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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186249 and further in view of Albrectsen (US 2010/0256581).
With reference to claim 1, WO 2021/186249 (hereinafter “Kumar”) discloses an ostomy pouch appliance (10) comprising: a body-side wall and a distal wall joined along an outer periphery defining a collection cavity for collecting body waste [0035];
inlet opening for receiving body waste from a stoma [0005] and a gas outlet (406) formed in an upper portion of one of the body-side wall and distal wall for egress of gas collected in the collection cavity ([0005] and figure 8);
a filter assembly (416) attached to one of the body-side wall and distal wall [0006] covering the gas outlet;
and a prefilter (24,424) configured to protect the filter assembly [0064] and attached to one of the body-side wall and distal wall as shown in figure 8.
The difference between Kumar and claims 1-2 is the provision has a specific shape.
Albrectsen teaches an analogous ostomy bag having a prefilter may be saw-toothed, bell-shaped, curved or any suitable shape as set forth in [0051]. Albrectsen also suggests that the prefilter (11) is arranged such that pointed ends (28,28’) are oriented downwardly as shown in figure 4 of Albrectsen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the prefilter of Kumar with the desired shape as suggested by Albrectsen in order to decrease the risk of the prefilter becoming clogged or blocked as taught by Albrectsen in [0051].
With respect to claim 3, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the filter assembly is attached to an outer surface of one of the body-side wall and distal wall, and the prefilter (424) is attached to an inner surface of one of the body-side wall and distal wall covering the gas outlet (406) as shown in figure 8.
As to claim 4, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the filter assembly (416) is attached to an inner surface of one of the body-side wall and distal wall, and the prefilter (424) is attached to an inner surface of one of the body-side wall and distal wall covering the filter assembly as shown in figure 18.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the prefilter is formed from a foam material as set forth in [0042].
As to claim 6, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance further including a protective panel (20,120) formed from perforated film [0037], wherein the protective panel is configured to protect the filter assembly and the prefilter as set forth in [0038].
With reference to claim 7, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the protective panel (220) is attached to an inner surface of one of the body-side wall and distal wall covering the prefilter (224) as set forth in [0036] and as shown in figure 6.
With respect to 8, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the protective panel includes at least one anti-reflux valve (i.e., a slit or opening) as set forth in [0071].
The instant specification discloses in [0037] that anti-reflux valves are defined by curved slits.
While Kumar does not explicitly recite that the slit is curved, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the size and/or shape of the slit/opening disclosed by Kumar because changing the size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the slit/opening of Kumar is deemed to function as claimed because the structure of Kumar is identical to that claimed as Kumar discloses that the opening allows for accumulated liquid to flow down as set forth in [0071].
With reference to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 8.
The difference between Kumar and claim 9 is the provision that the slits are curved.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the size and/or shape of the slit/opening disclosed by Kumar because changing the size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 10-11, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the at least one anti-reflux valve is backed by a foam material (i.e., prefilter) as shown figures 6-7 where the foam of the prefilter is configured to function as claimed since the prefilter is disclosed as foam in [0042].
As to claim 12, Kumar discloses an ostomy pouch appliance wherein the protective panel includes at least six anti-reflux valves (530) as shown in figure 14.
Alternatively, Kumar discloses the inclusion of slits or openings as set forth in [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the appliance of Kumar with the desired number of anti-reflux valves since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fails to disclose a prefilter having a crescent shaped body including downwardly pointed ends, the examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1, and specifically figure 4 of Albrectsen. Applicant argues the facilitation of draining. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights