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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., rigidity, thickness, and vapor-permeability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is advised that none of these features are described in the present specification and incorporation of them into the claims may raise issues of new matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
In response to applicant’s argument that Wheeler discloses miniature plastic hooks, which are not a fuzz structure, it is noted that “fuzz structure” is not clearly defined by the present specification nor does the term have an art-recognized definition. Therefore the words of the limitation will be given their “plain meaning” (see MPEP 2111.01). The hook material disclosed by Wheeler has a fuzzy surface due to the presence of a plurality of hooks, and is a physical structure. Therefore the material of Wheeler falls within the scope of the claim limitation “fuzz structure.”
In response to applicant’s argument that the present invention utilizes fastening fabric described in U.S. Patent Nos. 10,080,404 and 8,656,564, it is noted that these references are not made of record in an Information Disclosure Statement, nor are they disclosed or incorporated by reference in the present specification. Applicant is advised that these patents constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and can be applied in a rejection against the present claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wheeler et al. (2005/0131372).
With respect to claim 1, Wheeler discloses an undergarment for covering a lower trunk, as shown in figure 3B, comprising a clothing 12 configured to cover the lower trunk having a first adhering layer formed with the clothing, the first adhering layer being the material of the clothing 12 which is a woven fabric having a first fuzz structure (i.e. attachment surface), as disclosed in paragraph [0052]. An absorbent liner 10 is removably attached to the crotch portion of the clothing 12, as shown in figure 3B and disclosed in paragraph [0052]. The absorbent liner has a second adhering layer 18 having a second fuzz structure 32 and a skin-contacting layer 14, as shown in figure 4. The second fuzz structure 32 removably engages with the clothing 12, as disclosed in paragraph [0052].
Wheeler discloses the woven material of the clothing presents an attachment surface for second fuzz structure (i.e. hook material) of the absorbent liner, as disclosed in paragraph [0052]. The woven material is considered to inherently comprise a fuzz structure in the form of the fibrous exterior of the weave that creates the attachment surface. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first fuzz structure on the first adhering layer of Wheeler to achieve the predictable result of providing a surface that the hook materials of the liner can securely engage.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (2005/0131372) in view of Plentovich et al. (8,062,275).
With respect to claim 2, Wheeler discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a leak-resistant layer disposed between the second adhering layer and the skin-contact layer. Plentovich teaches the use of a laminate of a woven fabric and a liquid impermeable film as the backsheet of an absorbent pad, as disclosed in column 14, lines 1-3. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the absorbent liner of Wheeler with a leak-resistant layer of film, as taught by Plentovich, between the woven layer of the second adhering layer and the skin-contact layer, to achieve the predictable result of a backsheet that is liquid impervious but has a cloth outer layer to provide a softer feel to the wearer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781