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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-12 and 17-25 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/3/25; 4/2/25; 12/19/25 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,030,375 hereinafter “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a medical device (e.g. 178) comprising: a body configured such that the body may be positioned within a vagina of a user (e.g. 190); at least one electrode integral with, or coupled to, the body (e.g. 182); and a power source configured to supply the at least one electrode with electricity (e.g. 70).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson further discloses wherein the body includes an absorbent material (e.g. Col. 10, ll. 1-6).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson further discloses wherein the body includes a tampon (e.g. Col. 10, ll. 12-22).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses a method for treating pelvic pain comprising: positioning a medical device within a vagina of a user (e.g. Col. 10, ll. 12-28), the medical device (e.g. 178) including: a body configured such that the body may be positioned within a vagina of a user (e.g. 190), at least one electrode (e.g. 182) integral with, or coupled to, the body, and a power source (e.g. 70) configured to supply the at least one electrode with electricity; and applying transcutaneous electrical stimulation to the hypogastric nerve plexus of the user via the medical device positioned within the vagina of the user (e.g. Col. 10, ll. 12-28).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson further discloses absorbing menses of the user via the medical device positioned within the vagina of the user (e.g. Col. 10, ll. 12-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson as applied to claims 1-3 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Boyd et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0222060 hereinafter “Boyd”).
Regarding claims 15-16, Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the stimulation parameters. However, Boyd teaches a similar intravaginal stimulator that teaches that it is known to use 1-20 or 80-120 hertz as set forth in Abstract, Paragraph 20 and Claims 14-15 to provide known frequencies to provide a known treatment for pelvic floor muscle dysfunction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Anderson, with the known stimulation parameters as taught by Boyd, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using the known stimulation frequencies of 1-20 or 80-120 hertz for the treatment of pelvic floor muscle dysfunction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,816,248) – provides intravaginal stimulation using a tampon structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights