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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Joseph does not disclose an oily gel formed from an oily substance that is liquid at room temperature, it is noted that Joseph discloses the same oily gel as required by the present claims, paraffin oil or polyisbutylene. Since Joseph discloses the same chemical compositions, their properties are inherently the same (see MPEP 2112.01(II)). Therefore, Joseph discloses an oily gel formed from an oily substance that is liquid at room temperature.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present specification demonstrate that the claimed combination of a saturated fatty acid-based oily gel and a surfactant-containing leuco dye composition behave differently than compositions lacking one or more of those elements, it is noted that modified Joseph does disclose all elements of the claimed composition.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Joseph discloses surfactants generally and does not suggest that surfactants would influence compatibility between a leudo dye and an oily gel, it is noted that Applicant is arguing features that are not present in the claims as currently written. The claims broadly recite a surfactant that is anionic or nonionic, and Joseph discloses the use of an anionic or nonionic surfactant.
With respect to the rejection under non-statutory double patenting, the amendment to the claims in the co-pending application obviate the double patenting rejection, and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph et al. (9,320,825) in view of Corzani et al. (2018/0110896).
With respect to claims 1, 3, and 21, Joseph discloses composition for a wetness indicator comprising an oily gel comprising an oily substance, paraffin oil or polyisobutylene, as disclosed in column 9, lines 22-24. Joseph does not disclose that paraffin oil or polyisobutylene is liquid at room temperature, but since it is the same chemical composition as claimed it inherently must have the same properties. The composition further comprises discloses a gelling agent, stearic acid, that is a saturated fatty acid having more than 16 carbon atoms, as disclosed in column 13, lines 31-45, and a wetness-sensitive colorant composition, as disclosed in column 3, lines 21-28, comprising a surfactant, as disclosed in column 10, lines 28-29.
Joseph discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the colorant composition comprising a leuco dye. Joseph discloses in column 1, lines 13-14, that the colorant composition may appear, and in column 6, lines 3-5, that the composition can be colorless initially, but remains silent as to the use of a leuco dye to achieve this. Corzani teaches the use of leuco dyes, and specifically triarylmethane dye, as disclosed in paragraph [0034], which are colorless prior to contact with water, as disclosed in paragraph [0014], as the colorant in a wetness indicator composition, as disclosed in paragraph [0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the colorant of Joseph a triarylmethane leuco dye, as taught by Corzani, to apply a known technique to a known device to achieve the predictable result of a wetness indicator that appears upon contact with liquid.
With respect to claim 4, the wetness-sensitive colorant of Joseph comprises a pH indicator, as disclosed in column 3, lines 24-25.
With respect to claim 5, Joseph discloses a wetness indicator comprising the composition, as disclosed in column 1, lines 34-37.
With respect to claim 6, Joseph discloses an absorbent article comprising the wet indicator, as disclosed in column 6-8.
With respect to claim 7, Joseph discloses the surfactant is a nonionic surfactant, as disclosed in column 11, lines 23-25.
With respect to claim 8, Joseph discloses the surfactant is an anionic surfactant, as disclosed in column 11, lines 14-16.
With respect to claims 9-12, Corzani further teaches that the leuco dye is an aminophthalide that is thermochromic, as disclosed in paragraphs [0027-0028], which develops an intense color, as disclosed in paragraph [0029]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the colorant of Joseph a thermochromic aminophthalide, as taught by Corzani, to provide a colorant that develops an intense color to achieve the predictable result of a wetness indicator that is easy for a user to view.
With respect to claim 16, Joseph discloses an embodiment in which the oily substance is polyisobutylene, as disclosed in column 9, lines 22-24.
With respect to claim 18, Joseph discloses the surfactant is a nonionic surfactant, as disclosed in column 11, lines 23-25.
With respect to claim 19, Joseph discloses the surfactant is an anionic surfactant, as disclosed in column 11, lines 14-16.
With respect to claim 20, Joseph discloses the surfactant is present in an amount of 1-30% of the total mass of the composition, as disclosed in column 10, lines 28-35.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph et al. (9,320,825) in view of Corzani et al. (2018/0110896), and further in view of Bommarito et al. (2016/0178553).
With respect to claim 14, modified Joseph discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the gelling agent being a three-dimensionally cross-linked gelling agent. Bommarito discloses a wetness indicating composition, as disclosed in paragraph [0053], and teaches using cross-linked gelling agents because they result in firmer materials capable of holding their shape, as disclosed in paragraph [0027]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the gelling agent of Joseph a cross-linked gelling agent, as taught by Bommarito, to achieve a gelling agent that is more capable of holding the shape of the material. With respect to the cross-linking being three-dimensional, any cross-linking of a three-dimensional material is considered to anticipate the claim limitation.
With respect to claim 15, modified Joseph discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a structural body including a cross-linked gelling agent with a liquid oily substance. Joseph discloses a liquid oily substance, as disclosed in column 9, lines 22-24, and gelling material, column 13, lines 31-45, but does not disclose the gelling agent is cross-linked. Bommarito discloses a wetness indicating composition, as disclosed in paragraph [0053], and teaches using cross-linked gelling agents because they result in firmer materials capable of holding their shape, as disclosed in paragraph [0027]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the gelling agent of Joseph a cross-linked gelling agent, as taught by Bommarito, to achieve a gelling agent that is more capable of holding the shape of the material.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph et al. (9,320,825) in view of Corzani et al. (2018/0110896), and further in view of Cohen et al. (2009/0326409).
With respect to claim 22, modified Joseph discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the gelling agent being 12-hydroxysteric acid. Joseph discloses in column 13, lines 31-45, that the gelling agent is stearic acid, but remains silent to 12-hydroxystearic acid. Cohen teaches the use of 12-hydroxystearic acid as functionally equivalent to stearic acid for use in a composition for indicating wetness in an absorbent article, as disclosed in paragraph [0057]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the gelling agent of Joseph to comprise 12-hydroxystearic acid since Cohen teaches the functional equivalence between 12-hydroxystearic acid and stearic acid for use in wetness indicating compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights