the internal volume at opening 10) such that the second portion is disposed external to the internal volume (see at least Fig. 2) and at least some of the second portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from the one or more edges of the impermeable housing defining the opening (see for example Figs. 2-5), wherein the contact surface is curved (see Figs. 2-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Davis to incorporate the teachings of Gravdahl by partially disposing the porous material within the internal volume and by including a contact surface having a first portion disposed in the internal volume and a second portion protruding from the fluid impermeable housing such that the second portion is disposed external to the internal volume and at least some of the second portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from the one or more edges of the impermeable housing defining the opening at least because Davis infers that a portion of the outer collection layer 40 can be partially disposed within the internal volume of the external covering 20 (see at least Fig. 23A and para. [0097]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gravdahl at least in order to better expose a liquid pervious surface to a user, as taught by Gravdahl (see col. 2, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 2, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the porous material extends into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from a perimeter of the contact surface through the opening (see for example Figs. 1-5 of Gravdahl).
Regarding claim 3, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the contact surface forms a curved protrusion (see for example Figs. 2-5 of Gravdahl).
Regarding claim 4, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the fluid impermeable housing includes a back wall that is curved and opposite to the opening (see for example Fig. 4 of Davis).
Regarding claim 6, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the opening is elongated and extends longitudinally along the fluid impermeable housing (see for example Figs. 1 and 7 of Davis).
Regarding claim 7, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches further comprising a fluid conduit (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 of Davis) disposed within the internal volume (see at least Fig. 4 of Davis) and configured to enable extraction of fluid from the internal volume (see at least para. [0053] of Davis).
Regarding claim 8, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the fluid impermeable housing forms an aperture (as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Davis, external covering 20 has an open first end 22 at an end opposite the cap 28; see also para. [0052]) at a first end (22) of the internal volume and the fluid conduit includes a tube (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 and at least para. [0053]) extending through the aperture of the fluid impermeable housing to at least proximate a second end of the internal volume (see for example Fig. 4 and para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches: A fluid collection device (Abstract), comprising:
a fluid impermeable housing (see external covering 20 in Figs. 1-7 and para. [0052]) that is elongated (see Figs. 1-7) and defines an internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) and an opening (see fenestration 30 in para. [0052]) that is elongated (see Figs. 1-7) and in fluid communication with the internal volume (see para. [0052]),
a porous material (see outer collection layer 40 at least in para. [0056]) disposed within and substantially filling the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) such that the porous material is continuous in a longitudinal direction within the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) and in fluid communication with the opening (see Figs. 1-7),
wherein the porous material is configured to be placed at least proximate to a urethra of a female user when the fluid collection device is disposed in a pubic region of the female user (see para. [0052]).
However, Davis fails to explicitly teach the porous material partially disposed within the internal volume, or that the porous material including a contact surface that forms a curved protrusion disposed external to the internal volume such that at least at least a portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from at least a portion of the impermeable housing defining the opening, the porous material extending into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening, as required by the claim.
Gravdahl teaches a porous material (see pad 8 in Figs. 1-5 and col. 3, lines 17-29; as broadly recited, cellulose and/or cotton are porous) partially disposed within an internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, pad 8 is partially disposed within the internal volume of wrapper 2 such that a portion extends from the opening edge 10). Gravdahl further teaches that the porous material (8) including a contact surface (see liquid pervious layer 12 in Figs. 2-5 and col. 3, lines 20-29) that forms a curved protrusion (see for example Figs. 2-5) disposed external to the internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, the pervious layer 12 protrudes from the internal volume at opening 10) such that at least at least a portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from at least a portion of the impermeable housing defining the opening (see for example Figs. 2-5), the porous material extending into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, the pervious layer 12 is disposed in the internal volume at the edges).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Davis to incorporate the teachings of Gravdahl by partially disposing the porous material within the internal volume and by including a contact surface that forms a curved protrusion disposed external to the internal volume such that at least at least a portion of the contact surface is spaced outward from at least a portion of the impermeable housing defining the opening, the porous material extending into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening at least because Davis infers that a portion of the outer collection layer 40 can be partially disposed within the internal volume of the external covering 20 (see at least Fig. 23A and para. [0097]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gravdahl at least in order to better expose a liquid pervious surface to a user, as taught by Gravdahl (see col. 2, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 11, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein:
the opening in the fluid impermeable housing is defined by a distal edge, a proximal edge, and two opposing side edges of the fluid impermeable housing extending between the distal edge and the proximal edge end (see for example Figs. 1-7 of Davis);
the contact surface includes a perimeter having a distal portion, a proximal portion, and two opposing side portions (see at least Figs. 1-5 of Gravdahl) generally complementary to the distal edge, the proximal edge, and the two opposing side edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening (this limitation is met by the combined device of Davis in view of Gravdahl); and
at least the portion of the contact surface is spaced from the plane extending along at least the two opposing side edges of the impermeable housing defining the opening (as shown in Fig. 2 of Gravdahl, the pervious layer 12 is spaced from opening 10).
