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 claims were amended prior to examination on March 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 were canceled and Claims 21-40 were newly added prior to examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species found in Figure 2 directed to a packet in the reply filed on July 10, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 21-22, 27-31, 33-37, and 40 encompass the elected species and will be examined below.
Interview with Attorney
The Examiner called attorney Andrews on October 16, 2025, to seek clarification on what appeared to be a typo on claim 27 which noted “a fluid-impermeable middle layer comprising a polymer; a fluid-impermeable outer layer”. The only polymer defined by the specification and originally filed claims was a super absorbent polymer and therefore not impermeable. Additionally, all other independent claims had a “fluid absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer” The attorney agreed it was a typo.
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.
Claim 27 and 31 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 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 “a fluid-impermeable middle layer comprising a polymer” is not supported by the originally filed application as the only polymer is specifically noted as a Super Absorbent Polymer (SAP).
Claim 31 is rejected under 112(a) as it depends from claim 27.
Claim 27 is being interpreted as the term “a fluid-impermeable middle layer comprising a polymer” contains a typo and should read “a fluid-absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer” based on the Examiner initiated Interview with Attorney Andrews as detailed above.
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) 21-22, 27-28, 31, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evers US 5300358 in view of Somers et al. US 2006/0030023 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Evers discloses a biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article (abstract and Col 3 lines 1-15 which define biodegradable), comprising:
-an inner layer comprising a non-woven fluid permeable fabric (Col 8 lines 25-32 which disclose the topsheet can be non-woven and Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles);
-a fluid absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles, which includes a middle layer with a super absorbent polymer);
- a fluid impermeable outer layer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles including an impermeable back sheet or outer layer).
Evers discloses in Col 3 lines 1-15 which define biodegradable that Fungi can be added to aid in the degradation process but fails to disclose a composition comprising one or more mycelium, fungal spores, or combinations thereof configured for reacting with bodily waste to initiate growth and degrade the inner layer, middle layer and outer layer of the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article.
Somers discloses an enzyme packet designed to be used with a generic absorbent article to help breakdown the bio-waste thereby being drawn to the same problem as the instant claims. Somers teaches the packet can contain Aspergillus (or filamentous Fungi) to aid the degradation process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have added the enzyme packet of Somers to the diaper to Evers as Evers specifically teaches that fungi can be added to help degrade the article in Col 3 lines 1-15.
Regarding claim 22, Evers and modified by Somers discloses the composition comprises a plurality of mycelium beads, fabric on which mycelium has been deposited or mycelium in a powder form (Somers [0051]).
Regarding claim 27, Evers discloses a biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article (abstract and Col 3 lines 1-15 which define biodegradable), comprising:
-an inner layer comprising a non-woven fluid permeable fabric (Col 8 lines 25-32 which disclose the topsheet can be non-woven and Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles);
-a fluid absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles, which includes a middle layer with a super absorbent polymer);
- a fluid impermeable outer layer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles including an impermeable back sheet or outer layer).
Evers discloses in Col 3 lines 1-15 which define biodegradable that Fungi can be added to aid in the degradation process but fails to disclose a packet containing a composition comprising one or more mycelium, fungal spores, or combinations thereof configured for reacting with bodily waste to initiate growth and degrade the inner layer, middle layer and outer layer of the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article.
Somers discloses an enzyme packet designed to be used with a generic absorbent article to help breakdown the bio-waste thereby being drawn to the same problem as the instant claims. Somers teaches the packet can contain Aspergillus (or filamentous Fungi) to aid the degradation process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have added the enzyme packet of Somers to the diaper to Evers as Evers specifically teaches that fungi can be added to help degrade the article in Col 3 lines 1-15.
Regarding claim 28, Evers and modified by Somers discloses the composition comprises a plurality of mycelium beads, fabric on which mycelium has been deposited or mycelium in a powder form (Somers [0051]).
Regarding claim 31, Evers and modified by Somers discloses wherein the packet is configured for being opened and handled via human action to allow the deposition of the one or more mycelium, fungal spores, or combinations thereof into the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article at a time of disposal (figure 2 c which has a tear notch and [0015] which teaches the user adds the composition).
Regarding claim 33, Evers discloses wherein the polymer is a super absorbent polymer (SAP) (Col. 2 lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 34, Evers and modified by Somers discloses wherein the composition further comprises one or more enzymes (Somers [0046] notes powered or encapsulated form).
Regarding claim 35, Evers and modified by Somers discloses wherein the composition is in an encapsulated form (Somers [0015] notes an enzyme producing bacteria plus enzymes).
Regarding claim 36, Evers and modified by Somers discloses wherein the composition is embedded into the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article (Somers [0034] notes the composition can be embedded in the absorbent article).
Regarding claim 37, Evers and modified by Somers discloses wherein the composition is configured for using the bodily waste to grow and for degrading the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article (Somers- abstract, [0067] which notes the pack contains a fungus and [0044-0046 and 0049-50] which discloses the enzymes degrade the waste by feeding or growing off the waste).
Claim(s) 29- 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somers et al. US 2006/0030023 A1 in view of Evers US 5300358.
Regarding claim 29, Somers discloses a composition comprising fungal spores configured for reacting with bodily waste to initiate growth (abstract, [0067] which notes the pack contains a fungus and [0044-0046 and 0049-50] which discloses the enzymes degrade the waste by feeding or growing off the waste). Sombers additionally discloses the composition is configured for deposition onto the biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article prior to or after soiling with bodily waste ([0031].
While Somers discloses a generic absorbent article, he fails to discloses a biodegradable disposable fluid absorbent article with (a) an inner layer comprising a non-woven fluid permeable fabric, (b) an absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer, and (c) a liquid impermeable outer layer.
Evers teaches a biodegradable absorbent article (abstract) and that fungus is known to be added to enhance decomposition of the article. Evers teaches the absorbent articles as an inner layer comprising a non-woven fluid permeable fabric (Col 8 lines 25-32 which disclose the topsheet can be non-woven and Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles); a fluid absorbent middle layer comprising a polymer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles, which includes a middle layer with a super absorbent polymer); and a fluid impermeable outer layer (Col 2 lines 40-55 which disclose a three-layer article typical of most absorbent articles including an impermeable back sheet or outer layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have used an absorbent article with the specifics of the article as taught by Evers since Evers teaches the addition of fungus to enhance decomposition and Somers teaches a generic absorbent article.
Regarding claim 30, Somers discloses the composition comprises a plurality of mycelium beads, fabric on which mycelium has been deposited or mycelium in a powder form ([0051]).
Regarding claim 40, Somers discloses wherein the composition further comprises one or more enzymes ([0015] notes an enzyme producing bacteria plus enzymes).
Conclusion
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 5712701775. 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
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781