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 Arguments
The applicant argues that the 102 rejection of claims 1,17 is improper as Glithero fails to specifically disclose each and every limitation of said claims. Specifically, applicant argues that Glithero fails to teach “a dry adhesive region positioned on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening to interface a garment worn by the user”. Applicant argues that although the examiner asserts Glithero teaches a dry adhesive per paragraph 0047, the adhesive is stated only to be in “one or more potions of the fluid impermeable barrier” and thus does not clearly and unequivocally disclose that said adhesives in on the rear region. The examiner notes that paragraph 0047, as stated in the previous office action and by applicant, that the fluid impermeable barrier may include dry adhesives for securing to the garment. The examiner further points to figure 4 and more specifically 4a, where the fluid collection device can be seen interfacing with the garment. As the dry adhesives are configured to interface with the garment, it is interpreted that they would be located on “one or more portions” that contact the garment (thus not the opening). As the rear region at least partially distal to the opening is seen interfacing with the garment, it is interpreted that said region would be included in the “one or more portions” that comprise the adhesive, and thus the rejection is upheld. The same response is provided to the arguments regarding claim 17.
Regarding new claim 31, in a similar manner, the side opposite the opening (as seen in figure 4) interfaces with the garment. Thus, it is interpreted that said at least partially opposite portion is included in the “one or more regions” that comprise the dry adhesive, as the dry adhesive allows the fluid collection device to attach to the garment and said opposite region interfaces with the garment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,15-18,20-22,29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glithero et al. US 2020/0390591.
Regarding claim 1, Glithero discloses a fluid collection device (figure 1,2a,2b, 4a)), comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier (Figure 2B (102)) having a rear region and a front region (see figure 4a where the rear region is the end with tubing 108 extending out of, and the front region is the opposite region) at least partially defining an opening (Figure 2B (106)) and positioned on the fluid impermeable barrier to be at least proximate to a urethra of a user (para. 0006,0024), the fluid impermeable barrier further at least partially defining a chamber (106) and an aperture (124) sized and dimensioned to receive a conduit therethrough (108); a fluid permeable body (115, wicking material comprising support 120 and membrane 118, 0039-0040) positioned at least partially within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening and configured to wick fluid away from the opening (figure 2b, para. 0039); and a dry adhesive region positioned on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening to interface a garment worn by the user (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment).
Regarding claim 15, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the fluid collection device includes a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 16, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the rear region of the fluid collection device is generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar (figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 17, Glithero discloses a method of collecting fluid from a user, the method comprising:
positioning an opening (Figure 2B (106), Figure 9 (910)) of a fluid collection device at least proximate to a urethra of the user (para. 0006,0024), the fluid collection device (figure 1, 2a, 2b, 4a)including a fluid impermeable barrier (Figure 2B (102)) defining a chamber (106), the opening having fluid communication with the chamber (see figure 2b), and an aperture (124) having a conduit (108) extending therethrough in fluid communication with the chamber (figure 2b); positioning a garment on the user over the fluid collection device (figure 9 (920)) interfacing a dry adhesive region (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment, where the mechanical fasteners are interpreted as a dry adhesive) positioned on a rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening; and collecting fluid voided or discharged by the user in the chamber of the fluid collection device (figure 9 (930)).
Regarding claim 18, Glithero discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising securing the dry adhesive region to the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 17, para. 0047 discloses where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment, where the mechanical fasteners are interpreted as a dry adhesive. The examiner notes that as the dry adhesive is attached to or a part of the impermeable barrier, the dry adhesive is secured to the barrier.
Regarding claim 20, Glithero discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the fluid collection device includes a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 21, Glithero discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the rear region of the fluid collection is generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar (figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 22, Glithero discloses a method of forming a fluid collection device, the method comprising: forming a fluid impermeable barrier (para. 0026, 0045 where the device is sized and shaped for use with a female user) having a rear region and a front region (figure 1,2a,2b, 4a, see figure 4a where the rear region is the end with tubing 108 extending out of, and the front region is the opposite region) at least partially defining an opening (Figure 2B (106)) and positioned on the fluid impermeable barrier to be at least proximate to a urethra of a user (para. 0006,0024, see also figure 9 (910)), the fluid impermeable barrier further at least partially defining a chamber (106) and an aperture (124) sized and dimensioned to receive a conduit (108) therethrough (para. 0054); positioning a fluid permeable body at least partially within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening and configured to wick fluid away from the opening (para. 0040,0049 where the components of the permeable body (support (120) and membrane (118) are positioned); and positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially distal to the opening to interface a garment worn by the user (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment).
