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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20168091.5, filed on 04/03/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that indicator (18) of Weidman is not "positioned on a body-facing side and/or garment-facing side of said backsheet (24)," as recited in the pending claims. Rather, as shown in Figure 7, reproduced below, Weidman teaches that the indicator is positioned at the foot of the bed. The examiner disagrees with the interpretation of this claim language. The indicator as claimed is required to be positioned on the bodyside of the device.. The applicant states in their specification “as used herein, the "skin facing", "body-facing" or "bodyside" surface means that surface of the article or component which is intended to be disposed toward or placed adjacent to the body of the wearer during ordinary use, while the "outward", "outward-facing" or "garment- side" or "garment facing" surface is on the opposite side, and is intended to be disposed to face away from the wearer's body during ordinary use. Such outward surface may be arranged to face toward or placed adjacent to the wearer's garments or undergarments” (page 7). The foot of the bed would be considered the body-facing side of the backsheet because the patient is still on the side of the bed that the indicator is attached to as this indictaor is “disposed toward the patient” it would be considered by the applicant to be “body-facing”.
The applicant further argues that because the detection system (20) of Weidman includes pads 60, the detection system (20) necessarily cannot "be removably attached to the absorbent article”. The examiner fundamentally disagrees with this statement and logic because paragraph [0075] of Weidman teaches “ the wet pad is removed and/or replaced with a dry pad; and number of pads remaining from prior shipment quantity for usage.” Demonstrating that the removal of the pads is not only obvious, but taught.
The applicant claims there are no elements present to generate a new number n-1 representing an actual inventory value. The examiner disagrees. The process of counting through coding similar to the n-1 representing an inventory value is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. This line of code is present in almost any program used to count or go through a database or inventory. This line of code is not novel and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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) 1-3, 9-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (US PGPUB 20180325744 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weidman teaches a system (20) for monitoring an absorbent article and providing stock management functionality, the system comprising:
an absorbent article (62) for personal hygiene such as a diaper, or training pant, or incontinence insert (paragraph [0038]), the absorbent article comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (claim 5), a liquid impermeable backsheet (200, claim 4), and an absorbent core (positioned between said topsheet and backsheet (paragraph [0093]);
an indicator (18) for indicating the presence of exudates, said indicator being positioned on a body-facing side and/or garment-facing side of said backsheet, the indicator comprising a color-changing indicator and/or an electrically conductive indicator (paragraph [0038]);
a detection device (20) that can be removably attached to the absorbent article and arranged to detect a change in condition of said indicator (paragraph [0038]);
a computing means, such as a computing device or a computing algorithm arranged to deduct a one integer from an inventory value (paragraph [0075]), in response to at least one of the following:
a signal from the detection device triggered by a change in the state of the absorbent article such as from dry to wet (paragraph [0039]);
a signal from the detection device triggered by a first-time connection to an absorbent article (paragraph [0068]);
and a signal from the detection device triggered by disconnection of the detection device from an absorbent article after a first-time connection to the absorbent article, and wherein the computing means is arranged to send a signal once the actual inventory value reaches a predefined threshold (paragraph [0074]), wherein said signal triggers at least one of:
a warning alarm (paragraph [0071]);
an automatic order of new stock comprising a plurality of absorbent articles (paragraph [0075]); and combinations thereof.
Weidman fails to explicitly teach explicitly teach a computing means, such as a computing device or a computing algorithm arranged to deduct a one integer from an inventory value (paragraph [0075]) to generate a new number n-1 representing an actual inventory value however this is a method of computing that is basic and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 system of Weidman to have a computing means, such as a computing device or a computing algorithm arranged to deduct a one integer from an inventory value (paragraph [0075]) to generate a new number n-1 representing an actual inventory value as it is obvious to count down by whole numbers through the inventory value, this is a common practice in programming as to not skip any inventory.
Regarding Claim 2, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein the detection device is arranged to detect a product type, such as an absorbency level (paragraph [0069]), when coupled to the absorbent article and typically wherein data transmitted by the detection device comprises metadata that is associated with an identification number associated with said product type (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 3, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 2. Weidman further teaches wherein the computing device or computing means is adapted to automatically update a plurality of inventories, wherein each inventory is associated to a product type (paragraph [0075]), and is arranged to deduct a one integer from an inventory value n to generate a new number n-1 representing an actual inventory value in response to the detection device signal wherein said signal comprises the identification number associated with the product type and the actual inventory value is calculated for the inventory comprising a matching identification number (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 9, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein the detection device comprises an attachment member for coupling to the absorbent article, said coupling member comprising a mechanical attachment selected from a hook-comprising structure arranged to mate to a loop-comprising structure on the garment facing surface of the back sheet (paragraph [0053])(fig. 7);
or a clamping structure arranged to clip and/or fasten to the garment facing surface of the back sheet (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 10, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches a mobile device comprising an application with a user interface (paragraph [0071]), and wherein at least an initial inventory value n is capable of being manually set by the user or via said mobile device (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 11, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein the computing means is arranged the inventory value n is automatically reset upon delivery of a new stock comprising a plurality of new absorbent articles, that are delivered within a subscription, typically following a respective signal sent from a subscription interface to the computing means (paragraph [0071-0075]).
Regarding Claim 12, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein once the actual inventory value reaches a predetermined threshold, the computing means is arranged to send a signal to a subscription interface to release the next shipment of absorbent articles to replenish the stock of a plurality of absorbent articles in a respective household or institution that is associated with said actual inventory value (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 13, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein one or more detection devices comprise a unique identifier that is associated to a household or institution (paragraph [0023]), and typically wherein a plurality of metadata are associated with said unique identifier and are etained in data transfer between the detection device(s) and the computing means (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 14, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 13. Weidman further teaches wherein the computing means is arranged to compute[[s]], update[[s]] and store[[s]] a plurality of inventory values for a plurality of households and/or institutions (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding Claim 15, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 12. Weidman further teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is capable of being pre-set manually by a user via a mobile device application (paragraphs [0081-0082]), and typically wherein the subscription interface is adapted to send a signal to the computing means and/or mobile device application to trigger a warning and a suggested new predetermined threshold in response to a delivery-affecting event (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding Claim 18, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 8. Weidman further teaches wherein said light sources consist of LEDs and are positioned at a distance from each other and from an optical sensor (paragraph [0080]).
Regarding Claim 19, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 10. Weidman further teaches wherein the mobile device is in wireless data communication with the computing means (paragraph [0023]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (US PGPUB 20180325744 A1) in view of Joseph (US 20150173968 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman further teaches wherein the indicator is a color-changing indicator that is capable of changing changes color in response to a voiding event, such as an exudate wetness event (paragraph [0080]).
Weidman fails to teach that the indicator is substantially yellow in dry state, substantially blue in a fully saturated wet state, and is substantially green in a transition state between said dry state and said fully saturated wet state. In the same field of endeavor, Joseph teaches an indicator that is substantially yellow in dry state, substantially blue in a fully saturated wet state, and is substantially green in a transition state between said dry state and said fully saturated wet state (paragraph [0074]). 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 indicator of Weidman so the indicator is substantially yellow in dry state, substantially blue in a fully saturated wet state, and is substantially green in a transition state between said dry state and said fully saturated wet state similar to Joseph because there is a predetermined compound that is readily used to indicated urine and corresponds to these colors.
Weidman fails to teach wherein the detection device comprises a plurality of light sources having at least a first color and a second color, wherein the first color is blue and the second color is red. However it does teach a green diode and red diode. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the detection device comprises a plurality of light sources having at least a first color and a second color, wherein the first color is blue and the second color is red since applicant has not disclosed that given color of the diodes solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with blue and red diodes.
Claims 4-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (US PGPUB 20180325744 A1) in view of Buiatti (WO 2006105305 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman fails to teach wherein the absorbent core comprises a plurality of channels, comprising at least one right channel and at least one left channel, the right channel being disposed between the right side edge and the longitudinal centreline along axis (Y), and the left channel being disposed between the left side edge and the longitudinal centreline along axis (Y), wherein the right and left channels are arcuate in shape such that the front and back ends of the left and right channels diverge towards the left side edge and the transversely opposed right side edge respectively and wherein the central portion of said channels converge towards the longitudinal centreline along axis (Y); or wherein the absorbent core comprises a single channel comprising two parallel and opposing longitudinally extending portions and one transversely extending portion connecting said longitudinally extending portions to form a substantially U-shaped channel.
