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 Invention I, Species A, and Species C in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12, 28, 29, and 32-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/07/2026.
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 19-21, 26, 27, 30, and 31 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.
Regarding Claim 19, it is unclear how the release paper has “a flap region where the absorbent body is not present in a plan view”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as the pet sheet having a flap region where the absorbent body is not present in a plan view. Claims 20, 21, 26, 27, 30, and 31 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 19.
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(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-23, 25-27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2015/0164041) in view of Johnston et al (US 2013/0115437).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a pet sheet (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a liquid-permeable top sheet (20, Fig. 1; ¶ [0049]);
a liquid-impermeable back sheet (30, Fig. 1; ¶ [0049]); and
an absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) disposed between the liquid-permeable top sheet (20, Fig. 1) and the liquid-impermeable back sheet (30, Fig. 1; ¶ [0049]), wherein
the liquid-permeable top sheet (20, Fig. 1), the liquid-impermeable back sheet (30, Fig. 1), and the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) are disposed such that a light transmittance of the pet sheet (10, Fig. 1) is in a range of 40% - 70% (¶ [0022]), and
the pet sheet (10, Fig. 1) is configured to be overlaid on an animal excrement disposal sheet (the sheet is fully capable of being placed on top of an additional sheet).
Takahashi discloses the light transmittance of the pet sheet is in a range of 40% - 70%, however, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the pet sheet is 60% or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light transmittance of Takahashi to be from 40%-70% to 60% or less as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see ¶ [0087] of Applicant’s published specification indicating the light transmittance “may” be within the claimed range) and 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).
Takahashi is silent whether the liquid-impermeable back sheet has an adhesive surface.
Johnston teaches a disposable absorbent pad, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a liquid-impermeable back sheet (104, Fig. 4; ¶ [0039]) which has an adhesive surface (116, Fig. 4; ¶ [0047]) to allow the sheet to be removably attached to a bed or other surface without sliding or movement (¶ [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the back sheet of Takahashi to include an adhesive surface, as taught by Johnston, to allow the sheet to be removably attached to a surface without sliding or movement (as motivated by Johnston ¶ [0051]).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi further discloses the liquid-impermeable back sheet (30, Fig. 1) and the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) are disposed such that a difference between a thickness of a region where the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) is present and a thickness of a flap region where the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) is not present is greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm (¶ [0062]; the absorbent body has a thickness between 0.4 mm and 2.4mm, which is fully within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi further discloses the size of the pet sheet is 1,500 cm2 or less (¶ [0053]; the minimum size is 600 cm2 which is fully within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses a WC value obtained by a KES compression characteristic tester is between 0.03 and 0.35, inclusive. Since Takahashi/Johnston discloses the structure of the claim as substantially claimed, the properties of Takahashi/Johnston will be presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.02. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi further discloses the liquid-impermeable back sheet (30, Fig. 1) is an air-permeable sheet (¶ [0058]).
Regarding Claim 10, Takahashi further discloses the pet sheet (10, Fig. 1) does not have a fold line (¶ [0024] indicates the sheet is preferably folded, but a fold line is not required; additionally, the intermediate product of the sheet before it is folded can be considered to read on the claimed limitation).
Regarding Claim 11, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 4, 7E) is disposed in a flap region where the absorbent body (Johnston 40, Fig. 1) is not present in a plan view (Johnston Fig. 7E, ¶ [0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi further discloses the pet sheet (10, Fig. 1) has a flap region (peripheral region seen in Figs. 1 and 3) where the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1 and 3) is not present) in a plan view, and a light transmittance of the flap region is higher than a light transmittance of a region where the absorbent body (40, Fig. 1) is present in the plan view (Fig. 3; since the pet sheet has a total light transmittance of 60% or less, and the flap region is thinner and has less material than the absorbent region, the flap region will necessarily have a higher light transmittance compared to the light transmittance of the absorbent region).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 13.
Takahashi further discloses the light transmittance of the flap region is 38.4% or more (Fig. 3; since the light transmittance of the entire sheet is 60% or less, and the light transmittance of the flap region is higher than the entire sheet, the light transmittance of the flap region is necessarily more than 38.4%).
Regarding Claim 15, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether a portion where the liquid-permeable top sheet does not overlap the liquid-impermeable back sheet in the plan view is present in the flap region.
Johnston teaches an absorbent article, where the top sheet can have a extent less than the absorbent structure, and therefore also less than the back sheet (¶ [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the top sheet of Takahashi/Johnston to have a portion of the liquid-permeable top sheet that does not overlap the liquid-impermeable back sheet in the plan view is present in the flap region, as taught by Johnston (¶ [0028]) as this structure of absorbent sheets has been shown to be known in the art.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses in both a length direction of the pet sheet and a width direction of the pet sheet, a total length of non-adhesive surfaces is longer than a total length of adhesive surfaces in the plan view (Johnston ¶ [0047-0048]).
Regarding Claim 18, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses the adhesive surface is not disposed in a divided region in a center of nine divided regions made by an intersection of lines that divide a region where the absorbent body is present into three equal segments in a length direction of the pet sheet and lines that divide the region into three equal segments in a width direction of the pet sheet in a plan view (as seen in Fig. 3 of Johnston).
Regarding Claim 19, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses a release paper (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) that covers the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 3), wherein the release paper (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) has a non-joining end part that is not joined to the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 3; as seen in Fig. 3; the release paper extends into the flap portion, outside of the boundary of layer 106, and part of the release paper overlapping the flap portion is considered the non-joining end); and a portion where the non-joining end part overlaps the flap region in the plan view is present (as seen in Johnston Fig. 3).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether a stiffness of the release paper is greater than a stiffness of the flap region, wherein the stiffness of the release paper is less than a stiffness of a region where the absorbent body is present.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Takahashi/Johnston to have a release paper with a stiffness greater than a stiffness of the flap region and less than the stiffness of the absorbent region since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Takahashi/Johnston would not operate differently with a release paper stiffness greater than a flap stiffness and less than an absorbent body stiffness and since a release paper with such stiffness the device would function appropriately, and allow the user to easily remove the release paper as required. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the stiffness “may” be within the claimed ranges (¶ [0031-0032] of Applicant’s published specification).
Regarding Claim 22, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 1.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses a release paper (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) that covers the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 3), wherein the release paper (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) has a non-joining end part that is not joined to the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 3; as seen in Fig. 3; the release paper extends into the flap portion, outside of the boundary of layer 106), and the non-joining end part is disposed in both a longitudinal direction of the pet sheet and a transverse direction of the pet sheet in a plan view (as seen in Fig. 3 of Johnston).
Regarding Claim 23, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether the non-joining end part has different lengths in the longitudinal direction and in the transverse direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Takahashi/Johnston to have the non-joining end part have a different length in the longitudinal direction and in the transverse direction since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Takahashi/Johnston would not operate differently with a non-joining end part having a different length in the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction and since the device would function appropriately with the claimed non-joining end dimensions. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions “may” be within the claimed ranges (¶ [0034] of Applicant’s published specification).
Regarding Claim 25, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 22.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses release papers (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) each covering adhesives surfaces (Johnston 116, Fig. 3; ¶ [0062]), but does not explicitly state that the release paper could be composed of a single sheet.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a single sheet for the release paper instead of multiple sheets. This is an obvious to try rationale – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the release sheet can either be one large sheet that covers all adhesive sections, or individual small sheets on each adhesive section). Both options would allow the adhesive to be protected prior to use, and therefore both solutions have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 26, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 19.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses release papers (Johnston 120, Fig. 3) each covering adhesives surfaces (Johnston 116, Fig. 3; ¶ [0062]).