Regarding claim 29, Glithero discloses the method of claim 22, wherein forming a fluid impermeable barrier includes forming the fluid impermeable barrier having a generally cylindrical shape such that the front region and the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier are generally arched (figure 2b) and the dry adhesive region arcs complementary to the rear region after positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier (para. 0047, where the barrier may include various types of adhesives (including hook and loop (therefore dry) to attach to a garment). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to arched along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive arcs complementary to the rear region as well.
Regarding claim 30, Glithero discloses the method claim 22, wherein forming a fluid impermeable barrier includes forming the fluid impermeable barrier with the rear region of being generally planar such that the dry adhesive region is generally planar after positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier (figure 2a, where the device can be seen to be generally planar). The examiner notes that as the barrier may include the fastening means (including hook and loop) and the barrier is seen in figure 2 to planar along the length, it is interpreted that the dry adhesive is planar as well.
Regarding claim 31, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the dry adhesive region is positioned at least partially opposite to the opening and configured to at least partially adhere to an inside surface of clothing worn by the user. The examiner notes that per paragraph 0047, the device of Glithero may include various types of adhesives to attach to a garment. . The examiner further points to figure 4,4a, where the fluid collection device can be seen interfacing with the garment. As the dry adhesives are configured to interface with the garment, it is interpreted that they would be located on “one or more portions” that contact the garment (thus not the opening). As the region opposite the opening seen in figure 4,4a interfaces with the garment, it is interpreted that said region would be included in the “one or more portions” that comprise the adhesive. The examiner notes that it can further be seen in figure 4 that the device is surrounded by the fabric within port (44). Therefore at least a portion of the device adheres to an inside surface (inner surface of port (44) seen in figure 4a) of a garment worn by a user and thus is interpreted to at least partially adhere to said inside surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2,7,9-10,12-14,19,23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glithero in view of Lindsay et al. 2005/0148984, hereafter Lindsay.
Regarding claim 2, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the dry adhesive region includes a biomimetic dry adhesive region.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 7, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the dry adhesive region includes at least micro or nanometer-scaled brushes.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics. Said hairs are interpreted to be brushes.
Regarding claim 9, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the dry adhesive region includes micro-scaled patterned material or nanometer-scaled patterned material.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a patterned gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding Claim 10, Glithero and Lindsay teach, the fluid collection device of claim 9, wherein the micro-scaled patterned material or the nanometer-scaled patterned material includes polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars (paragraph 0036, figure 3 of Lindsay).
Regarding claim 12, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1 wherein the dry adhesive region is a dry adhesive patch secured to the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the button fastening may be interpreted as a dry adhesive patch secured to the barrier, as the claim as currently written does not require the biomimetic structure, in an effort to achieve compact prosecution and clarity, the examiner also provides a rejection of claim 12 in view of Lindsay.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. As seen in Lindsay figure 3, patches (50) are applied to the base layer (70) to attach the gecko like structures (para. 0051). Therefore the gecko-like structures are attached to a patch where the patch is attached to the base layer. Further, per paragraph 0096 of Lindsay the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a patterned gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 13, Glithero and Lindsay teach the fluid collection device of claim 12, wherein the dry adhesive patch is secured to the fluid impermeable barrier with at least one of an adhesive or welding. The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 12, paragraph 0096 of Lindsay teaches that the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives.
Regarding claim 14, Glithero discloses the fluid collection device of claim 1, wherein the dry adhesive region is integrally formed with the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that while the hook and look fastening may be interpreted as the adhesive integrally formed with the barrier, as the claim as currently written does not require the biomimetic structure, in an effort to achieve compact prosecution and clarity, the examiner also provides a rejection of claim 14 in view of Lindsay.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. As seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the hairs of the adhesive of Lindsay are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore the gecko-like structures are interpreted to be integrally formed with the base material. Further, per paragraph 0096 of Lindsay the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a patterned gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 19, Glithero discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the dry adhesive region includes one or more of: a biomimetic dry adhesive region; micro-scaled patterned wedges or nanometer-scaled wedges; hierarchical polymer micro-scaled hairs or nanometer-scaled hairs; wall-shaped hierarchical micro-scaled structures or nanometer-scaled structures; one or more micro-scaled fibrillar structures or nanometer-scaled fibrillar structures; micro-scaled brushes or nanometer-scaled brushes; micro-scaled mushroom shaped structures or nanometer-scaled mushroom shaped structures; micro-scaled patterned material or nanometer-scaled patterned material having polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars; and/or micro or nanometer-scaled tubes.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics. Said hairs are interpreted to be brushes.
