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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The composition containing about 50-600 ppm, and about 100-300 ppm, of titratable Cl/mL is not disclosed in the present specification.
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.
Claims 2 and 8-9 are 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the halogen containing compound" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, an N-halamine compound was disclosed, which is a narrower limitation than a halogen containing compound, and therefore the limitation lacks antecedent basis and renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the composition contains from about 50 ppm to about 600 ppm of titratable Cl/mL” and claim 9 recites the limitation “from about 100 ppm to about 300 ppm of titratable Cl/mL”. Looking to the present specification for clarification on the scope of these limitations, the amount of titratable Cl/mL is disclosed as the result of an experiment and not a feature of the inventive composition as recited for industrial use. Therefore, the scope of the claims is indefinite because it is unclear if the amount of titratable Cl/mL is intended to be present in the composition, or merely a result of an experiment.
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, 3-5, 7, 10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Keller et al. (2010/0030170) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Keller et al. (2010/0030170) in view of Worley et al. (10,178,866).
With respect to claim 1, Keller discloses a composition comprising a water absorbent particulate material, as disclosed in paragraph [0052], and an N-halamide compound, as disclosed in paragraphs [0036-0037]. Keller is silent as to the N-halamine compound being compatible with organic solvents. Since Keller discloses the same chemical composition as claimed, it therefore inherently must have the same properties and therefore anticipates the claim limitation (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
In the alternative, Worley discloses the use of N-halamine compounds in a fibrous material, as disclosed in column 1, lines 14-16, and teaches that 1-chloro-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-4-imidazolidinone is suitable for use in a wound dressing, as disclosed in column 18, lines 25-29, and provides the advantage of providing sufficient antimicrobial inactivation inexpensively and at a lower concentration, as disclosed in the Abstract. Worley further discloses that the N-halamine is compatible with organic solvents, as disclosed in column 3, lines 62-63. 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 N-halamine compound of Keller compatible in organic solvents, as taught by Worley, to achieve a compound that provides sufficient antimicrobial inactivation at a lower, inexpensive, concentration.
With respect to claim 3, the water absorbent particulate material is comprised of superabsorbent polymer particles, as disclosed in paragraph [0052].
With respect to claims 4-5, the superabsorbent polymer particles are comprised of an acrylic polymer acrylic acid, as disclosed in paragraph [0052].
With respect to claim 7, the composition further comprises zeolite, as disclosed in paragraph [0033].
With respect to claim 10, Keller does not disclose the composition comprises water, and therefore the composition is essentially free of water.
With respect to claim 16, Keller discloses an article of manufacture including the composition of claim 1 in the form of an incontinence pad, as disclosed in paragraph [0002].
With respect to claim 17, the composition is incorporated into the article as a water absorbent layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0037].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (2010/0030170) in view of Worley et al. (10,178,866).
With respect to claim 2, Keller discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the N-halamine compound comprising 1-chloro-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-4-imidazolidinone. Worley discloses the use of N-halamine compounds in a fibrous material, as disclosed in column 1, lines 14-16, and teaches that 1-chloro-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-4-imidazolidinone is suitable for use in a wound dressing, as disclosed in column 18, lines 25-29, and provides the advantage of providing sufficient antimicrobial inactivation inexpensively and at a lower concentration, as disclosed in the Abstract. 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 N-halamine compound of Keller 1-chloro-2,2,5,5-tetramethyl-4-imidazolidinone, as taught by Worley, to achieve a compound that provides sufficient antimicrobial inactivation at a lower, inexpensive, concentration.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (2010/0030170), or in the alternative over Keller in view of Worley et al. (10,178,866), and further in view of Durdag et al. (8,828,516).
With respect to claim 6, Keller discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the superabsorbent polymer being crosslinked. Durdag teaches crosslinking a polyacrylic acid superabsorbent polymer to secure the polymer within an absorbent layer, as disclosed in column 10, lines 45-55. 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 crosslink the superabsorbent polymer of Keller, as taught by Durdag, to allow the polymer to be secured into an absorbent layer.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (2010/0030170), or in the alternative over Keller in view of Worley et al. (10,178,866), and further in view of Quincy, III (6,823,530).
With respect to claims 8-9, Keller discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the composition containing from about 50-600 ppm, or 100-300 ppm, of titratable Cl/mL. Quincy discloses a composition comprising a water absorbing material and an N-halamine compound, and teaches contacting the composition with chlorine during use and that the interaction with chlorine stabilizes the antimicrobial agent, as disclosed in column 7, lines 26-34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact the composition of Keller with chlorine, as taught by Quincy, to stabilize the antimicrobial agent, and further to provide the composition with from about 50-600 ppm, or 100-300 ppm, of titratable Cl/mL to achieve the predictable result of a sufficient amount of chlorine to achieve stabilization.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (2010/0030170), or in the alternative over Keller in view of Worley et al. (10,178,866), and further in view of Piron et al. (4,883,479).
With respect to claim 18, Keller discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a base sheet 102 of fluid impervious material, a top sheet 110 of pervious nonwoven material, and an absorbent pad 106, the absorbent pad comprising the composition of claim 1, as disclosed in paragraph [0037].
Keller discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent pad having a central portion and two side panels folded over the central panel, a wadding sheet, and a binder securing the side panels to the central panels and penetrating the wadding sheet. Piron discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent pad, as shown in figure 1, comprising a wadding sheet having a central portion 2 and side panels 1 that are folded over the central portion. A binder secures the side panels to the central panel and penetrates the wadding sheet, as disclosed in column 3, lines 20-34. 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 provide the absorbent pad of Keller with a central portion and two side panels folded over the central panel, a wadding sheet, and a binder securing the side panels to the central panels and penetrating the wadding sheet, as taught by Piron, to apply a known technique to achieve the predictable result of a stable absorbent pad.
Modified Keller does not explicitly disclose the base sheet and top sheet being connected to each other about the periphery of the article, but it is well-known in the art to bond the top and back sheets of an absorbent article together around the periphery to form a secure envelope around the absorbent pad. 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 connect the base sheet and the top sheet of Keller about the periphery of the article to achieve the predictable result of forming a secure envelope around the absorbent pad.
With respect to claim 19, the article of Keller is for incontinence care, as disclosed in paragraph [0002], and therefore is a diaper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents and Publications 6,855,134; 2004/0121682; and 2016/0235608 disclose compositions and absorbent articles comprising N-halamine compounds.
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