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 claim limitation of claim 1 “…characterized in that the connecting unit has, on the side to be connected to the vacuum pump, a surface which is congruent with a surface formed on the vacuum pump, at least one of the two surfaces having an uneven structure, and the vacuum pump and the connecting unit being fluidically connected via the two superimposed surfaces…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the figures in the drawings of the instant application shows at least one of the two surfaces having an uneven structure and how these two surfaces of the connecting unit and the vacuum pump are connected with respect to each other. 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.
Claims 3-4 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the respective other element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the sealing edge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent bases for the claim. Claim 4 also recites the limitation “the surface interacting therewith” at lines 2-3. It is unclear which of the two surfaces the claim limitation is referring to. For the purpose of examination, “the surface” of claim 4 is interpreted to be one of the two surfaces described in claim 1.
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) 1, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrensperger (Patent Application No. WO 2017/042344 A1) in view of Marx (Patent No. US 5,499,977 A).
For the purposes of examination, the reference numbers in the claim were removed in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Ehrensperger teaches a system for applying a urinal condom for use as intended (urinal condom 1; Abstract; Figure 3; Claim 1), having a receiving bell (bell 5; Figures 2-3; Abstract; Claim 1), a vacuum pump and a connecting unit (vacuum pump and connecting unit 9; Abstract; Claim 1; Figures 2-3) for fluidically connecting the receiving bell to the vacuum pump (Abstract; Claim 1), the connecting unit having a tubular channel to which the receiving bell is fluidically connected (connecting unit 9 has a tubular channel 8 to fluidly connect to bell 5; Figures 2-3; Claim 6), the tubular channel being designed on the receiving bell side as a receptacle for a hose attachment of the urinal condom (channel 8 on receiving bell 5 side to receive tube extension 3 of urinal condom 1; Figure 3; Claim 2). Ehrensperger does not teach characterized in that the connecting unit has, on the side to be connected to the vacuum pump, a surface which is congruent with a surface formed on the vacuum pump, at least one of the two surfaces having an uneven structure, and the vacuum pump and the connecting unit being fluidically connected via the two superimposed surfaces.
However, Marx teaches characterized in that the connecting unit has, on the side to be connected to the vacuum pump, a surface in contact with a surface formed on the vacuum pump (surface of connecting unit having an end 30 in contact with a surface formed on the vacuum pump/bulb 36 having an end 38; annotated Figure 7 below), at least one of the two surfaces having an uneven structure (surface of connecting unit having an end 30 has an uneven structure 34 to secure within bulb/vacuum pump 36; annotated Figure 7 below), and the vacuum pump and the connecting unit being fluidically connected via the two superimposed surfaces (bulb 36 and connecting unit with end 30 are fluidly connected with the two surfaces superimposed; annotated Figure 7 below; Column 4, lines 52-65).
Ehrensperger and Marx are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external urinary collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ehrensperger to incorporate the teachings of Marx and have the vacuum pump with the connection of the vacuum pump with the connecting unit of Marx be connected to the connecting unit of Ehrensperger. This will allow for the user to apply vacuum onto the user’s genitalia without worrying about leaking or discomfort (Marx; Abstract; Column 4, lines 52-65).
The combination of Ehrensperger in view of Marx does not teach characterized in that the connecting unit has, on the side to be connected to the vacuum pump, the surface which is congruent with the surface formed on the vacuum pump.
However, the shape of the surfaces of the vacuum pump and the connecting unit is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as there is no evidence that the congruent or incongruent surface is significant to the functioning of the device, i.e., the surfaces of the connection between two components can be a variety of sizes and perform the same function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the surfaces of the connecting unit and the vacuum pump of Ehrensperger in view of Marx to be congruent, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Regarding claim 5, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. Ehrensperger further teaches wherein the receiving bell has a circumferential groove on an upper edge (circumferential groove 7 on upper edge of bell 5; Claim 3; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. Ehrensperger further teaches wherein the receiving bell is cylindrical on the outside (Claim 4; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. Ehrensperger further teaches wherein the receiving bell is detachably connected to the connecting unit (Claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. Ehrensperger further teaches wherein the connecting unit is essentially cylindrical (Claim 7; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. Ehrensperger further teaches wherein the receiving bell and the connecting unit are made of plastic (Claim 8).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrensperger (Patent Application No. WO 2017/042344 A1) in view of Marx (Patent No. US 5,499,977 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker (Patent No. US 8,181,284 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Ehrensperger in view of Marx does not teach wherein the two surfaces lying on top of each other are sealed at the edges.
However, Parker teaches wherein the two surfaces lying on top of each other are sealed at the edges (surface of vessel 20 is sealed at the edges by the hose connector thread 60 and the hose connector cap 61; Figure 5a; Column 9, lines 49-64).
Ehrensperger in view of Marx and Parker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external urinary collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ehrensperger in view of Marx to incorporate the teachings of Parker and have the hose connector thread and hose connector cap externally to the surfaces of the vacuum pump and the connecting unit of Ehrensperger in view of Marx. This allows for a sealed removable attachment between the two components, especially on the outer edges of the flange (Parker; Column 9, lines 49-64).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrensperger in view of Marx and Parker teaches the system of claim 2. The combination of Ehrensperger in view of Marx and Parker further teaches wherein one of the two surfaces of the connection unit or the vacuum pump is surrounded by a sealing edge into which the respective other element can be inserted in a flow-tight manner (Parker; hose connector cap 61 is a sealing edge where the hose connecter thread is inserted in a flow-tight manner; Figure 5a; Column 9, lines 49-64; see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Ehrensperger in view of Marx does not teach wherein a seal is inserted between the sealing edge and the surface interacting therewith.
However, Parker teaches wherein a seal is inserted between the sealing edge and the surface interacting therewith (surface of vessel 20 is sealed at the edges with flange 68/seal between the hose connector thread 60 and the hose connector cap 61; Figure 5a; Column 9, lines 49-64).
Ehrensperger in view of Marx and Parker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external urinary collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ehrensperger in view of Marx to incorporate the teachings of Parker and have the hose connector thread and hose connector cap externally to the surfaces of the vacuum pump and the connecting unit of Ehrensperger in view of Marx. This allows for a sealed removable attachment between the two components, especially on the outer edges of the flange (Parker; Column 9, lines 49-64).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrensperger (Patent Application No. WO 2017/042344 A1) in view of Marx (Patent No. US 5,499,977 A), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Di Cristo (Patent No. US 5,318,551 A).
Regarding claim 6, Ehrensperger in view of Marx teaches the system of claim 5. The combination of Ehrensperger in view of Marx does not teach wherein the receiving bell has gripping grooves on the outside in the area of the upper edge.
However, Di Cristo teaches wherein the receiving bell has gripping grooves on the outside in the area of the upper edge (groove 13 on the upper edge area of the device 1; Figures 4a-4d; Column 3, lines 33-50).
Ehrensperger in view of Marx and Di Cristo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of external urinary collection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ehrensperger in view of Mark to incorporate the teachings of Di Cristo and have the gripping groove of Di Cristo on the upper edge of the receiving bell of Ehrensperger in view of Marx. This will allow for the user to grip the urinary catheter with their fingers while placing the genitalia in the device (Di Cristo; Column 3, lines 33-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goulter (Patent No. US 5,380,312 A) discusses a male urinary condom for draining urine;
Nishtala (Publication No. US 2011/0282311 A1) discusses a waste collection system with various connectors between two components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 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, 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights