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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed February 20, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-18 and 21-27 are currently pending. Claims 1, 14, 25 and 27 been amended. Claims 5-6 and 19-20 were previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks are drawn to the newly amended limitations which have yet to be examined.
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 1-4, 7-18 and 21-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation “wherein the absorbent core has a bulk thickness less than about 0.6 cm under a restraining pressure of 1.38 kPa” was not found in the originally filed specification, claims, or figures. The terms “bulk thickness”, “restraining pressure” or “1.38 kPa” or equivalents were not found and as such are considered new matter.
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.
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, 7- 15, 17-18, 21-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig US 2003/0120228 A1 in view of Bryan US 2016/0143789 A1 and in further view of Hammons et al. US 5647863.
Regarding claim 1, Koenig discloses a disposable absorbent article (abstract) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (22), a liquid impermeable backsheet (20), an absorbent core (24) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet ([0013]), a front waist region with a front waist edge, a back waist region with a back waist edge, and a crotch region disposed between the front waist region and the back waist region (see annotated figure below) and a urease inhibitor ([0001]); wherein the urease inhibitor is disposed between the topsheet and the absorbent core and/or within the absorbent core, wherein an amount of the urease inhibitor is selectively distributed between the back waist region, front waist region, and crotch region and wherein the urease inhibitor is not disposed on a body facing surface of the topsheet ([0063-0064] which discloses an urease inhibitor and it can be positioned between the topsheet and absorbent core or within the absorbent core or on or in any of the layers below the liner/ top sheet) and wherein the absorbent core comprises absorbent material, wherein the absorbent material comprises at least 80% by weight of the absorbent material ([0044]).
Koenig fails to disclose wherein the urease inhibitor is configured to maintain a pH of a wearer's skin in a range of about 4.0 to about 6.0 according to the Urease Activity test method and wherein the absorbent core has a bulk thickness less than about 0.6 cm under a restraining pressure of 1.38 kPa.
However, Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the amount of urease inhibitor added to the absorbent article in order to maintain proper skin pH as the urine breaks down and to assist with odor control. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Koening also discloses that the absorbent core has a thickness of less than 0.6 cm but fail to disclose the thickness is under a “restraining pressure of 1.38kPa”. However, if the thickness meets the claimed limitation at normal pressure when subjected to higher pressure the thickness will further decrease thereby still meeting the claim. Everyday life examples such as sitting on seat cushion show that when a pressure is applied the cushion’s thickness decrease or using a vacuum bag to store clothes or bedding in more compact manner.
Koenig additionally fails to disclose wherein the amount of the urease inhibitor is from about 10 weight- % to about 300 weight-% greater in the crotch region than in the back waist region.
Koening does teach the absorbent material (“high absorbency material be in the form of discrete particles”) can vary from 5 to 90% in the absorbent core [0044] but fails to teach a specific material.
Bryan teaches an absorbent article thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bryan teaches to have more absorbency in high volume areas and less absorbency in the low volume areas [0055].
Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Based on the combined disclosure of Koenig and teachings of Bryan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have add more urease inhibitor in the areas of greater urine collection in order to properly manage the respective increase in ammonia production. More urine will produce more ammonia as it degrades therefore adding additional urease inhibitor in those areas would have been obvious to optimize so that the product can continue to be effective in preventing bacteria and reducing odor. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Koening and Bryan fails to disclose wherein the absorbent material comprises at least 80% superabsorbent polymers by weight of the absorbent material, wherein the topsheet has an opacity of at least 15% as determined according to the Opacity Test Method.
Hammons teaches an absorbent article (abstract) they by being related to instant invention and to the prior art. Hammons discloses the opacity of the topsheet is beneficial to hide bodily discharge (Col. 5 lines 11-27). Hammond also teaches superabsorbent polymers as one of many absorbent materials which can be used in the core (Col 11 lines 50-65) for absorbency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the top layer opaque for user preference as taught by Hammons. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have substituted a particular absorbent material such as superabsorbent polymers with the generic absorbent material of Koening with a reasonable expectation of success as both articles are designed to hold fluid and Hammons clearly teaches a list of known materials to achieve the same end results.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Koenig discloses wherein the urease inhibitor is a natural urease inhibitor ([0063] which discloses the Yucca plant extra can provide urease inhibiting activity).
Regarding claim 4, Koenig discloses wherein the absorbent core comprises a body-facing surface, the body-facing surface having a surface area ([0064] discloses a body-facing surface having an area since the urease inhibitor can be placed between the core (24) and liner (22)).
Koenig fails to disclose wherein the urease inhibitor is present in an amount of from about 3 g/m2 to about 200 g/m2 based on the surface area of the body facing-surfacing of the absorbent core.
However, Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the amount of urease inhibitor added to the absorbent article in order to maintain proper skin pH as the urine breaks down and odor. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the urease inhibitor is selectively distributed such that the amount of the urease inhibitor disposed in the crotch region is from about 3 weight % to about 20 weight % greater than an amount of the urease inhibitor disposed in the front waist region.
Bryan teaches an absorbent article thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bryan teaches to have more absorbency in high volume areas and less absorbency in the low volume areas [0055].
Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Based on the combined discloser of Koenig and teachings of Bryan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have add more urease inhibitor in the areas of greater urine collection in order to properly manage the respective increase in ammonia production. More urine will produce ammonia as it degrades therefore adding additional urease inhibitor in those areas would have been obvious to optimize so that the product can continue to be effective in preventing bacteria and reducing odor. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent core has a permeability of from about 10-6 cm2 to about 10-4 cm2 according to the am In-Plane Radial Permeability (IPRP) test method.
Regarding claim 10, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a rewet of less than 150 mg according to the Post Acquisition Collagen Rewet Test Method.
Regarding claims 8 and 10:
Koenig discloses the use of superabsorbent materials for the absorbent core [0029] and applicant discloses the same material may be used for their absorbent core (page 14). Additionally, permeability refers to the ability of liquid to pass through the material and the rewet refers to retention ability of the material (i.e., the fluid will not release back). These properties are based on the material and the same material should have the same properties. It is the examiner’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the IPRP test method or Post Acquisition Collagen Rewet Test Method.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the degree of permeability and fluid retention in order to ensure the user feels dry while wearing the article, and the article additionally retains sufficient fluid volume for the desired wear time. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try a range of permeability and fluid retention values in order to optimize these very well-known properties of absorbent articles. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent core has elongated regions with reduced caliper (or thickness/ areas of less absorbency).
Bryan teaches an absorbent article thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bryan teaches to have more absorbency in high volume areas and less absorbency in the low volume areas to reduce bulk [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the absorbency to being greater in areas of high volume and less in areas of low volume thereby having a region with reduced caliper in order to reduce bulk while providing protection in areas of need as taught by Bryan [0055].
Regarding claim 11, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article is configured to maintain a pH of the topsheet in a range of about 5.0 to about 7.5 according to the Urease Activity test method.
Regarding claim 12, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article is configured to maintain an amount of ammonia below 10 ppm according to the Urease Activity test method.
Regarding claim 11 and 12:
Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the amount of urease inhibitor added to the absorbent article in order to maintain proper skin pH as the urine breaks down and odor control. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Koenig disclose wherein the absorbent article further comprises at least one acquisition and distribution layer (ADL) (or fluid management layer 36) which is disposed between the topsheet and the absorbent core ([0016]), and wherein the urease inhibitor is disposed on and/or in the ADL (([0064] which discloses an urease inhibitor and it can be positioned between the topsheet and absorbent core or within the absorbent core or any of the layers).
Regarding claim 14, Koenig discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (22), a liquid impermeable backsheet (20), an absorbent core (24)disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet ([0013]), and a urease inhibitor ([0001]); wherein the urease inhibitor is disposed between the topsheet and the absorbent core and/or within the absorbent core ([0063-0064] which discloses an urease inhibitor and it can be positioned between the topsheet and absorbent core or within the absorbent core or on or in any of the layers below the liner/ top sheet), wherein the absorbent article has a longitudinal centerline and a longitudinal dimension extending along the longitudinal centerline, and a transverse centerline extending perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline, the absorbent article comprising a front waist region with a front waist edge, a back waist region with a back waist edge, and a crotch region longitudinally extending between the front waist region and the back waist region, wherein each of the front waist region, the back waist region, and the crotch region forms one third of the longitudinal dimension (see annotated figure below) and wherein the urease inhibitor is not disposed on a body facing surface of the topsheet ([0063-0064] which discloses an urease inhibitor and it can be positioned between the topsheet and absorbent core or within the absorbent core or on or in any of the layers below the liner/ top sheet) and wherein the absorbent core comprises absorbent material, wherein the absorbent material comprises at least 80% by weight of the absorbent material ([0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Koenig fails to disclose wherein the urease inhibitor is selectively distributed between the back waist region and the crotch region such that an amount of the urease inhibitor disposed in the crotch region is from about 10 to about 250 weight % greater than an amount of the urease inhibitor disposed in the back waist region and wherein the absorbent core has a bulk thickness less than about 0.6 cm under a restraining pressure of 1.38 kPa.
Koening also discloses that the absorbent core has a thickness of less than 0.6 cm but fail to disclose the thickness is under a “restraining pressure of 1.38kPa”. However, if the thickness meets the claimed limitation at normal pressure when subjected to higher pressure the thickness will further decrease thereby still meeting the claim. Everyday life examples such as sitting on seat cushion show that when a pressure is applied the cushion’s thickness decrease or using a vacuum bag to store clothes or bedding in more compact manner.
Bryan teaches an absorbent article thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bryan teaches to have more absorbency in high volume areas and less absorbency in the low volume areas [0055].
Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Based on the combined discloser of Koenig and teachings of Bryan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have add more urease inhibitor in the areas of greater urine collection in order to properly manage the respective increase in ammonia production. More urine will produce ammonia as it degrades therefore adding additional urease inhibitor in those areas would have been obvious to optimize so that the product can continue to be effective in preventing bacteria and reducing odor. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Koening and Bryan fails to disclose wherein the absorbent material comprises at least 80% superabsorbent polymers by weight of the absorbent material, wherein the topsheet has an opacity of at least 15% as determined according to the Opacity Test Method.
Hammons teaches an absorbent article (abstract) they by being related to instant invention and to the prior art. Hammons discloses the opacity of the topsheet is beneficial to hide bodily discharge (Col. 5 lines 11-27). Hammond also teaches superabsorbent polymers as one of many absorbent materials which can be used in the core (Col 11 lines 50-65) for absorbency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the top layer opaque for user preference as taught by Hammons. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have substituted a particular absorbent material such as superabsorbent polymers with the generic absorbent material of Koening with a reasonable expectation of success as both articles are designed to hold fluid and Hammons clearly teaches a list of known materials to achieve the same end results.
Regarding claim 15, Koenig discloses wherein the urease inhibitor is a natural urease inhibitor ([0063] which discloses the Yucca plant extra can provide urease inhibiting activity).
Regarding claim 17, Koenig disclose wherein the absorbent article further comprises at least one acquisition and distribution layer (ADL) (or fluid management layer 36) which is disposed between the topsheet and the absorbent core ([0016]), and wherein at least a portion of the urease inhibitor is applied a) between the topsheet and the ADL, b) in the ADL, c) between the ADL and the absorbent core, d) in the absorbent core; or e) any combination of a) to d) (([0064] which discloses an urease inhibitor and it can be positioned between the topsheet and absorbent core or within the absorbent core or any of the layers).
Regarding claim 18, Koenig discloses wherein the absorbent core comprises a body-facing surface, the body-facing surface having a surface area ([0064] discloses a body-facing surface having an area since the urease inhibitor can be placed between the core (24) and liner (22)).
Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the urease inhibitor is present in an amount of from about 3 g/m2 to about 200 g/m2 based on the total body-facing surface area of the absorbent core.
However, Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the amount of urease inhibitor added to the absorbent article in order to maintain proper skin pH as the urine breaks down and odor. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 21, Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the absorbent core has a permeability of from about 10-6 cm2 to about 10-4 cm2 according to the IPRP test method.
Regarding claim 23, Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a rewet of less than 150 mg according to the Post Acquisition Collagen Rewet Test Method.
Regarding claims 21 and 23:
Koenig discloses the use of superabsorbent materials for the absorbent core [0029] and applicant discloses the same material may be used for their absorbent core (page 14). Additionally, permeability refers to the ability of liquid to pass through the material and the rewet refers to retention ability of the material (i.e. the fluid will not release back). These properties are based on the material and the same material should have the same properties. It is the examiner’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the IPRP test method or Post Acquisition Collagen Rewet Test Method.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the degree of permeability and fluid retention in order to ensure the user feels dry while wearing the article, and the article additionally retains sufficient fluid volume for the desired wear time. The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to try a range of permeability and fluid retention values in order to optimize these very well known properties of absorbent articles. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent core has elongated regions with reduced caliper (or thickness/ areas of less absorbency).
Bryan teaches an absorbent article thereby being in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bryan teaches to have more absorbency in high volume areas and less absorbency in the low volume areas to reduce bulk [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the absorbency to being greater in areas of high volume and less in areas of low volume thereby having a region with reduced caliper in order to reduce bulk while providing protection in areas of need as taught by Bryan [0055].
Regarding claim 25, Koenig fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article is configured to maintain an amount of ammonia below 10 ppm according to the Urease Activity test method.
Koenig discloses that as urine degrades (from “sitting” in a soiled diaper) it creates ammonia and that a urease inhibitor reduces the amount of ammonia from urine. Koenig also discloses normal skin pH is between 4 and 6.8 which reduces the growth of bacteria. An increase in ammonia also causes odor thus adding a urease inhibitor is advantageous ([0001-0003]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date to have optimized the amount of urease inhibitor added to the absorbent article in order to maintain proper skin pH as the urine breaks down and odor control. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26, Koenig discloses wherein the urease inhibitor is applied on a compound of the absorbent core ([0064] notes to composition’s application between the body side liner and outer cover between which is the absorbent core therefore application on the core is understood).
Regarding claim 27, Koenig has modified by Hammons above discloses wherein the compound of the absorbent core is a superabsorbent polymer (Hammons (Col 11 lines 50-65) which notes superabsorbent polymer).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig US 2003/0120228 A1 in view of Bryan US 2016/0143789 A1 and Hammons et al. US 5647863 and in further view of Lee KR20080043157A (pages refer to a machine translation of the original Korean document (the original is attached and listed under FOR and the translation is attached and listed under NPL)
Regarding claim 3, Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the natural urease inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of green tea, extracts from green tea, grape seeds, extracts from grape seeds, and combinations thereof.
Lee teaches grape seed extract is a natural urease inhibitor (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tried a different natural urease inhibitor such as grape seed as the same class of chemicals (urease inhibitor) would be expected with a reasonable expectation of success to also work as a urease inhibitor.
Regarding claim 16, Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the natural urease inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of green tea, extracts from green tea, grape seeds, extracts from grape seeds, and combinations thereof.
Lee teaches grape seed extract is a natural urease inhibitor (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tried a different natural urease inhibitor such as grape seed as the same class of chemicals (urease inhibitor) would be expected with a reasonable expectation of success to also work as a urease inhibitor.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig US 2003/0120228 A1 in view of Bryan US 2016/0143789 A1 Hammons et al. US 5647863 and in further view of Trinh WO 98/26808 A2 (pages refer to the page numbers on the publication not the PDF).
Regarding claim 24, Koenig and Bryan fail to disclose wherein the absorbent article comprises more than one urease inhibitor. Koenig discloses a plant based urease inhibitor ([0063] which discloses the Yucca plant extra can provide urease inhibiting activity).
Trinh teaches multiple urease inhibitors including plant extracts that can be used alone or in combination (Pages 4-5 which detail different urease inhibiting compounds and page 3 which notes their use in an absorbent article for the purpose of order control) thereby being in a related field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tried a combination of urease inhibitor as taught by Trinh as the same class of chemicals (urease inhibitor) would be expected with a reasonable expectation of success to also work as a urease inhibitor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIELLA E BURNETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9574. The examiner can normally be reached M-S: 0830-1900 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 on (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.
/GABRIELLA E BURNETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781