Regarding claim 13, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the opening is elongated and extends longitudinally along the fluid impermeable housing (see for example Figs. 1 and 7 of Davis).
Regarding claim 14, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches further comprising a fluid conduit (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 of Davis) disposed within the internal volume (see at least Fig. 4 of Davis) and configured to enable extraction of fluid from the internal volume (see at least para. [0053] of Davis).
Regarding claim 15, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches further wherein the fluid impermeable housing forms an aperture (as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Davis, external covering 20 has an open first end 22 at an end opposite the cap 28; see also para. [0052]) at a first end (22) of the internal volume and the fluid conduit includes a tube (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 and at least para. [0053]) extending through the aperture of the fluid impermeable housing to at least proximate a second end of the internal volume (see for example Fig. 4 and para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally, the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches wherein the fluid impermeable housing includes a back wall that is curved and opposite to the opening (see for example Fig. 4 of Davis).
Claims 5, 9, 12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0228642 A1), in view of Gravdahl (U.S. Patent No. 3,424,163 A), as discussed above in claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Koot (U.S. Patent No. 4,713,065).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Davis in view of Gravdahl teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 10, respectively. However, neither Davis nor Gravdahl explicitly teach wherein the porous material includes a first side wall and a second side wall, each of the first and second side walls being substantially planar and extending into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from a perimeter of the contact surface through the opening with each of the first and second side walls adjacent to opposing portions of the one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening, as required by the claim.
Koot teaches an analogous urine incontinence device (see Abstract) comprising a porous material (see inset-body 7 in Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 16-17) that includes a first side wall and a second side wall (col. 2, lines 34-37 teach that on the side opposite to the permeable layer 10 comprises protuberances 11; as shown in Fig. 3, protuberances 11 comprise at least a first and second side walls), each of the first and second side walls being substantially planar and extending into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from a perimeter of the contact surface through the opening (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the side walls of protuberances 11 are substantially planar and extend from the contact surface through the opening) with each of the first and second side walls adjacent to opposing portions of the one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening (see Fig. 3; as applied to claim 9)/ with each of the first and second side walls adjacent to a corresponding one of the two opposing side edges (see Fig. 3; as applied to claim 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl to incorporate the teachings of Koot by making each of the first and second side walls being substantially planar at least in order for the porous material to be better adapted in the most suitable way to body size and build, as taught by Koot (see col. 2, lines 28-29). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the shape of the fluid impermeable housing of Davis to fit the planar shape of the first and second side walls of the porous material at least in order for the urinary collection device to be better adapted in the most suitable way to body size and build, as taught by Koot (see col. 2, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 18, Davis teaches: A fluid collection device (Abstract), comprising:
a fluid impermeable housing (see external covering 20 in Figs. 1-7 and para. [0052]) defining an internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) and an opening (see fenestration 30 in para. [0052]) in fluid communication with the internal volume (see para. [0052]), the opening in the fluid impermeable housing being defined by one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing (see Figs. 1-7); and
a porous material (see outer collection layer 40 at least in para. [0056]) disposed within the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) such that the porous material is continuous in a longitudinal direction within the internal volume (see Figs. 1-7) and in fluid communication with the opening (see Figs. 1-7),
wherein the porous material is configured to be placed at least proximate to a urethra of a female user when the fluid collection device is disposed in a pubic region of the female user (see para. [0052]).
However, Davis fails to explicitly teach the porous material partially disposed within the internal volume, the porous material including a contact surface forming a curved protrusion and including a perimeter generally complementary to the one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening, the contact surface being disposed external to and protruding outward from the internal volume such that at least some of the contact surface is spaced outward from the impermeable housing defining the opening, or one or more walls that are substantially planar and extend into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening with each of the one or more walls adjacent to opposing portions of the one or more edges, as required by the claim.
