Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/066,144

Stay Guard Sure Pad

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner
SU, SUSAN SHAN
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
792 granted / 1104 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1104 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 are pending, of which claims 1, 5, 7, 8, & 12 are amended and claims 14-15 are new. Claims 2-3 & 6 are canceled by the Amendment filed on 9/15/2025. All pending claims are examined on the merits. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference discloses emboss 8 to be “protruding” (e.g., in [0057] of Konawa) and therefore cannot be considered as grooves as required by the claim language. Examiner respectfully contends that Applicant has mis-interpreted the intended meaning of “protruding” as used by the Konawa reference. The reference intends for the term “protruding” to mean that the emboss(ment) curves away from the longitudinal centerline of the article before curving back towards the longitudinal centerline. This is evidenced by Konawa in two places as explained in more details below. First, in [0057], the disclosure specifically points to only segments of the continuous emboss 8, rather than the entire emboss, as being “protruding.” As clearly shown in Figs. 8 & 9(A) and disclosed in [0061], these “protruding” segments (8c & 8e) are different from the rest of the emboss(ment) in that they are the segments that curve away from the longitudinal centerline of the article. Fig. 9(A) also clearly points out inflection points where the curvature of the emboss(ment) changes, resulting in the intermediate arcuate-shaped emboss 8d joining the two “protruding” emboss 8c & 8e together. This supports the interpretation that “protruding” means the emboss(ment) is curving away from the longitudinal centerline of article. Second, Fig. 2 of Konawa is a cross-sectional view of Fig. 1 taken at line II-II. In Fig. 1, it is very clear that line II-II cuts across the center high portion 6 and the emboss 8 forming the peripheral boundary that defines the center high portion 6. In Fig. 2, the cross-sectional view shows that there are depressions immediately to the left and right of the center high portion 6. The locations of these depressions correspond well to the location of emboss 8 shown in Fig. 1, thus further supporting that the emboss 8 is a depression/groove on the top surface of the article. Other than the current evidence from the Konawa reference, Examiner notes that Konawa was a U.S. national stage of a PCT filed in Japan and the corresponding WIPO publication was in Japanese and claims benefit to an earlier-filed Japanese patent application. Examiner believes that the English version of this family of patents may not capture the original intended meaning of the word as a result of translation. The corresponding Japanese publication (the first-filed patent application in this family), namely JP 2006345909, a different translation, which is attached as a reference to this Office Action, describes the embosses 8c & 8e as “bulge shaped” while the adjacent emboss segment 8b that curves toward the longitudinal centerline of the article is “reduced shape.” This is consistent with what is shown in the figures as being segments that curve away, and thus bulge, from the article’s longitudinal centerline. Lastly, in the field of absorbent articles, emboss(ment) has always been understood to be depressions in the surface. This is evidenced in numerous absorbent article patents publications, e.g., US 20040267220 ([0038]), US 20060025733 ([0025]), US 0060041239 ([0002]). Note that these publications are cited purely for establishing the level of knowledge and understanding of emboss(ment) in the area of absorbent articles. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Konawa discloses embosses that are grooves and therefore meet the current claim language. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Re Claim 1, the word “portion” is missing from immediately after the italicized terms in “the second peripheral defines a second groove separating the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, Claim 1 recites “the second peripheral [portion] defines a second groove separating the first peripheral portion and the second peripheral portion.” This is confusing because it is not understood how a portion forms a groove that separates itself from another portion. For examination, Examiner interprets this limitation to read “the second peripheral portion defines a second groove separating the raised first barrier and a raised second barrier, wherein the second barrier surrounds the second groove.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konawa (US 2009/0326502). Re Claim 8, Konawa discloses a sanitary pad (1) for absorbing human exudate, the sanitary pad having a first surface and a second surface disposed opposite to the first surface, the sanitary pad comprising: a raised portion (first raised portion R1) disposed substantially centrally to the sanitary pad and extending outwardly from the first surface, the raised portion is adapted to be inserted, at least partially, within a vestibule of a wearer for facilitating an absorption of menstrual fluid, wherein the insertion of the raised portion facilitates an alignment and securing of the sanitary pad with the vestibule (e.g., [0069] “the raised portion R1 comes into tight contact with the portion near the blood discharge opening, so that menstrual blood or the like is absorbed”); a first peripheral portion having a first barrier (the area between emboss 8 and embosses 9, 10, & 11 can be considered as a barrier because it interrupts, in combination with emboss 8, any radially outward flow of fluid received at raised portion R1) and a first groove (emboss 8) disposed surrounding the raised portion; and a second peripheral portion having a second barrier (area that is radially outside of embosses 9, 10, & 11) and a second groove (embosses 9, 10, & 11) disposed spaced apart from the first groove and surrounding the first groove. Re Claim 10, Konawa discloses claim 8 and wherein the raised portion includes a base having a substantially elliptical shape (see Fig. 10) including a major axis aligned with a longitudinal axis of the sanitary pad. 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. Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konawa in view of Hill (US 2013/0053808). Re Claim 1, Konawa discloses a sanitary pad (sanitary napkin 1, see e.g., Figs. 1 & 10) for absorbing human exudate, the sanitary pad having an elongated structure (the entire pad has an elongated shape because its front-rear dimension is clearly longer than its left-right dimension), the elongated structure having a first surface (top user-facing surface of the article) and a second surface (bottom garment-facing surface of the article) disposed opposite to the first surface, the sanitary pad consisting of: a first raised portion (first raised portion R1) disposed substantially centrally to the elongated structure (see Fig. 1) and extending outwardly from the first surface, the first raised portion is adapted to be inserted, at least partially, within a vestibule of a wearer for facilitating an absorption of menstrual fluid, wherein the insertion of the first raised portion facilitates an alignment and securing of the sanitary pad with the vestibule (e.g., [0069] “the raised portion R1 comes into tight contact with the portion near the blood discharge opening, so that menstrual blood or the like is absorbed”); a left flap and a right flap (wing flaps W, see e.g., Fig. 1) extending from left and right sides of the elongated structure respectively; a first peripheral portion which defines a first groove (emboss 8) disposed spaced apart from the first raised portion (e.g., Fig. 1) and extending along an entire periphery (also see e.g., Fig. 1) of the first raised portion, surrounding the first groove is a raised first barrier (the area between emboss 8 and embosses 9, 10, & 11 can be considered as a barrier because it interrupts, in combination with emboss 8, any radially outward flow of fluid received at raised portion R1); a second peripheral portion disposed surrounding the first peripheral portion, the second peripheral portion defines a second groove (embosses 9, 10, & 11) separating the raised first barrier and a raised second barrier (area that is radially outside of embosses 9, 10, & 11), wherein the second barrier surrounds the second groove; a second raised portion (R2) disposed spaced apart from the first raised portion and extending outwardly from the first surface (e.g., Fig. 9(B)); a top layer (top sheet 3, [0040]) defining the first surface; a second layer (back sheet 2, [0040]) defining the second surface; a third layer (absorbent member 4, [0040]) made of absorbent material sandwiched between the first layer and the second layer; and a plurality of adhesive strips (at minimum adhesives 12 & 13) coupled to the second surface. Konawa does not disclose that the second raised portion is disposed proximate to a second longitudinal end of the sanitary pad and is adapted for insertion, at least partially, into an anal region of the wearer. The second raised portion of Konawa is designed to be disposed at the pudendal region of the user rather than being for insertion into an anal region of the wearer. Hill discloses a sanitary napkin (e.g., Fig. 1) having both a front raised portion (14) and a rear raised portion (28), wherein the rear raised portion extends from a pudendal region of the user to a rear end of the pad and is adapted for insertion into an anal region of the wearer (see e.g., [0019] “rearward raise peaked absorbent portion 28 extending from 46 rear gradual raise and 46 generally begins in the pudendal cleft rearward portion of the labia adjacent the vestibule and extends to the perineum and slightly ending at the tip before entering between the buttocks”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the raised portion of Konawa with the teaching of Hill such that there is a greater/better chance of capturing fluid that flows rearward from the first raised portion. Re Claim 5, Konawa discloses claim 1 and wherein the raised portion is of a substantially elliptical shape (see Fig. 10) including a major axis aligned with a longitudinal axis of the sanitary pad. Re Claim 11, Konawa discloses claim 8, and further disclosing wherein the raised portion is a first raised portion (R1) and the sanitary pad further includes a second raised portion (R2) spaced apart from the first raised portion and extending outwardly from the first surface. Konawa does not disclose that the second raised portion is disposed proximate to a second longitudinal end of the sanitary pad and is adapted for insertion, at least partially, into an anal region of the wearer. The second raised portion of Konawa is designed to be disposed at the pudendal region of the user rather than being for insertion into an anal region of the wearer. Hill discloses a sanitary napkin (e.g., Fig. 1) having both a front raised portion (14) and a rear raised portion (28), wherein the rear raised portion extends from a pudendal region of the user to a rear end of the pad and is adapted for insertion into an anal region of the wearer (see e.g., [0019] “rearward raise peaked absorbent portion 28 extending from 46 rear gradual raise and 46 generally begins in the pudendal cleft rearward portion of the labia adjacent the vestibule and extends to the perineum and slightly ending at the tip before entering between the buttocks”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the raised portion of Konawa with the teaching of Hill such that there is a greater/better chance of capturing fluid that flows rearward from the first raised portion. Re Claims 7 & 12, Konawa and Hill combine to teach claim 1 or 11, and both references also disclose the second raised portion is protruding in shape, and aligns with the first raised portion in a longitudinal direction (see e.g., Fig. 10 in Konawa and Fig. 1 in Hill). While Hill does not disclose that the second raised portion is elliptical, mere changes in shape requires only routine skilled in the art. Since Konawa already points to elliptical raised portions, it is likely that one skilled in the art would find it obvious to also utilize an elliptical shape even when extending the second raised portion into the gluteal cleft of the user. Re Claim 15, Konawa also discloses that the first layer is liquid permeable and the second layer is liquid impermeable (top sheet 3 and back sheet 2, [0040]). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konawa and Hill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Luccio et al. (US 2002/0087129). Re Claim 4, Konawa and Hill combine to disclose claim 1, but they do not teach wherein the raised portion includes a plurality of microdots extending outwardly from an outer surface of the raised portion. Di Luccio discloses applying microdots (44, [0051] discloses individual dots comprise 3 picoliters of medicament) of medicament composition onto a topsheet of a personal care article (see Fig. 2 where dots 44 are applied onto topsheet 40), where the dots protrude from an outer surface of the topsheet and the dots can be applied to body-contacting regions of the topsheet ([0044]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Konawa by adding the microdots of medicament to the topsheet region that is in intimate contact with the skin, as taught by Di Luccio, because the medicament can reduce skin irritation frequently associated with wearing a disposable absorbent article (e.g., [0002] of Di Luccio). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konawa in view of Di Luccio. Re Claim 9, Konawa discloses claim 8, but does not teach wherein the raised portion includes a plurality of microdots extending outwardly from an outer surface of the raised portion. Di Luccio discloses applying microdots (44, [0051] discloses individual dots comprise 3 picoliters of medicament) of medicament composition onto a topsheet of a personal care article (see Fig. 2 where dots 44 are applied onto topsheet 40), where the dots protrude from an outer surface of the topsheet and the dots can be applied to body-contacting regions of the topsheet ([0044]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Konawa by adding the microdots of medicament to the topsheet region that is in intimate contact with the skin, as taught by Di Luccio, because the medicament can reduce skin irritation frequently associated with wearing a disposable absorbent article (e.g., [0002] of Di Luccio). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konawa and Hill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salone et al. (US 2004/0068244). Re Claim 14, Konawa and Hill combine to disclose claim 1 but they do not disclose wherein each of the left flap and the right flap comprises two wing shape flaps separated by a predefined gap. Salone discloses a sanitary napkin with a flap on each side of the pad for attaching the pad to an underwear, wherein each flap comprises two wing shape flaps separated by a gap (clearly shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the flaps of Konawa with those taught in Salone because doing so can allow the pad to adhere firmly to the underwear with less bunching of the flaps. 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 SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is (408)918-7575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 Pacific. 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 at 571-270-5879. 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. /SUSAN S SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 15 December 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 25, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 25, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599511
Absorbent Article
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599214
Itch Pick Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589196
SYSTEMS, DEVICES AND METHODS FOR DRAINING AND ANALYZING BODILY FLUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582743
BLOOD EXTRACTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576181
HEMOSTATIC SPONGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+23.2%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1104 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month