Regarding claim 23, Glithero discloses the method of claim 22, but fails to disclose the method further comprising micro or nanopatterning geometric shapes with lithography or laser to form the dry adhesive region.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics. As seen in figure 1, as the shape of the hairs are defined, it is interpreted that they are geometric shapes.
The examiner notes that per paragraph 0056 and 0061 of Lindsay, the gecko patterning is taught to be made from known methods, including lithography. Therefore as it was found obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of simple substitution, to use the gecko-like adhesive as the adhesive means of Glithero, it would have further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the gecko-like adhesive by means of lithography as lithography is a known patterning technique used for creating said structures, as taught by Lindsay.
Regarding claim 24, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 23, wherein positioning the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes securing a patch including the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier after micro or nanopatterning geometric shapes on the patch to form the dry adhesive region. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 23, the gecko-like structures were formed from lithography.
Lindsay further teaches that, patches (50) are applied to the base layer (70) to attach the gecko like structures (para. 0051), see figure 3. Therefore the gecko-like structures are attached to a patch where the patch is attached to the base layer, and as such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the structures on the patch, where said patch is attached to a base layer, as Lindsay teaches that this is a known method for attached the adhesive structures to the base layer.
Regarding claim 25, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 23, wherein micro or nanopatterning the geometric shapes to form the dry adhesive region includes micro or nanopatterning the geometric shapes directly on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier to form the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier. The examiner notes that as seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the adhesive structures, taught to be formed using lithography, are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore it is interpreted that the structures are formed directly on the substrate.
Regarding claim 26, Glithero discloses the method of claim 22, wherein positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes securing a patch including the dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. As seen in Lindsay figure 3, patches (50) are applied to the base layer (70) to attach the gecko like structures (para. 0051). Therefore the gecko-like structures are attached to a patch where the patch is attached to the base layer. Further, per paragraph 0096 of Lindsay the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a patterned gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 27, Glithero discloses the method of claim 22, wherein positioning a dry adhesive region on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier includes integrally forming the dry adhesive region directly on the rear region of the fluid impermeable barrier.
Lindsay teaches an absorbent article for urine and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Lindsay teaches the use of an adhesive structure for fastening to another material, where said adhesive structure are gecko-like adhesive hairs scaled to a micro level (para. 0036). Further, per paragraph 0093, the gecko-like structures are taught to be a suitable replacement for hook and loop fasteners, as Lindsay teaches that when not available, the gecko adhesive may instead be a conventional hook and loop adhesive. As seen in figure 1 of Lindsay and per paragraph 0036, the hairs may be patterned. As seen in Lindsay figure 2A, the hairs of the adhesive of Lindsay are attached directly to the substrate material (42). Therefore the gecko-like structures are interpreted to be integrally formed with the base material. Further, per paragraph 0096 of Lindsay the fastening assembly, which as previously taught, comprises the hairs and thus the patches, can be bonded to the article using welds of adhesives. Therefore, as Lindsay teaches that a suitable substitute for conventional hook and loop fasteners may be a patterned gecko-like adhesive, and Glithero teaches that conventional mechanical adhesives may be used to secure the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gecko like adhesive structure as a matter of simple substitution, as said substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, adhesion between fabrics.
Regarding claim 28, Glithero and Lindsay teach the method of claim 27, wherein the dry adhesive region includes one or more of: a biomimetic dry adhesive region; micro or nanometer-scaled wedges; hierarchical polymer micro or nanometer-scaled hairs; wall-shaped hierarchical micro or nanometer-scaled structures; one or more micro or nanometer-scaled fibrillar structures; micro or nanometer-scaled brushes; micro or nanometer-scaled mushroom shaped structures; micro or nanometer-scaled patterned material having polygonal or round patterns, round or polygonal dimples, and/or polygonal or round pillars; and/or micro or nanometer-scaled tubes. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 27, the structures of Lindsay are taught to be micron scaled, biomimetic (gecko-like), patterned hairs.
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 Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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, 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781