Gravdahl teaches a porous material (see pad 8 in Figs. 1-5 and col. 3, lines 17-29; as broadly recited, cellulose and/or cotton are porous) partially disposed within an internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, pad 8 is partially disposed within the internal volume of wrapper 2 such that a portion extends from the opening edge 10). Gravdahl further teaches that the porous material (8) including a contact surface (see liquid pervious layer 12 in Figs. 2-5 and col. 3, lines 20-29) forming a curved protrusion (see for example Figs. 2-5) and including a perimeter generally complementary to the one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening (as shown in at least Fig. 2, the porous material 8 has a perimeter generally complementary to one or more edges of the housing 2 defining opening 10), the contact surface being disposed external to and protruding outward from the internal volume (as shown in Fig. 2, for example, the pervious layer 12 protrudes from the internal volume at opening 10) such that at least some of the contact surface is spaced outward from the impermeable housing defining the opening (see for example Figs. 2-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Davis to incorporate the teachings of Gravdahl by partially disposing the porous material within the internal volume and by including a contact surface forming a curved protrusion and including a perimeter generally complementary to the one or more edges of the fluid impermeable housing defining the opening, the contact surface being disposed external to and protruding outward from the internal volume such that at least some of the contact surface is spaced outward from the impermeable housing defining the opening at least because Davis infers that a portion of the outer collection layer 40 can be partially disposed within the internal volume of the external covering 20 (see at least Fig. 23A and para. [0097]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Gravdahl at least in order to better expose a liquid pervious surface to a user, as taught by Gravdahl (see col. 2, lines 48-53).
However, neither Davis nor Gravdahl explicitly teach one or more walls that are substantially planar and extend into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening with each of the one or more walls adjacent to opposing portions of the one or more edges, as required by the claim.
Koot teaches a porous material (see inset-body 7 in Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 16-17) that includes one or more walls (col. 2, lines 34-37 teach that on the side opposite to the permeable layer 10 comprises protuberances 11; as shown in Fig. 3, protuberances 11 comprise at least a first and second side walls) that are substantially planar and extend into the internal volume of the fluid impermeable housing from the perimeter of the contact surface through the opening (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the side walls of protuberances 11 are substantially planar and extend from the contact surface through the opening) with each of the one or more walls adjacent to opposing portions of the one or more edges (see Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Davis in view of Gravdahl to incorporate the teachings of Koot by making one or more walls substantially planar at least in order for the porous material to be better adapted in the most suitable way to body size and build, as taught by Koot (see col. 2, lines 28-29). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the shape of the fluid impermeable housing of Davis to fit the planar shape of the one or more walls of the porous material at least in order for the urinary collection device to be better adapted in the most suitable way to body size and build, as taught by Koot (see col. 2, lines 28-29).
Regarding claim 20, Davis, in view of Gravdahl, and further in view of Koot teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 18. Additionally, the device of Davis, in view of Gravdahl, and further in view of Koot teaches further comprising a fluid conduit (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 of Davis) disposed within the internal volume (see at least Fig. 4 of Davis) and configured to enable extraction of fluid from the internal volume (see at least para. [0053] of Davis), wherein the fluid impermeable housing forms a fluid reservoir at a first end of the internal volume (see for example cap 28 in Figs. 1-7 and para. [0053] of Davis), the fluid impermeable housing forms an aperture at a second end of the internal volume (as can be seen in Fig. 4 of Davis, external covering 20 has an open first end 22 at an end opposite the cap 28; see also para. [0052]), and the fluid conduit includes a tube (see tube 32 in Fig. 7 and at least para. [0053]) in fluid communication with the fluid reservoir and extending through the aperture of the fluid impermeable housing (see for example Fig. 4 and para. [0060]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Davis, in view of Gravdahl, and further in view of Koot teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 10, and 18. However, while each of Davis, Gravdahl, and Koot fails to explicitly teach a portion of the contact surface spaced from fluid impermeable housing at a distance of about 1 mm to about 1 cm, as required by the claim, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing distance between the contact surface and the fluid impermeable housing to be between about 1 mm to about 1 cm, since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the device of Davis, in view of Gravdahl, and further in view of Koot by selecting a range of lengths that the contact surface would be spaced from the impermeable housing and would have reasonably come across 1mm-1cm as a desirable range at least because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a thin contact surface would be more comfortable to be placed adjacent a female user’s pubic region.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,644. The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,644 contain each and every limitation of claims 1-20 of the instant application as well as additional features. The claims of the U.S. Patent are narrower than the claims of the instant application, and effectively anticipate the instant claims. Thus, the invention of the patent claims 1-20 are in effect a “species” of the ”generic” invention of the instant claims 1-20. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see MPEP 804(II)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanchez (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0266031 A1) – Apparatus and Method for Receiving Discharged Urine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781