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 1-7 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 7 have been considered but are persuasive as the previously cited art did not teach the multiple frequency detecting sensor. Accordingly this action is second Non-Final. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of Mihali as presented below.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding claims 2 and 3, that Lavon fails to teach a jump in amplitude and frequency, the examiner disagrees. The applicant points out that in Lavon, urination causes a decrease in amplitude and frequency. This does not disqualify Lavon from teaching a “sharp jump” as any quick change in values would constitute this jump. Lavon explaining how the moisture vapor transmission would work, does not exclude such transmission from being used in conjunction with the capacitance sensor. In fact Lavon suggests using the technologies together.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (US 20190290501 A1) in view of Mihali (US 20180055697 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lavon teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article (100A) with use of multiple frequencies, comprising: applying, by capacitive coupling (paragraphs [0075-0077]), drive signal to a drive electrode in the absorbent article;
sensing, by capacitive coupling, sense signals from a sense electrode in the absorbent article (paragraphs [0075-0077]);
detecting the first wetness event in the absorbent article with use of the sense signal of a frequency (paragraph [0075]); and
detecting the saturation of the absorbent article with use of the sense signal of another frequency (paragraphs [0075-0077])).
LaVon fails to teach that the sense signal is built of multiple frequencies. In the same field of endeavor, Mihali teaches a moisture detection apparatus wherein the sensor is used to detect impedance by measuring multiple frequencies across the sensor pad (paragraph [0051]). 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 sensor of LaVon similar to Mihali to sense multiple frequencies in order to have a more indepth analysis for a multiplevariable response (motivated by Mihali, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 2, LaVon in view of Mihali teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article (paragraph [0002]) the method comprises wherein the detecting the first wetness event that comprises: detecting the first wetness event in the absorbent article when a sharp jump in amplitude is determined in the sense signal frequency (paragraph [0075]) that changes beyond a threshold height within a period shorter than a hold period (paragraph [0088]). It is common sense in the art that most sensors function through is determined in the sense signal frequency (paragraph [0075]) that changes beyond a threshold height within a period shorter than a hold period. Therefore anytime there is a change in wetness registered, Lavon would consider this surpassing a threshold.
Regarding Claim 3, LaVon in view of Mihali teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article, the method comprises detecting a first wetness event that comprises: detecting the first wetness event in the absorbent article when a gradual upslope (paragraph [0075]: change and variation in frequency and amplitude) change in frequency and amplitude during urination in amplitude is determined in a sense signal of a frequency (paragraph [0075]) that changes beyond a threshold height (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 4, LaVon in view of Mihali teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article (paragraph [0002]), the method comprises detecting a saturation that comprises: determining in the sense signal of the other frequency a difference in amplitude from the first wetness event (paragraph [0075]); and detecting the saturation when the difference in amplitude is greater than a threshold amount (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 6, LaVon in view of Mihali teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article (paragraph [0002]) the method comprises wherein the applying drive signal of frequencies comprising : applying a periodic drive signal that is swept in a period over the multiple frequencies (paragraph [0060]: impulse, sensor capable of detecting one or more stimuli).
LaVon fails to teach that the sense signal is built of multiple frequencies. In the same field of endeavor, Mihali teaches a moisture detection apparatus wherein the sensor is used to detect impedance by measuring multiple frequencies across the sensor pad (paragraph [0051]). 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 sensor of LaVon similar to Mihali to sense multiple frequencies in order to have a more indepth analysis for a multiple variable response (motivated by Mihali, paragraph [0051]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjöholm (US 20120216607 A1) in view of Mihali (US 20180055697 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sjöholm teaches a method of moisture detection and estimation in an absorbent article (abstract) the method comprises wherein a sensing sense signal of the frequencies comprises: determining, for each of frequencies, (paragraph [0006]) sense signal by using a bandpass filter (paragraph [0066]).
LaVon fails to teach that the sense signal is built of multiple frequencies. In the same field of endeavor, Mihali teaches a moisture detection apparatus wherein the sensor is used to detect impedance by measuring multiple frequencies across the sensor pad (paragraph [0051]). 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 sensor of LaVon similar to Mihali to sense multiple frequencies in order to have a more indepth analysis for a multiplevariable response (motivated by Mihali, paragraph [0051]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (US 20190290501 A1) in view of Mihali (US 20180055697 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further view of Pop (NL 2013740 A).
Regarding Claim 5, LaVon in view of Mihali teaches the method according to Claim 4. Lavon fails to teach wherein the threshold amount is changed depending on the orientation of the absorbent article.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a system for monitoring incontinence, Pop teaches wherein the threshold amount is changed depending on the orientation of the absorbent article (page 5, paragraph 3). 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 threshold amount of Lavon to include threshold amount is changed depending on the orientation of the absorbent article similar to that disclosed by Pop so that a movement and/or posture of the wearer may influence both the determination of the parameter(s) by the measurement circuit and also the risk of an incontinence event (As motivated by Pop, page 5, paragraph 2), therefore a shift in orientation would not affect the accuracy of the reading.
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
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781