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 1-17 and 19-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are newly amended.
Claim 18 canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 22, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(a) rejection, the examiner disagrees. The lack of a disclosure of the article “not worn by the patient” is new matter as there is no exact language that cites that even when the pad is positioned on the bed, it is still not worn by the patient. The negative is in fact more limiting and requires explicit language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. New matter is claimed in the amendment of Claim 1, 17 and 20, “and is not worn by the patient”. While Applicant discloses the underpaid that covers a portion of the patient support, there is no disclosure that the underpad would specifically not be worn by the patient. The plain and ordinary meaning of underpad does not render the term to be not worn by the user. At most, the underpad is made to be above the patient support structure but no examples nor recited examples/figures appear to disclose that the underpad not be worn by the patient. In an effort to compact prosecution the limitation “wherein the underpad covers at least a portion of the patient support and is not worn by the patient” is interpreted as –wherein he underpad covers at least a portion of the patient support structure.
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 1-17 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, the limitation “the patient support” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the applicant is referring to with the term “patient support” as the claim limitation lacks antecedent basis. In an effort to compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as –the patient support structure--.
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 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digiacomantonio (US 20170007471 A1) in view of Macdonald (US 20060114754 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Digiacomantonio teaches an underpad (article, 10) (figure 1)for covering a patient support structure (paragraph 0017), the underpad comprising an upper, patient facing surface (body side surface) (topsheet, 12) and a lower, support structure facing surface (clothing-side surface) (backsheet, 14) the underpad (10) further comprising:
a patient facing layer (12) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), wherein the patient facing layer forms at least a portion of the underpad upper surface (figure 2);
an upper tissue layer (second topsheet strip, 20) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), the upper tissue layer being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the patient facing layer(12)(figure 1);
an absorbent layer (absorbent structure, 15) (paragraph [0043][0054]) comprising a liquid absorbing material, the absorbent layer (15) being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the tissue layer (20) (figure 2);
a lower tissue layer (second backsheet, 22), the lower tissue layer being disposed adjacent (14) to and below a lower surface of the absorbent layer (15).
a base layer (14) comprising a liquid impermeable material (paragraph 0085), the base layer being disposed below a lower surface of the absorbent layer (15) and forming at least a portion of the underpad lower surface (figure 2); and
a dye deposited on a surface of the upper tissue layer (top sheets can be made from nonwoven materials (paragraph [0063]);
wherein the patient facing layer (12) and the base layer (24) extend beyond a peripheral edge of the absorbent layer (15) to form a frame around a central portion that comprises the absorbent layer (fig. 4);
Digiacomantonio discloses the claimed invention except for the lower tissue layer comprising a liquid permeable material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the liquid permeable material, similar to the upper tissue layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would be obvious to use the same material of another layer for the lower tissue layer.
Digiacomantonio discloses The opacity index of the nonwoven material used in the present invention may be at least one of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more when measured with light having a wavelength of 745 nm (paragraph 0105) the claimed invention except for but does not disclose wherein the absorbent layer has an opacity of greater than 0.80 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R). The opacity is a result effective variable in that changing the opacity would change the ability to see the indicator dye and identify wetness by the user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the absorbent layer with a opacity greater than 0.80, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the absorbent layer with a opacity greater than 0.50, since it has been held that the claimed ranges do not need to overlap, however may be close in Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art device to have an opacity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the characteristic of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Digiacomantonio discloses The opacity index of the nonwoven material used in the present invention may be at least one of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more when measured with light having a wavelength of 745 nm (paragraph 0105) the claimed invention except for but does not disclose wherein the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.50 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R). The opacity is a result effective variable in that changing the opacity would change the ability to see the indicator dye and identify wetness by the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention wherein the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious for the opacity to be less than .50 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.50, since it has been held that the claimed ranges do not need to overlap, however may be close in Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art device to have an opacity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the characteristic of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the underpad covers at least a portion of the patient support and is not worn by the patient. However this limitation would be considered intended use. Structurally, Digiacomantonio teaches all the claim limitations other than the intended use.
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion. Macdonald teaches multiple longitudinal dye stripes parallel to each other and to the edge of the sheet (paragraph [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye pattern of Digiacomantonio, wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion, similar to Macdonald so it is clear what region has been dampened.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Digiacomantonio (US 20170007471 A1) in view of Song (US 20140324004 A1) in view of Macdonald (US 20060114754 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Digiacomantonio teaches an underpad (article, 10) (figure 1) for covering a patient support structure (paragraph 0017), the underpad comprising an upper, patient facing surface (body side surface) (topsheet, 12) and a lower, support structure facing surface (clothing-side surface) (backsheet, 14) the underpad (10) further comprising:
a patient facing layer (12) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), wherein the patient facing layer forms at least a portion of the underpad upper surface (figure 2);
an upper tissue layer (second topsheet strip, 20) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), the upper tissue layer being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the patient facing layer(12)(figure 1);
an absorbent layer (absorbent structure, 15) (paragraph 0054) comprising a liquid absorbing material, the absorbent layer (15) being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the tissue layer (20) (figure 2);
a base layer (14)comprising a liquid impermeable material (paragraph 0085), the base layer being disposed below a lower surface of the absorbent layer (15) and forming at least a portion of the underpad lower surface (figure 2); and
a dye deposited on a surface of the upper tissue layer (top sheets can be made from nonwoven materials (paragraph 0063);
wherein the patient facing layer (12) and the base layer (24) extend beyond a peripheral edge of the absorbent layer (15) to form a frame around a central portion that comprises the absorbent layer (fig. 4);
Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye is visible through the patient facing layer from the upper surface prior to the dye being exposed to a liquid; wherein the dye is less visible from the underpad lower surface; and wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid .
Song teaches an absorbent article includes a topsheet layer, a backsheet layer and one absorbent core layer (abstract)(figures 1-6) wherein the dye is visible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface prior to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0015); wherein the dye is less visible from the underpad lower surface (paragraph 0018: dye can be only on topsheet); and wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the underpad of Digiacomantonio to include dye visible through the patient facing layer, wherein dye is visible when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that someone may determine if the underpad needs to be changed (Song, paragraph 0007).
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the underpad covers at least a portion of the patient support and is not worn by the patient. However this limitation would be considered intended use. Structurally, Digiacomantonio teaches all the claim limitations other than the intended use.
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion. Macdonald teaches multiple longitudinal dye stripes parallel to each other and to the edge of the sheet (paragraph [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye pattern of Digiacomantonio, wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion, similar to Macdonald so it is clear what region has been dampened.
Regarding Claim 2, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio further teaches a lower tissue layer (second backsheet, 22), the lower tissue layer being disposed adjacent (14) to and below a lower surface of the absorbent layer (15). Digiacomantonio discloses the claimed invention except for the lower tissue layer comprising a liquid permeable material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the liquid permeable material, similar to the upper tissue layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It would be obvious to use the same material of another later for the lower tissue layer.
Regarding Claim 3, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio further teaches wherein the dye is not visible through the base layer from the underpad lower surface (figure 2) (dye is in the upper layer (paragraph 0060-0064).
Regarding Claim 4, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye comprises a water soluble dye that visually disappears upon dissolution of the dye subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid. Song teaches wherein the dye comprises a water soluble dye (paragraph 0007) that visually disappears (paragraph 0006) upon dissolution of the dye subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio to include a dye that disappears when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that a visual signal of wetness may alert the user of change (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 5, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye comprises a water dispersible dye that visually disappears upon dispersion of the dye subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid. Song teaches wherein the dye comprises a water dispersible dye that visually disappears (paragraph 0006) upon dispersion of the dye subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio to include a dye that disappears when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that a visual signal of wetness may alert the user of change (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 6, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye comprises a dye that visually changes color subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid. Song teaches wherein the dye comprises a dye that visually changes color (paragraph 0006) subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio to include a dye that changes color when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that a visual signal of wetness may alert the user of change (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 7, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye is printed on the tissue layer prior to assembly of the underpad. Song teaches wherein the dye is printed on the tissue prior to assembly of the underpad (paragraph 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio so that it is printed on the underpad similar to that disclosed by Song so that the dye may be air dried without heating (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0072).
Regarding Claim 8, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio and Song fail to teach wherein the dye is printed on an upper surface of the tissue layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to print the dye on an upper surface of the tissue layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. And this would allow the dye to be visible clearly through the top layer, while also protected.
Regarding Claim 9, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 8. Digiacomantonio further teaches wherein the upper surface of the tissue layer (20) is adjacent to a lower surface of the patient facing layer (12) (figure 2). However, Digiacomantonio and Song fail to teach the dye is positioned between the upper surface of the tissue layer and the lower surface of the patient facing layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the dye between the upper surface of the tissue layer and the lower surface of the patient facing layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. And this would allow the dye to be visible clearly through the top layer, while also protected.
Regarding Claim 10, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio and Song fail to teach wherein the dye is printed on an upper surface of the tissue layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to print the dye on an upper surface of the tissue layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. And this would allow the dye to be visible clearly through the top layer, while also protected.
Regarding Claim 11, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 10. Digiacomantonio further teaches wherein the upper surface of the tissue layer (20) is adjacent to a lower surface of the patient facing layer (12) (figure 2). However, Digiacomantonio and Song fail to teach the dye is positioned between the upper surface of the tissue layer and the lower surface of the patient facing layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the dye between the upper surface of the tissue layer and the lower surface of the patient facing layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. And this would allow the dye to be visible clearly through the top layer, while also protected.
Regarding Claim 12, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 1. Digiacomantonio discloses wherein the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.80 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R ) (paragraph 0087).
Regarding Claim 13, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 12. Digiacomantonio discloses wherein the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.70 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R ) (paragraph 0087).
