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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 17-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764).
With reference to claim 1, Johnston et al. (hereinafter “Johnston”) discloses underwear for a female wearer [0016], the underwear comprising:
a rear-side fabric-region that is configured to cover at least some of buttocks of the female wearer, a front-side fabric-region that is generally opposite said rear-side fabric-region and that is configured to cover at least some of a pelvis of the female wearer and a gusset fabric-region that is configured to cover genitalia and/or crotch of the female wearer (figure 1);
wherein a body-facing side of the gusset fabric-region, comprises a fabric-based Passepartout frame element (34) which holds in place therein a fabric-based leak-protection pad that absorbs fluids and prevents fluid leaks as set forth in [0065].
As to claim 2, Johnston discloses underwear wherein the fabric-based Passepartout frame element comprises a fabric-based border element, having an inner aperture that has an area that is smaller than an area of the fabric-based leak-protection pad, to enable said fabric-based border element of said fabric-based Passepartout frame element to hold in place the fabric-based leak-protection pad as set forth in [0065] and as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 6, Johnston discloses underwear wherein the fabric-based Passepartout frame element holds in place the fabric-based leak-protection pad in a user-removable manner [0065],
Wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad is manually removable from within the fabric-based border element of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element as set forth in [0065].
As to claim 8, Johnston discloses underwear wherein fabric-based leak-protection pad is removable as set forth in [0065]. The pad is fully capable of being disposable and discarded to enable insertion of another pad.
With respect to claim 17, Johnston discloses underwear wherein the fabric-based Passepartout frame element is entirely seam-less (figure 12), and is connected to said gusset fabric-region via a seam-less connection as set forth in [0117].
As to claim 18, Johnson discloses underwear wherein at least an entirety of a body-facing side of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element, is seam-less and does not have any seams and/or stitches that touch a body of the female wearer as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 19, Johnston discloses underwear wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad is entirely seam-less, and does not have any seams that touch a body of the female wearer as shown in figure 35.
Regarding claim 20, Johnston discloses underwear wherein at least an entirety of a body-facing side of the fabric-based leak-protection pad, is seam-less and does not have any seams and/or stitches that touch a body of the female wearer as shown in figure 35.
As to claim 22, Johnston discloses underwear wherein the fabric-based Passepartout frame element, is integrally and non-removably connected to an inner side of said underwear via a seam-less, stitch-less, lamination-based (i.e., pressure bonded, thermal bonded or ultrasonic bonded) connection as set forth in [0117].
With respect to claim 23, Johnston discloses underwear of wherein the fabric-based Passepartout frame element is integrally and non-removably connected to an inner side of said underwear via a seam-less, stitch-less, glue-based (i.e., adhesive) connection as set forth in [0117].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) and further in view of Bechert et al. (US 2007/0213679).
With reference to claim 3, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 3 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least a fabric-portion that is a Silver Ionized fabric-region that was treated with or augmented with Silver Ions.
Bechert et al. (hereinafter “Bechert”) teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least a fabric-portion that is a Silver Ionized fabric-region that was treated with or augmented with Silver Ions as set forth in [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with silver ions in order to prevent the growth of microorganisms as taught by Bechert in [0030].
Claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) and further in view of Kajanthan et al. (US 2021/0177676).
With reference to claims 4 and 13, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claims 4 and 13 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least a fabric-portion that is a fabric-region or only the sandwiched fabric based layer (cl. 13) is treated with an anti-bacterial agent.
Kajanthan et al. (hereinafter “Kajanthan”) teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein a fabric-portion that is a fabric-region and/or only the sandwiched fabric based layer (cl. 13), which corresponds to the same layer, that is treated with an anti-bacterial agent (i.e., hydrogen peroxide) as set forth in [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with an anti-bacterial agent as taught by Kajanthan in order to reduce undesirable bacterial materials near the wearer.
With reference to claims 5 and 14, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claims 5 and 14 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least a fabric-portion that is a fabric-region or only the sandwiched fabric based layer (cl. 14) is treated with an odors-absorbing agent.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein a fabric-portion that is a fabric-region or the sandwiched based layer (cl. 14), which corresponds to the same layer, that is treated with an odors-absorbing agent (i.e., zinc pyrithione) as set forth in [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with an odors-absorbing agent as taught by Kajanthan in order to reduce undesirable odors within the article.
With reference to claim 7, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 7 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad is a multiple-use fabric-based leak-protection pad that can be washed or laundered and then dried, and is then insertable back into the fabric-based border element of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad is a multiple-use fabric-based leak-protection pad that can be washed or laundered and then dried, and is then insertable back into the fabric-based border element of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element as set forth in [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with a multiple-use pad in order to help reduce environmental impact as taught by Kajanthan in [0081].
With respect to claim 10, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 10 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least one leakage-protection membrane for absorbing fluids of the female wearer.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least one leakage-protection membrane (106) for absorbing fluids of the female wearer as set forth in [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with at least one leakage-protection membrane in order to provide an effective barrier material upon exposure to liquid to prevent undesirable leakage as taught by Kajanthan in [0042].
As to claim 11, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 11 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad has specific layers.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad comprising a top-side, body-facing, body-touching, leakage-protection membrane (102), configured to absorb for absorbing fluids of the female wearer [0031];
a bottom-side, non body-touching, leakage-protection membrane (106), facing away from the female wearer, and not directly touching the female wearer (figure 2);
a sandwiched fabric-based layer (104), that is sandwiched or trapped between the top-side leakage-protection membrane and the bottom-side leakage-protection membrane, which is not directly touching the female wearer as shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the specific configuration of layers as taught by Kajanthan in order to provide an efficient pad with improved liquid handling properties as taught by Kajanathan in [0031 and 0037-0041].
As to claim 25, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 25 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad has specific layers.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad comprising a top-side, fast- wicking knitted fabric layer [0031],
That has integrally-knitted fabric rips (i.e., rashel Tricot), ribs or three-dimensional craters or protrusions (i.e., weft knitting and/or French terry knitting) [0031-0032],
and that rapidly collects and transports fluids toward an underlying absorbent layer as set forth in [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the wicking layer as taught by Kajanthan in order to provide an efficient pad with improved liquid handling properties as taught by Kajanathan in [0031].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) in view of Kajanthan et al. (US 2021/0177676) and further in view of Bechert et al. (US 2007/0213679).
With reference to claim 12, Johnston in view of Kajanthan teach the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
The difference between Johnston modified and claim 12 is the provision that only the sandwiched fabric-based layer (i.e., the core) comprises molecules of Ionized Silver.
Bechert teaches an analogous absorbent pad for a garment wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad comprises at least a fabric-portion that is a Silver Ionized fabric-region that was treated with or augmented with Silver Ions as set forth in [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with silver ions in order to prevent the growth of microorganisms as taught by Bechert in [0030].
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) in view of Kajanthan et al. (US 2021/0177676) and further in view of Hofstetter et al. (US 2011/0313383).
With reference to claims 15-16, Johnston in view of Kajanthan teach the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
The difference between Johnston modified and claims 15-16 is the provision that the bottom-side, non body-touching, leakage-protection membrane is, or comprises: a foil that is integrally attached and is non-removably laminated to a bottom-side (cl. 15) or a top-side (cl. 16) of said sandwiched fabric-based layer.
Hofstetter et al. (hereinafter “Hofstetter”) teaches an analogous multi-layered absorbent pad that includes a foil integrally attached and non-removably laminated [0048] to a bottom side (38) and a top-side (36) of a sandwiched fabric-based layer (38) 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 sandwiched based layer of Johnston modified with the foil as taught by Hofstetter to provide an antimicrobial agent that does not come directly in contact with a wearer and also develops its effect almost exclusively within the absorbent pad as taught by Hofstetter in [0014].
Claims 21 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) and further in view of Rock et al. (US 6,602,811).
With respect to claim 21, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 21 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad contains therein: trapped yarns that are trapped within the fabric-based leak-protection pad and that do not touch a skin of the female wearer, wherein the trapped yarns comprise yarns that are pre-treated or pre-augmented with Ionized Silver molecules.
Rock et al. (hereinafter “Rock”) teaches an analogous absorbent material that includes trapped yarns that are pretreated with silver ions as set forth in col. 8, lines 5-27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the yarn as taught by Rock in order to incorporate fibers with anti-microbial properties as taught by Rock in col. 5, lines 54-61.
With respect to claim 26, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 26 is the provision that the fabric-based leak-protection pad includes polyester yarns that are augmented pre-treated or pre-augmented with Ionized Silver molecules and non-augmented yarns.
Rock teaches an analogous absorbent material that includes augmented and non-augmented polyester yarns as claimed as set forth in col. 8, lines 5-27.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the yarn as taught by Rock in order to incorporate fibers with anti-microbial properties as taught by Rock in col. 4, lines 54-62 and in col. 5, lines 54-61.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the yarn as taught by Rock in order to provide a composite material that incorporate fibers with anti-microbial properties as taught by Rock in col. 5, lines 54-61.
As to claim 27, see the rejection of claim 26.
The difference between Johnston modified and claim 27 is the explicit recitation that only the non-augmented yarns, and not the augmented yarns, are in touch with a skin of the female wearer wherein the augmented yarns are trapped or sandwiched or encapsulated within non-augmented yarns of said fabric-based leak-protection pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the augmented and/or non-augmented yarns taught by Johnston modified as desired since it has been held that the rearrangement of essential working parts of an invention is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claims 28-30, see the rejection of claim 26.
The difference between Johnston modified and claims 28-30 is the provision that there is a specific ratio/number (cl. 29,30) of augmented yarns to non-augmented yarns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ratio/amount of augmented yarns to non-augmented yarns as desired since it has been held that determining the desired or workable range of essential working parts of an invention is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) and further in view of Hofstetter et al. (US 2011/0313383).
With reference to claim 24, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Johnston provides the top side of the top-side of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element (i.e., the transition) with a high-wicking fabric as set forth in [0131].
The difference between Johnston and claim 24 is the provision that the bottom-side of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element comprises an adhesive foil that is integrally laminated to an inner-side of said underwear.
Hofstetter teaches an analogous multi-layered absorbent pad that includes a foil integrally attached and non-removably laminated [0048] to a bottom side of the article 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 frame element of Johnston with the foil as taught by Hofstetter to provide an antimicrobial agent that does not come directly in contact with a wearer as taught by Hofstetter in [0014].
Claims 9 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764).
With reference to claim 9, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 31 is the provision that the fabric-based Passepartout frame element integrally and securely holds in place the fabric-based leak-protection pad in a non-removable manner, wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad is non-removable from within the fabric-based border element of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element, wherein the fabric-based leak-protection pad continuously remains integrally attached to the fabric-based border element of the fabric-based Passepartout frame element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad in a non-removable form as desired since it has been held that making a product integral that was previously disclosed as two separate pieces is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 31, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 31 is the explicit recitation that the pad is fleece-less and lacks any fleece element or fleece region.
Johnston sets forth no disclosure of fleece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to omit the use of fleece within the pad of Johnston because Johnston does not provide a teaching or motivation to use fleece within the pad.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2014/0018764) in view of Rock et al. (US 6,602,811) and further in view of Kajanthan et al. (US 2021/0177676).
With respect to claim 32, Johnston teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Johnston and claim 32 is the provision that the fabric-made leak-protection pad comprises at least a Silver Ionized fabric structure that is knitted from (i) one or more polyester yarns, and (ii) one or more yarns that are augmented or treated with Ionized Silver molecules; wherein said Silver Ionized fabric structure does not directly touch a skin of the female wearer, wherein said Silver Ionized fabric structure is sandwiched between (i) a top-side fabric layer that is in direct touch with a skin of the female wearer, and (ii) a bottom-side leakage-protection membrane or foil that is non-removably laminated to said Silver Ionized fabric structure.
Rock teaches an analogous absorbent material that includes a knitted polyester structure the includes silver ionized fiber (col. 8, lines 5-27) wherein the silver ionized fabric structure does not directly touch a wearer’s skin (i.e., the second or outer layer) as set forth in col. 5, lines 59-61) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the yarn as taught by Rock in order to incorporate fibers with anti-microbial properties as taught by Rock in col. 5, lines 54-61.
The difference between Johnston in view of Rock and claim 32 is the provision that the Silver Ionized fabric structure is sandwiched between (i) a top-side fabric layer that is in direct touch with a skin of the female wearer, and (ii) a bottom-side leakage-protection membrane or foil that is non-removably laminated to said Silver Ionized fabric structure.
Kajanthan teaches an analogous absorbent pad comprising a top-side fabric layer (102), that is in direct touch with a skin of the female wearer [0032-0033];
a bottom-side, leakage-protection membrane (106), that is non-removably bonded to an absorbent structure (via peripheral sealing elements as set forth in [0008-0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pad of Johnston with the specific configuration of layers as taught by Kajanthan in order to provide an efficient pad with improved liquid handling properties as taught by Kajanathan in [0031 and 0037-0041].
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide lamination since the general disclosure of bonding has been set forth in the art, and lamination is a form of bonding which would fall within the scope of the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coates (US 2003/0216705) discloses a protected undergarment having an anchored pocketed sling structure.
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