DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 6, 12, 19, 21 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and/or article, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 11, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13-18, 20 and 23 in the reply filed on November 11, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have consulted a reference concerned with wicking and evaporation of moisture when seeking to provide a fluid containment layer to absorb, hold and/or controllably release a liquid or gel and no evidence of search burden between species has been made. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim requires the layer to either absorb, hold, release or combinations of these functions, which includes the functions of Thompson and the instantly filed specification additionally includes wicking layers in various embodiments (See paragraphs [0056]-[0060]). Furthermore, as set forth below the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 13-15, 17-18, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2017/001532 to Russel.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 13-15, 17, 20 and 23
Russel teaches an article comprising a fluid containment layer having a plurality of generally vertically oriented fibers when in an uncompressed state in the thickness direction with a vertically lapped structure such as materials manufactured using V-lap or STRUTO systems (Russel, abstract, paragraph [0011]-[0012]). Russel teaches that the fluid containment layer is adapted to absorb, hold, controllable release or a combination thereof, a liquid or gel, such as utilizing superabsorbent fibers such as PET (Id., paragraph [0006], [0014], [0025], [0036]). Russel teaches the layer may be used in a pad and in disinfecting of surfaces (Id., paragraph [0006], [0105]). Russel teaches that the allows for even distribution of the liquid or gel and free-movement within the layer (Id., paragraphs [0050], [0125]). Russel teaches that the layer may be generally planar (Id., paragraph [0017]). Russel teaches that the fluid may be reabsorbed (refillable) (Id., paragraphs [0031], [0056]).
Russel teaches that the fluid containment layer has a resiliency between 99-100% and the fibers have a spring like crimp but does not specifically state the layer would return to its original shape upon release of pressure applied thereto or that the layer is resistant to sag at its saturation point (Id., paragraph [0052]). However, the claimed properties would naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Russel reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention (i.e. V-lap layer comprising PET fibers). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding the limitation of being suitable for use in a self-disinfecting pad for controlled release of the liquid or gel and wherein the liquid or gel is a disinfecting liquid or gel, this limitation is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case the fluid containment layer of the prior art is suitable for use as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18
Regarding the limitation of the layer being formed by an air laying process, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russel as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-15, 17-18, 20 and 23, in view of WO-00/27271 to Policicchio.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 10-11
Russel does not appear to teach a gradient density structure. However, Policicchio teaches a cleaning pad comprising a single layer continuous density gradient configuration in the thickness direction increasing from one surface to the other and allowing the different portions to hold different amounts of fluid (Policicchio, abstract, pages 59-61). Policicchio teaches that such a configuration provides improved time required to transfer fluids and improved distribution of the fluids (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fluid containment layer of Russel and to include the single layer gradient structure of Policicchio, motivated by the desire to form a conventional liquid containment layer having improved fluid transfer and distribution.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russel as applied to claims 1, 3, 13-15, 17-18, 20 and 23, in view of WO-00/27271 to Koike.
Regarding Claim 16
Russel teaches that the layer may contain a solid but does not appear to specifically teach the inclusion of a powder. However, Koike teaches an antimicrobial powder gel-forming mixture for use in pads and absorbent materials (Koike, abstract, page 3). Koike teaches that said powder improves antimicrobial and antibacterial properties of the substrate (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the fluid containment layer of Russel and to include the gel-forming powder component of Koike, motivated by the desire to form a conventional liquid containment layer having improved antimicrobial and antibacterial properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786