DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected and species according to Figure 4A rather than the elected species according to Figure 4B.
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.
Claim 19 is 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. The claim recites wherein the inner layer with porous structure includes “pores that do not penetrate the inner layer.” However, a pore is by definition a penetration in some body. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis et al. (10,624,519).
Regarding claim 1, David teaches an absorber for absorbing liquid discharged from a liquid discharge head, the absorber comprising three or more laminated layers, the three or more laminated layers including:
an uppermost layer (fig. 1, item 11) of nonwoven fabric having through holes that penetrate through the uppermost layer in a lamination direction in which the laminated lavers are laminated (col. 3, lines 24-65);
a lowermost layer (fig. 1, item 13) of nonwoven fabric having through holes that penetrate through the lowermost layer in the lamination direction (col. 3, lines 24-65); and
an inner layer (fig. 1, item 12) between the uppermost layer and the lowermost layer, the inner layer having a porous structure higher in liquid absorption capacity than each of the uppermost layer and the lowermost layer (col. 3, lines 24-65, Note that there are necessarily through holes in layers 11, 13 for liquid to be able to be absorbed by layer 12. Note that the “liquid discharge head” language is in the preamble and is not considered binding).
Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the absorber absorbs liquid not contributing to image formation (Note that the absorber can be used to absorb any liquid).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer is a dry nonwoven fabric web or a dry nonwoven fabric mat containing natural cellulose fibers and has an apparent density of 0.08 g/cm’ or more and 0.50 g/cm’ or less (col. 7, lines 35-45, Note that “apparent density” has not been defined in the claim. The density of the prior art absorbent layer 12 is apparently within the claimed range).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the prior art discloses the same absorbent with the same layers constructed of the same materials, but the claim now adds a range of “apparent densities” of the inner layer. However, it would appear this range has been obtained through routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein each of the uppermost layer and the lowermost layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm or more and 0.8 mm or less (col. 5, lines 65-67, col. 6, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 5, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer has a thickness of 4.5 mm or more (col. 7, lines 47-55).
Regarding claim 6, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer is an air-laid nonwoven fabric (col. 6, line 34).
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer has holes on a surface facing the uppermost layer and a surface facing the lowermost layer, and wherein the holes have a depth of one-third or less with respect to a thickness of the inner layer without penetrating through the inner layer (Note that cellulose layer can be composed of a paper, paper has pores on both sides, and the pores do not penetrate paper by more than a small portion of the thickness of the paper).
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04, where the general conditions of a claim are present in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges via routine experimentation. Here, the prior art discloses the same absorbent with the same layers constructed of the same materials, but the claim now adds a range of penetrations of pores in paper. However, it would appear this range has been obtained through routine experimentation and thus is not inventive.
Regarding claim 8, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 7, wherein the holes on the surface of the inner layer facing the uppermost layer are at same positions as the through holes of the uppermost layer, and the holes on the surface of the inner laver facing the lowermost layer are at same positions as the through holes of the lowermost layer (Note that paper has many more pores than the uppermost and lowermost layers have through holes, and thus each through hole of the uppermost and lowermost layers would align with at least one pore in the paper).
Regarding claim 13, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the uppermost layer and the inner layer are bonded or fixed by a heat-fusible substance, and the lowermost layer and the inner layer are bonded or fixed by a heat-fusible substance (cols. 7, 8, lines 61-41).
Regarding claim 19 Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1, wherein the inner layer with the porous structure includes pores that do not penetrate the inner layer (see 112 rejection).
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) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Dobos et al. (6,168,800).
Regarding claim 21, Davis teaches the absorber according to claim 1. Davis does not teach wherein the through holes of the uppermost layer and the lowermost layer are conical shaped. Dobos teaches an outer layer with cone-shaped through holes (Dobos, cols. 3-4, lines 66-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the outer layers Davis with conical shaped through holes, as disclosed by Dobos, because doing so would restrict backflow of liquid from the outer layers.
Examiner is aware that Dobos is directed to a medical wrap while Davis is not specific as to what its absorbent is to be used for. Nonetheless, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to apply Dobos’ conical shaped through holes to the outer layers of any absorbent article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Davis does not teach the claimed through holes because, according to Applicant, “by the words used in the claims, a through hole is a hole which goes completely through the layer.” Examiner does not see any basis for this statement. The language requiring a through hole to go completely through a layer is not found in independent claim 1. Alternatively, one could argue that for liquid to be able to travel completely through a layer, there is necessarily a through hole that goes completely through the layer, even if that through hole has a non-linear path.
Applicant further asserts that inherency has not been properly established. Examiner has not invoked inherency. A non-woven absorbent layer of the type disclosed by Davis has through holes penetrating completely and partially through the layers 11 and 13. Any absorbent layer has such through holes.
The standing prior art rejection is maintained.
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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853