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 and 5-15 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 5-6 are currently amended. Claims 2-4 and 16-21 are cancelled. No new subject matter is added.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Doseki et al. (JP 2019141190 A, as mapped from translated copy attached), hereinafter referred to as “Doseki”.
Regarding Claim 1, Doseki teaches an absorbent article (absorbent member 10, see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a liquid-absorbent body (absorbent body 50);
a liquid-permeable sheet (top sheet 30) disposed on a skin side (the top sheet 30 comes into contact with the wearer's skin when worn on the wearer, see pg. 4 last paragraph) in a thickness direction of the absorbent article with respect to the liquid-absorbent body (see Figure 2);
a liquid-impermeable sheet (back sheet 40) disposed on a non-skin side (disposed on the opposite side of top sheet 30, see Figure 2) in the thickness direction with respect to the liquid- absorbent body (see Figure 2);
one or more skin-side electrodes (second positive electrode 71 and second negative electrode 72) between the liquid- permeable sheet and the liquid-absorbent body (between the top sheet 30 and absorbent body 50, see Figure 2); and
one or more non-skin-side electrodes (first positive electrode 61 and first negative electrode 62) between the liquid- impermeable sheet and the liquid-absorbent body (between the back sheet and absorbent body 50, see Figure 2), wherein
at least one pair of the non-skin-side electrodes are spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the absorbent article by a predetermined distance (the electrodes 61 and 62 are arranged at intervals in the width direction of the absorbing member 10, see pg. 5 paragraph 5), wherein the width direction intersects the thickness direction in a stretched state of the absorbent article (see below),
at least one pair of the skin-side electrodes are spaced apart from each other in the width direction by a distance different from the predetermined distance (the electrodes 71 and 72 are spaced at an interval different from electrodes 61 and 62, see pg. 6 paragraph 2; Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Doseki does not explicitly disclose wherein a space between the at least one pair of the skin-side electrodes in the width direction is larger than a space between the at least one pair of the non-skin-side electrodes in the width direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the skin side electrodes to be located in the width direction larger than a space between the at least one pair of the non-skin-side electrodes in the width direction, since the claims to electrodes which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the electrodes would not have modified the operation of the device (detecting urine or feces). The particular placement of the electrodes would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 5, Doseki teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Doseki does not explicitly disclose wherein the space between the at least one pair of the skin-side electrodes in the width direction is 40 mm or larger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Doseki to have a space between the at least one pair of the skin-side electrodes in the width direction is 40 mm or larger since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Doseki would not operate differently with the spacing and since the skin-skin electrodes is intended to reside within the absorbent article with an approximate smallest space of 40 mm the device would function appropriately having the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing “is 40 mm or larger” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 6, Doseki teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Doseki does not explicitly disclose wherein the space between the at least one pair of the non-skin-side electrodes in the width direction is 40 mm or larger.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Doseki to have a space between the at least one pair of the non-skin-side electrodes in the width direction is 40 mm or larger since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Doseki would not operate differently with the spacing and since the non-skin-skin electrodes is intended to reside within the absorbent article with an approximate smallest space of 40 mm the device would function appropriately having the claimed spacing. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the spacing “is 40 mm or larger” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 7, Doseki further teaches wherein the skin- side electrodes and the non-skin-side electrodes detect presence or absence of excrement (the absorbent member body 20 of the embodiment includes electrodes 61, 62, 71, and 72 for detecting excrement, see pg. 4 paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Doseki further teaches wherein the liquid-permeable sheet (backsheet 40) is thicker than any of the skin-side electrodes and the non-skin-side electrodes (backsheet 40 is thicker than the electrodes 61,62 and 71,72, see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Doseki further teaches wherein in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent article (see below), end portions of each of the skin-side electrodes (see below) and each of the non-skin-side electrodes (see below) are disposed outside at least one of a front end and a back end of the liquid-absorbent body (see below), and
PNG
media_image2.png
590
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the longitudinal direction intersects the thickness direction in a stretched state of the absorbent article (see below).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doseki et al. (JP 2019141190 A) in view of Curran et al. (WO 2019090387 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Curran”.
Regarding Claim 8, Doseki teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and further teaches wherein each of the skin-side electrodes and each of the non-skin-side electrodes comprise: a conductive portion (electrodes 61,62 and 71,72 are conductive to produce power to electric power generation part 60 and second power generation unit 70, see pg. 5 paragraphs 6 and 9).
However, Doseki does not explicitly disclose a liquid-impermeable sheet member disposed overlaid on the conductive portion in the thickness direction.
Curran teaches an incontinence monitoring system (10, see Abstract) including a plurality of electrodes (110 and 112) on an absorbent article (25, see Figure 2a) and a liquid-impermeable sheet member disposed overlaid on the conductive portion (substrate 111 and 113 overlaid on electrodes 110 and 112, respectively, see Paragraph [0094] and [0099]) in the thickness direction (see Figure 3).
Doseki and Curran are analogous art because both teach an incontinence monitoring system including a plurality of electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the electrodes of Doseki and further include a liquid impermeable sheet member disposed overlaid on the conductive portion, as taught by Curran. Curran teaches water vapor permeating through the outer layer could alter the electrical properties of capacitive sensors printed or attached to the outer layer. To overcome this issue the water impermeable substrate layer can be located under the conductive electrodes (see Paragraph [0109]).
Regarding Claim 9, Doseki and Curran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Curran further teaches wherein each of the skin-side electrodes (110) and each of the non-skin-side electrodes (112) further comprise the liquid-impermeable sheet member (111 and 113).
However, Doseki and Curran do not explicitly disclose the liquid-impermeable sheet member positioned on an identical side in the thickness direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the liquid impermeable sheet member to be located on an identical side in the thickness direction, since the claims to an liquid impermeable sheet which read on the prior art expect with regard to the position of the liquid impermeable sheet would not have modified the operation of the device (protecting the electrodes from interference of fluid). The particular placement of the liquid impermeable sheet would be obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.). See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 10, Doseki and Curran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Curran further teaches wherein each of the skin-side electrodes and each of the non-skin-side electrodes further comprise the liquid-impermeable sheet member on the non- skin side in the thickness direction (substrate 111 is on the non-skin side and substrate 113 can be placed on the nonskin side, as described in rearrangement of parts claim 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Doseki and Curran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Curran further teaches wherein the liquid-impermeable sheet member is wider than any of the skin- side electrodes and the non-skin-side electrodes (substrate 111 may be designed to be a little wider than, the conductive electrodes 110, either individually or collectively, see Paragraph [0094]; substrate 113 may be either slightly wider than each conductive electrode 112 or slightly wider than the complete set of capacitive electrodes 112, see Paragraph [0109]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doseki and Curran as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ying et al. (WO 2018147803 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Ying”.
Regarding Claim 12, Doseki and Curran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8. However, Doseki and Curran do not explicitly teach wherein a liquid- impermeable region is disposed in at least a part of each of the skin-side electrodes and the non-skin-side electrodes, on a side in the thickness direction which is opposite to a side where the liquid-impermeable sheet member is disposed.
Ying teaches a liquid sensor for a diaper (see Abstract) comprising a liquid- impermeable region (film 502,) is disposed in at least a part of each of the electrodes (disposed next to electrochemical cells 500, see Figure 5), on a side in the thickness direction which is opposite to a side where the liquid-impermeable sheet member is disposed (on the opposite side of substrate 510, see Figure 5).
Doseki, Curran, and Ying are analogous art because all teach an incontinence device with a plurality of electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the skin-side electrodes and non-skin side electrodes of Modified Doseki and further include a liquid- impermeable region, as taught by Ying. Ying teaches the device is advantageous for ease of production, low cost, high signal-to-noise ratio, and compactness (see Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Doseki teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 12 and Doseki further teaches a longitudinal direction of the absorbent article (see above) and the longitudinal direction intersects the thickness direction in a stretched state of the absorbent article (see above). Ying further teaches an area of the liquid-impermeable region on a front side with respect to a center (area of the film 502 on the front side of electrochemical cell 500, see Figure 5) is larger than an area of the liquid-impermeable region on a back side with respect to the center (film 502 is larger than the area of the insulated substrate 510 on the back side of the electrochemical cells 500, see Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 08/07/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Doseki et al. (JP 2019141190 A).
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 ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT.
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 J. Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/ERIC RASSAVONG/ (12/8/2025)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781