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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Brock only discloses the use of green tea phenols in a skin care solution for a wet wipe, it is noted that Brock discloses in paragraph [0025] that the composition of the invention can comprise green tea (emphasis added), and therefore does not limit the use of green tea to only a skin care solution but discloses its use in a skin care composition.
In response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the urease inhibitor being present as a solid, it is noted that Gatto et al. (2006/0062816) is now relied upon to teach the claimed features.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brock et al. (2003/0130636).
With respect to claim 9, Brock discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 22 having a first surface and a second surface, a liquid impermeable backsheet 20, an absorbent core 24, and at least one acquisition and distribution layer 34. The first surface of the topsheet 22 and the acquisition and distribution layer 34 are provided between the second surface of the topsheet 22 and the absorbent core 24, as shown in figure 1. One or more of the first surface of the topsheet 22, the acquisition and distribution layer 34, and the absorbent core 24 comprise a natural urease inhibitor, as disclosed in paragraphs [0044] and [0133]. The urease inhibitor is green tea, as disclosed in paragraph [0133], which disclosed in the present specification as an inventive urease inhibitor. The urease inhibitor of Brock therefore inherently is soluble to at least 95 weight% in synthetic urine, since if the chemical composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
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) 10-14, 18, 20-25, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al. (2003/0130636) in view of Gatto et al. (2006/0062816).
With respect to claim 10, Brock discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 22 having a first surface and a second surface, a liquid impermeable backsheet 20, an absorbent core 24, and at least one acquisition and distribution layer 34. The first surface of the topsheet 22 and the acquisition and distribution layer 34 are provided between the second surface of the topsheet 22 and the absorbent core 24, as shown in figure 1. One or more of the first surface of the topsheet 22, the acquisition and distribution layer 34, and the absorbent core 24 comprise a natural urease inhibitor, as disclosed in paragraphs [0044] and [0133]. The urease inhibitor is green tea, as disclosed in paragraph [0133], which disclosed in the present specification as an inventive urease inhibitor. The urease inhibitor of Brock therefore inherently has a solubility in distilled water of at least 10 g/l according to the Solubility Test Method, since if the chemical composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor being present as a solid residue of a filtered solution. Brock discloses in paragraph [0013] that the skin care composition, which contains the urease inhibitor, is a solid, but remains silent as to urease inhibitor itself. Gatto discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a skin care composition that includes plant extracts, as disclosed in paragraph [0049]. Gatto teaches providing the plant extracts in the form of a solid residue (i.e. powder) of a filtered solution (i.e. extracting solvent). 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 urease inhibitor of Brock as the solid residue of a filtered solution, as taught by Gatto, to use a known technique to improve a similar article.
With respect to claim 11, Brock discloses the natural urease inhibitor is green tea, as disclosed in paragraph [0133].
With respect to claim 12, Brock discloses in paragraph [0044] that the composition including the urease inhibitor can be applied to the acquisition and distribution layer, and therefore the acquisition and distribution layer comprises at least a portion of the urease inhibitor.
With respect to claim 13, the acquisition and distribution layer 34 of Brock comprises natural fibers, as disclosed in paragraph [0080].
With respect to claims 14 and 18, Brock discloses the urease inhibitor comprises epigallocatechin gallate and epicatechin gallate, as disclosed in paragraph [0133], which is a catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate.
With respect to claim 20, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor comprising at least 50 weight% of epigallocatechin gallate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of to provide the urease inhibitor of Brock with at least 50 weight% of epigallocatechin gallate to achieve the predictable result of a sufficient amount of chemical activity to provide a benefit to the wearer.
With respect to claim 21, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor comprising at least 3 weight% of at least one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of to provide the urease inhibitor of Brock with at least 3 weight% of at least one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate to achieve the predictable result of a sufficient amount of chemical activity to provide a benefit to the wearer.