Buiatti teaches and absorbent article wherein the absorbent core comprises a plurality of channels, comprising at least one right channel and at least one left channel, the right channel being disposed between the right side edge and the longitudinal centreline along axis (Y) (figure 4-5B), and the left channel being disposed between the left side edge and the longitudinal centreline along axis (Y), wherein the right and left channels are arcuate in shape such that the front and back ends of the left and right channels diverge towards the left side edge and the transversely opposed right side edge respectively and wherein the central portion of said channels converge towards the longitudinal centreline along axis (figure 5A-5B) (Y); or wherein the absorbent core comprises a single channel comprising two parallel and opposing longitudinally extending portions and one transversely extending portion connecting said longitudinally extending portions to form a substantially U-shaped channel (figure 10A). 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 Weidman to include a U-shaped channel so that the channels are connected to the same place.
Regarding Claim 5, Weidman in view of Buiatti teaches a system according to Claim 4. The combination further teaches wherein the indicator (18, Weidman) extends between portions of the channel(s) along the Y axis and is arranged such that it prolongs beyond the channel(s) (Buiatti, figure 5A-5B) at a first distance D1 towards front edge, preferably wherein the indicator (Weidman, 18) comprises a rear terminal edge positioned between said channel(s) generally such that it does not prolong beyond the channel(s) towards the rear edge (Buiatti, figure 5A-5B). 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 system of Weidman to include the channels of Buiatti so that the channels do not need to be fill to turn on the indicator.
Regarding Claim 6, Weidman in view of Buiatti teaches a system according to Claim 5. Weidman further teaches wherein indicator (18) is located on the front most edge remains exposed from the detection device when coupled to the absorbent article (fig. 5). But Weidman fails to teach wherein a detection device position (DDP) overlaps the indicator along an overlap length that is from 60% to 95% of distance D1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection device position (DDP) overlaps the indicator along an overlap length that is from 60% to 95% of distance D1 in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 20, lines 26-30 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 16, Weidman in view of Buiatti teaches a system according to Claim 5. Weidman further teaches wherein indicator (18) is located on the front most edge remains exposed from the detection device when coupled to the absorbent article (fig. 5). But Weidman fails to teach wherein a detection device position (DDP) overlaps the indicator along an overlap length that is from 75% to 85% of distance D1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a detection device position (DDP) overlaps the indicator along an overlap length that is from 75% to 85% of distance D1 in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 20, lines 26-30 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (US PGPUB 20180325744 A1) in view of Strasemeier (US 20200085638 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 1. Weidman fails to teach wherein the indicator comprises a chemical substance which is capable of a color change when an exudates is present. In a similar field of endeavor, Strasemeier teaches an absorbent article having a channel and wetness indicator wherein the indicator comprises a chemical substance with induces which is capable of a color change when an exudates, such as urine or stool, are is present, preferably wherein the color changing indicator comprises a pH sensitive sensor (paragraph [0046]). 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 absorbent article of Weidman to have a pH indicator so the indicator will be notify the user when in contact with urine (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 17, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 7. Weidman fails to teach wherein the color-changing indicator comprises a pH- sensitive sensor. In a similar field of endeavor, Strasemeier teaches an absorbent article having a channel and wetness indicator wherein the color-changing indicator comprises a pH- sensitive sensor (paragraph [0046]). 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 absorbent article of Weidman to have a pH indicator so the indicator will be notify the user when in contact with urine (paragraph [0046]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidman (US PGPUB 20180325744 A1) in view of Hellmold (US 20190167490 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Weidman teaches a system according to Claim 15. Weidman fails to teach wherein the application is capable of storing historical data comprising voiding events and patterns such that it may be consulted by a user or a predictive model may be generated based on the stored historical data. In the same field of endeavor, Hellmold teaches a smart absorbent article wherein the application is capable of storing historical data comprising voiding events and patterns such that it may be consulted by a user or a predictive model may be generated based on the stored historical data (paragraph [0167-0168]). 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 system of Weidman so the application is capable of storing historical data comprising voiding events and patterns such that it may be consulted by a user or a predictive model may be generated based on the stored historical data similar to Hellmold to predict what the user may need before it happens.
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 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