Regarding Claim 14, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 12. Digiacomantonio discloses the opacity index of the nonwoven material used in the present invention may be at least one of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more when measured with light having a wavelength of 745 nm (paragraph 0105) the claimed invention except for but does not disclose wherein the patient facing layer has an opacity of less than 0.50 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R ). The opacity is a result effective variable in that changing the opacity would change the ability to see the indicator dye and identify wetness by the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have a patient facing layer that has an opacity of less than 0.50, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that the dye in the upper layer may be visible.
Regarding Claim 15, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 12. Digiacomantonio discloses The opacity index of the nonwoven material used in the present invention may be at least one of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more when measured with light having a wavelength of 745 nm (paragraph 0105) the claimed invention except for but does not disclose wherein the absorbent layer has an opacity of greater than 0.80 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R). The opacity is a result effective variable in that changing the opacity would change the ability to see the indicator dye and identify wetness by the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the absorbent layer with a opacity greater than 0.80, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the absorbent layer with a opacity greater than 0.50, since it has been held that the claimed ranges do not need to overlap, however may be close in Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art device to have an opacity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the characteristic of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding Claim 16, Digiacomantonio in view of Song teaches the underpad of claim 12. Digiacomantonio discloses The opacity index of the nonwoven material used in the present invention may be at least one of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more when measured with light having a wavelength of 745 nm (paragraph 0105) the claimed invention except for but does not disclose wherein the base layer has an opacity of greater than 0.80 using a diffuse opacity method (Ro/R). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the base layer with a opacity greater than 0.80, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. It would be obvious for the opacity to be greater than .80 so that dye may be observed without obstruction from the fluid. In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the absorbent layer with a opacity greater than 0.50, since it has been held that the claimed ranges do not need to overlap, however may be close in Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the prior art device to have an opacity within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the characteristic of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding Claim 19, Digiacomantonio teaches the underpad of claim 17. Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid. Song teaches wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible (paragraph 0006) through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio to include a dye that disappears when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that a visual signal of wetness may alert the user of change (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 20, Digiacomantonio teaches an underpad (article, 10) (figure 1)for covering a patient support structure (paragraph 0017), the underpad comprising an upper, patient facing surface (body side surface) (topsheet, 12) and a lower, support structure facing surface (clothing-side surface) (backsheet, 14) the underpad (10) further comprising:
a patient facing layer (12) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), wherein the patient facing layer forms at least a portion of the underpad upper surface (figure 2);
an upper tissue layer (second topsheet strip, 20) comprising a liquid permeable material (paragraph 0048), the upper tissue layer being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the patient facing layer(12)(figure 1);
an absorbent layer (absorbent structure, 15) (paragraph [0043][0054])comprising a liquid absorbing material, the absorbent layer (15) being disposed adjacent to and below a lower surface of the tissue layer (20) (figure 2);
a base layer (14)comprising a liquid impermeable material (paragraph 0085), the base layer being disposed below a lower surface of the absorbent layer (15) and forming at least a portion of the underpad lower surface (figure 2); and
a dye deposited on a surface of the upper tissue layer (top sheets can be made from nonwoven materials (paragraph 0063);
the dye is not visible through the base layer from the underpad upper surface (figure 2) (dye is in the upper layer (paragraph 0042 and 0066) prior to the dye being exposed to a liquid;
wherein the patient facing layer (12) and the base layer (24) extend beyond a peripheral edge of the absorbent layer (15) to form a frame around a central portion that comprises the absorbent layer (fig. 4);
Digiacomantonio fails to teach wherein the dye is visible through the patient facing layer from the upper surface prior to the dye being exposed to a liquid; wherein the dye is less visible from the underpad lower surface; and wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid and wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid.
Song teaches an absorbent article includes a topsheet layer, a backsheet layer and one absorbent core layer (abstract) wherein the dye is visible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface prior to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0015); wherein the dye is less visible from the underpad lower surface (paragraph 0018: dye can be only on topsheet); and wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the underpad of Digiacomantonio to include dye visible through the patient facing layer, wherein dye is visible when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that someone may determine if the underpad needs to be changed (Song, paragraph 0007).
Song teaches wherein a change in the dye is visually perceptible (paragraph 0006) through the patient facing layer from the underpad upper surface subsequent to the dye being exposed to a liquid (paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye of Digiacomantonio to include a dye that disappears when exposed to liquid similar to that disclosed by Song so that a visual signal of wetness may alert the user of change (as motivated by Song, paragraph 0006).
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the underpad covers at least a portion of the patient support and is not worn by the patient. However this limitation would be considered intended use. Structurally, Digiacomantonio teaches all the claim limitations other than the intended use.
Digiacomantonio fails to explicitly teach wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion. Macdonald teaches multiple longitudinal dye stripes parallel to each other and to the edge of the sheet (paragraph [0092]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dye pattern of Digiacomantonio, wherein the dye comprises a first longitudinal stripe that parallels a first edge of the central portion and a second longitudinal stripe that parallels a second edge of the central portion, similar to Macdonald so it is clear what region has been dampened.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781