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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolby Falk (US 2002/0065497) and further in view of Osterdahl et al. (US 2002/0087133).
With reference to claims 1, 4-5 and 7, Kolby-Falk (hereinafter “Falk”) discloses a feminine hygiene product (101) comprising:
a top layer (302), wherein an outer peripheral edge of the top layer comprises an adhesive (see [0038] where it is disclosed that layers are connected via gluing);
a base layer (303);
a protrusion formed in the top layer (figure 4), the protrusion having a primary channel (320), wherein the protrusion is configured to be inserted within an orifice of a user [0010,0043];
a fluid absorbing section (315), wherein the fluid absorbing section comprises a plurality of fluid channels (320), wherein the plurality of fluid channels are configured to wick fluid away from the primary channel of the protrusion and wherein the primary channel of the protrusion is positioned within the fluid absorbing section as set forth in [0055].
Falk also discloses a reservoir section that is positioned at a distal opening of the primary channel of the protrusion, and wherein the reservoir section comprises a cavity (313), an absorbent material (314) as shown in figure 4.
The difference between Falk and claim 1 is the provision that the fluid absorbing section comprises a non-woven, low-swelling, absorbent polymer, wherein the plurality of fluid channels have a gradient of absorbency, and a highest absorbency is distal from a proximal opening of the primary channel wherein the reservoir section comprises a medicament.
Osterdahl et al. (hereinafter “Osterdahl”) teaches an analogous feminine hygiene product that includes a hump-forming element that may include several types of absorbent material, including non-woven, low-swelling, absorbent polymers, as set forth in [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the channels of Falk to include the desired configuration of the types of absorbent material as taught by Osterdahl in order to achieve the desired balance of fluid retention and leakage prevention as taught by Osterdahl in [0007].
Additionally, Osterdahl teaches the incorporation of an antibacterial (cl. 4) medicament in the top layer (cl. 5, cl. 7) in [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the product of Falk with the medicament as taught by Osterdahl in order to provide the desired active substance in direct contact with the user as taught by Osterdahl in [0048].
As to claim 2, Falk discloses a feminine hygiene product further comprising: a longitudinal ridge formed in the top layer extending lengthwise along the base layer, wherein an anterior crest of the longitudinal ridge comprises an absorbent material (504) as shown in figure 6.
With reference to claim 3, Falk teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Falk and claim 3 is the provision that the product includes an exterior cover layer configured to fit over the top layer.
Osterdahl teaches an analogous feminine hygiene product that includes an exterior cover layer (50) configured to fit over the top layer as shown in figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the product of Falk with the exterior cover layer as taught by Osterdahl in order to provide the product with a safety zone as taught by Osterdahl in [0031].
With reference to claim 6, Falk teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Falk and claim 6 is the provision that the plurality of fluid channels comprise a gradient ratio of cellulose pulp to absorbent polymer.
Osterdahl teaches an analogous feminine hygiene product that includes a hump-forming element that may include several types of absorbent material, including non-woven, low-swelling, absorbent polymers, as set forth in [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gradient ratio of cellulose pulp to absorbent polymer of Falk to include the desired configuration of the types of absorbent material as taught by Osterdahl in order to achieve the desired balance of fluid retention and leakage prevention as taught by Osterdahl in [0007].
With respect to claim 8, Falk discloses a feminine hygiene product wherein the absorbent material of the reservoir section is porous as set forth in [0059] through the disclosure of open celled foam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a feminine hygiene product having a protrusion formed in the top layer wherein the protrusion has and a fluid absorbing section comprises a plurality of fluid channels wherein each of the plurality of fluid channels comprises a material having an absorption metric wherein a first fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels has a material having a first absorption metric and a second fluid channel of the plurality of fluid channels has a material having a second absorption metric wherein the first absorption metric is greater than the second absorption metric and wherein the product includes a reservoir section positioned between the top layer and the base layer wherein the reservoir section comprises a cavity, an absorbent material, and a medicament, and a heating device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Widlund (US 7,368,627) discloses an absorbent articling including surface property treatments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-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, 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781