With respect to claim 22, Brock discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a liquid permeable topsheet 22 having a first surface and a second surface, a liquid impermeable backsheet 20, an absorbent core 24, and at least one acquisition and distribution layer 34. The first surface of the topsheet 22 and the acquisition and distribution layer 34 are provided between the second surface of the topsheet 22 and the absorbent core 24, as shown in figure 1. The absorbent core 24 comprise a natural urease inhibitor, as disclosed in paragraphs [0044] and [0133]. The urease inhibitor is green tea, as disclosed in paragraph [0133], which disclosed in the present specification as an inventive urease inhibitor. The urease inhibitor of Brock therefore inherently has a solubility in distilled water of at least 10 g/l according to the Solubility Test Method, since if the chemical composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP 2112.01(II)).
Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor being present as a heterogeneously distributed solid residue of a filtered aqueous solution. Brock discloses in paragraph [0013] that the skin care composition, which contains the urease inhibitor, is a solid, but remains silent as to urease inhibitor itself. Gatto discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a skin care composition that includes plant extracts, as disclosed in paragraph [0049]. Gatto teaches providing the plant extracts in the form of a solid residue (i.e. powder) of a filtered solution (i.e. extracting solvent). 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 urease inhibitor of Brock as the solid residue of a filtered aqueous solution, as taught by Gatto, to use a known technique to improve a similar article. It would further have been obvious to heterogeneously distribute the solid residue of modified Brock to achieve the predictable result of an article that has an active ingredient equally spread across the article to evenly treat the skin of a user.
With respect to claim 23, the absorbent core of Brock comprises a void, or fluid transport channel, as disclosed in paragraph [0078].
With respect to claim 24, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent core having a permeability of from about 10-6 cm2 to 10-4 cm2. Brock discloses in paragraph [0076] that the permeability of the absorbent core affects the amount of condensation of vapor resulting in a clammy feeling on the surface of the article. The permeability of the absorbent core is therefore considered to be a result-effective variable. 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 core of Brock with a permeability of from about 10-6 cm2 to 10-4 cm2, since it has been held that when the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill, and further to achieve the predictable result of an absorbent core with sufficient air flow to prevent vapor condensation and a clammy feeling to the wearer. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 25, Brock discloses the urease inhibitor comprises epigallocatechin gallate and epicatechin gallate, as disclosed in paragraph [0133], which is a catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate.
With respect to claim 27, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor comprising at least 50 weight% of epigallocatechin gallate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of to provide the urease inhibitor of Brock with at least 50 weight% of epigallocatechin gallate to achieve the predictable result of a sufficient amount of chemical activity to provide a benefit to the wearer.
With respect to claim 28, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the urease inhibitor comprising at least 3 weight% of at least one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of to provide the urease inhibitor of Brock with at least 3 weight% of at least one catechin different from epigallocatechin gallate to achieve the predictable result of a sufficient amount of chemical activity to provide a benefit to the wearer.
With respect to claim 29, Brock discloses applying the composition including the urease inhibitor by spraying, as disclosed in paragraph [0013].
With respect to claim 30, modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the article exhibiting an ammonia concentration of less than 1 ppm measured according to the Urease Activity Test Method. Brock discloses an article comprising the claimed urease inhibitor, and therefore the claimed inhibition of ammonia will inherently be achieved by the article of Brock. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the article of Brock to exhibit an ammonia concentration of less than 1 ppm measured according to the Urease Activity Test Method to achieve the predictable result of inhibiting ammonia to reduce odors within the article.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock et al. (2003/0130636) in view of Gatto et al. (2006/0062816), and further in view of Jameson (7,060,867).
With respect to claims 15-17, the article of Brock has a longitudinal centerline and longitudinal dimension, a transverse centerline, a front waist region 12 with a front waist edge 20, a back waist region 14 with a back waist edge 20, and a crotch region 16, as shown in figure 1. Modified Brock discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the amount of urease inhibitor being higher in the crotch region than the front and back waist regions and higher in the front waist region than in the back waist region. Jameson discloses an absorbent article having a composition applied to the front waist region, the back waist region, and the crotch region in different amounts in order to target specific regions that are more prone to cause irritation or discomfort to a wearer, as disclosed in column 14, lines 39-44. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the amount of urease inhibitor being higher in the crotch region than the front and back waist regions and higher in the front waist region than in the back waist region of Brock, as taught by Jameson, to target specific regions that are more prone to cause irritation or discomfort to a wearer.
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 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