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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 09/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument with respect 35 USC 102 and/or 103 rejections have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “about” which renders the claim indefinite. The use of word “about” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree. Terms of Degree: When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not. <Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / February 9, 2011 / Notices, (Page 7165: Col 3 Par. 0003)>. For examination purposes the claims are being interpreted without “about”
Dependent claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based at least on their dependence on claim 1 or 11.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatto et al (US 20060062816 A1) in view of Dodge et al (US 20010049514 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gatto teaches an absorbent article comprising
a liquid permeable topsheet (figure 1 and [0065], liquid pervious topsheet 14),
a liquid impermeable backsheet (figure 1 and [0014] liquid impervious backsheet 16),
an absorbent core (figure 1, absorbent core 18), and
optionally at least one acquisition and distribution layer;
wherein the absorbent core is provided between the topsheet and the backsheet (0068) the absorbent core is disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet); and
the optional at least one acquisition and distribution layer is provided between the topsheet and the absorbent core;
wherein the absorbent article comprises a polyol and a urease inhibitor ([0014] [0049] [0052] absorbent article comprises a lotion comprising mixture of polyol and a urease inhibitor comprising plant extract like green tea).
Gatto does not teach wherein the absorbent core comprises a permeability of from 10-6cm2 to 10-4cm2
In the same field of endeavor, namely absorbent composites with enhanced intake properties, Dodge teaches wherein an absorbent composites comprises a permeability of greater than 10-6cm2 ([0010]-[0011]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto to incorporate the teachings of Dodge and provides the permeability within the claimed range for the purpose of providing balanced and effective absorption capabilities and intake speed, enabling the material to retain fluid while allowing it to pass through and be absorbed quickly without leakage as taught by Dodge ([0005]).
Although Gatto and Dodge do not expressly teach the claimed permeability ranges, i.e., between 10-6cm2 and 10-4cm2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto, as modified by Dodge, and provides the claimed permeability range since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In the instant case, the applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range (specification [0081]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 2, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor is dissolved and/or suspended in the polyol forming a suspension and/or solution comprising the urease inhibitor and the polyol (Gatto; [0047]-[0052] the lotion composition comprising a urease inhibitor dissolved in the glycol carrier forming a solution or suspension).
Regarding Claim 3, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor is a natural urease inhibitor (Gatto; [0049] urease inhibitor comprising green tea is natural urease inhibitor).
Regarding Claim 4, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 3.
The combination further teaches wherein the natural urease inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of green tea, extracts from green tea, grape seeds, extracts from grape seeds, and combinations thereof (Gatto; [0049] urease inhibitor comprising green tea).
Regarding Claim 5, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the polyol is miscible with water and non-toxic (Gatto; [0052] glycol is miscible with water and non-toxic. Examiner’s note: As disclosed in the instant application [0111]-[0113] “the polyol may be a diol or triol having 2 to 5 carbon atoms”, glycol is a diol having 2 5 to 5 carbons and is water-miscible and non-toxic)
Regarding Claim 6, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the polyol has a boiling point of at least 100° C. at atmospheric pressure (Gatto; [0052] glycol has boiling point of at least 100° C).
Regarding Claim 7, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the polyol is a diol or triol having 2 to 5 carbon atoms (Gatto; [0052] glycol is diol and contains at least 2 carbon atoms).
Regarding Claim 8, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the weight ratio of the total amount of polyol and total amount of urease inhibitor is from 10:1 to 1:4;
though, Gatto teaches the composition of lotion may comprises total carrier concentration ranging from about 60% to 99.9% ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the total amount of polyol and urease inhibitor to have 10:1 to 1:4 since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In the instant case, the applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range (specification [0110]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 9, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the liquid permeable topsheet has a first surface (Gatto; lower surface of the topsheet) and a second surface opposing the first surface (Gatto; upper surface of the topsheet),
the first surface of the topsheet, and the optional at least one optional acquisition and distribution layer are provided between the second surface of the topsheet and the absorbent core (Gatto; [0058] the lower surface of the topsheet located between the upper surface and absorbent core disclosed underneath);
wherein one or more of
i) the first surface of the topsheet,
ii) the optional at least one acquisition and distribution layer, and
iii) the absorbent core comprise the polyol and the urease inhibitor (Gatto; [0077] The lotion compositions are typically applied to the topsheet of an absorbent article for delivery of the lotion composition onto an external or internal surface of the body. The lotion composition can be applied to other areas of the absorbent article wherein these areas include wings, side panels, the absorbent core, any secondary layer intermediate the core and topsheet, or any other region of the absorbent article.).
Regarding Claim 10, Gatto, as modified by Dodge, teaches the absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one acquisition and distribution layer comprises at least a portion of the urease inhibitor and/or the polyol comprised by the absorbent article (examiner’s note, the at least one acquisition and distribution layer was an optional selection in claim 1 and was not selected, and as such this non-selected feature is not evaluated).
Claims 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatto et al (US 20060062816 A1) in view of Schroder et al (US 20130096526 A1) and Chmielewski (US 6459014 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gatto teaches an absorbent article comprising
a liquid permeable topsheet (figure 1 and [0065] liquid pervious topsheet 14), ,
a liquid impermeable backsheet (figure 1 and [0014] liquid impervious backsheet 16)
an absorbent core provided between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 1 and [0058] absorbent core 18 disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet), and
optionally at least one acquisition and distribution layer disposed between the topsheet and the absorbent core;
a polyol and a urease inhibitor ([0014] [0049] [0052] absorbent article comprises a lotion comprising mixture of polyol and a urease inhibitor comprising plant extract like green tea).
Gatto does not teach the absorbent article comprising
a front waist region with a front waist edge,
a back waist region with a back waist edge,
a crotch region disposed between the front waist region and the back waist region;
In the same field of endeavor, namely a fluid-absorbent article, Schroder teaches an absorbent article (figures 1-2) comprising
a front waist region with a front waist edge (figure 2, front region along marking 1 with its edge),
a back waist region with a back waist edge (figure 2, back region along marking 2 with its edge),
a crotch region disposed between the front waist region and the back waist region (figure 2, crotch region along marking (A));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto to incorporate the teachings of Schroder and provide the absorbent article comprising frost waist region, back waist region and a crotch region as claimed for the purpose of providing conformable fit of the fluid-absorbent article and maintaining adequate performance against leakage as taught by Schroder ([0304]).
The combination is still silent ad to wherein the urease inhibitor maintains a pH of from 4.0 to 6.0 according to the urease activity test method
In the same field of endeavor, namely absorbent article which maintains prolonged natural skin PH, Chmielewski teaches wherein the urease inhibitor maintains a pH of from 4.0 to 6.0 according to the urease activity test method (abstract and col 3 lines 9-21, absorbent article is provided with pH control agent that maintains a pH between 4.5 and 6, examiner’s note: it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structure property does not carry patentable weight. The property is inherent to the material and structure, not the testing method. Therefore, even if the reference does not expressly teach the property measured by the claimed testing method above, it is deemed to exhibit the claimed property when tested using the same method).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto, as modified by Schroder, to incorporate the teachings of Chmielewski and provide the urease inhibitor as claimed for the purpose of preventing diaper rashes as taught by Chmielewski (col 1 lines 30-60)
Regarding Claim 12, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the amount of the urease inhibitor is higher in the front waist region than in the back waist region.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, such that the amount of the urease inhibitor is higher in the front waist region than in the back waist region, as such the modification would have been an obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of success. if a person of ordinary skill has good reason to peruse the known options within his or her technical grasp and if the modification meads to the anticipated success, it is like that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2143.I.E). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of accommodating male users.
Regarding Claim 13, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the amount of the urease inhibitor is higher in the crotch region than in the front waist region.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, such that the amount of the urease inhibitor is higher in the crotch region than in the front waist region, as such the modification would have been an obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of success. if a person of ordinary skill has good reason to peruse the known options within his or her technical grasp and if the modification meads to the anticipated success, it is like that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2143.I.E). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of accommodating female users.
Regarding Claim 14, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor is dissolved and/or suspended in the polyol forming a suspension and/or solution comprising the urease inhibitor and the polyol (Gatto; ([0047]-[0052] the lotion composition comprising a urease inhibitor dissolved in the glycol carrier forming a solution or suspension).
Regarding Claim 15, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of green tea, extracts from green tea, grape seeds, extracts from grape seeds, and combinations thereof (Gatto; [0049] urease inhibitor comprising green tea).
Regarding Claim 20, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one acquisition and distribution layer comprises at least a portion of the urease inhibitor and/or the polyol comprised by the absorbent article (examiner’s note, the at least one acquisition and distribution layer was an optional selection in claim 11 and was not selected, and as such this non-selected feature is not evaluated).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatto et al (US 20060062816 A1) in view of Schroder et al (US 20130096526 A1) and Chmielewski (US 6459014 B1), and in further view of Ito et al (US 20060247590 A1)
Regarding Claim 16, Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the urease inhibitor comprises epigallocatechin gallate.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Ito teaches wherein the urease inhibitor comprises epigallocatechin gallate ([0121] and [0152], absorbent component comprises catechins as a deodorant agent includes tea-leaf extracts include epigallocatechin gallate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatto, as modified by Schroder and Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Ito and provides the urease inhibitor comprises epigallocatechin gallate for the purpose of enhancing deodorant capability as taught by Ito ([0121]).
Regarding Claim 17, Gatto, as modified by Schroder, Chmielewski and Ito, teaches the absorbent article of claim 16.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor further comprises at least one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate (Ito; [0180] “The component ratios of catechins included in the tea-leaf extract were 31.5% mass of epigallocatechin gallate, 17.2% mass of epigallocatechin”)
Regarding Claim 18, Gatto, as modified by Schroder, Chmielewski and Ito, teaches the absorbent article of claim 16.
The combination does not teach wherein the urease inhibitor comprises more than 50 wt% epigallocatechin gallate;
though Ito teaches the component ratio of catechin includes preferably 30% mass of epigallocatechin gallate ([0152] and [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the urease inhibitor comprises more than 50 wt% epigallocatechin gallate, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of providing enhanced deodorant capability. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from the claimed proportion (application [0122]-[0123]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 19, Gatto, as modified by Schroder, Chmielewski and Ito, teaches the absorbent article of claim 17.
The combination further teaches wherein the urease inhibitor comprises more than 3 wt% one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate (Ito; [0180] “The component ratios of catechins included in the tea-leaf extract were 31.5% mass of epigallocatechin gallate, 17.2% mass of epigallocatechin”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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, Nicholas J Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781