Regarding Claim 27, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 26.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses the adhesive surfaces (Johnston 116, Fig. 3) are disposed at four corners of the liquid-impermeable back sheet (Johnston 104, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 30, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 19.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses a direction in which the adhesive surface (Johnston 116, Fig. 3) extends is the same as a direction in which the non-joining end part extends (as seen in Johnston Fig. 3; the release paper extends into the flap portion, outside of the boundary of layer 106, and part of the release paper overlapping the flap portion is considered the non-joining end), and adhesive surfaces (Johnston 116, Fig. 3) are intermittently disposed in a direction orthogonal to the direction in which the non-joining end part extends (as seen in Fig. 3 of Johnston).
Regarding Claim 31, Takahashi/Johnston discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 30.
Takahashi/Johnston further discloses an end part of the pet sheet that intersects the direction in which the adhesive surface extends is joined to the adhesive surface (Johnston Figs. 3 and 7E).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2015/0164041) in view of Johnston et al (US 2013/0115437) further in view of Komuro et al (US 2015/0296741).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi further discloses the liquid-permeable top sheet has a thickness of 0.1 mm – 2.4 mm (¶ [0055]), and the absorbent body has a thickness of 0.4 mm – 2.4 mm (¶ [0062]). However, Takahashi does not disclose the thickness of the liquid-impermeable back sheet, and therefore Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether the liquid-permeable top sheet, the liquid-impermeable back sheet, and the absorbent body are disposed such that a thickness of the pet sheet is greater than 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm.
Komuro teaches an absorbent pet sheet, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a liquid-impermeable back sheet (22, Fig. 2; ¶ [0049]) with a thickness of 0.01 mm to 0.2 mm (¶ [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the liquid-impermeable back sheet of Takahashi/Johnston to have a thickness of 0.01 mm to 0.2 mm, as taught by Komuro (¶ [0049]). The combination of Takahashi/Johnston/Komuro has a liquid-permeable top sheet, a liquid-impermeable back sheet, and an absorbent body disposed such that a thickness of the pet sheet is greater than 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 10 mm (the minimum thickness of the three layers of Takahashi/Johnston/Komuro is 0.51 mm and the maximum thickness of the three layers of Takahashi/Johnston/Komuro is 5 mm, which is fully within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2015/0164041) in view of Johnston et al (US 2013/0115437) further in view of Takahashi et al (US 2009/0000561), hereinafter Takahashi ‘561.
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether the liquid-permeable top sheet, the liquid-impermeable back sheet, and the absorbent body are disposed such that an area of a region where the absorbent body is present is 80% or less of an entirety of a surface of the pet sheet in a plan view.
Takahashi ‘561 teaches an absorbent pet sheet, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the absorbent is present in 79% of the total sheet (¶ [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent body such that the absorbent body is present in 79% of the total sheet area, as taught by Takahashi ‘561 (¶ [0054]), who indicates that this size ratio is known in the art and would therefore be obvious to utilize with the device of Takahashi/Johnston.
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether a Qmax value is 1.0 W/cm2 or less.
Takahashi ‘561 teaches an absorbent pet sheet with a Qmax of 1.0 W/cm2 or less (¶ [0071-0073] and Table 3). This Qmax results in the absorbent transferring less thermal energy, and therefore the absorbent will feel less cold when touched (¶ [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the pet sheet of Takahashi/Johnston to have a Qmax value of 1.0 W/cm2 or less, as taught by Takahashi ‘561, to have the absorbent feel less cold when touched (as motivated by Takahashi ‘561 ¶ [0071]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2015/0164041) in view of Johnston et al (US 2013/0115437) further in view of Kimura et al (US 5810796).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether the liquid-permeable top sheet, the liquid-impermeable back sheet, and the absorbent body are disposed such that a stiffness of a region where the absorbent body is present is 0.1 to 3.0 mN, inclusive.
Kimura teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a bending stiffness in the absorbent region of 0.3 to 0.5 gfcm, which is equivalent to 0.98 mN – 4.9 mN, to ensure the absorbent article does not overly deform or feel foreign to the user (Col. 3 lines 1-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent article of Takahashi/Johnston to have a bending stiffness between 0.98 mN – 4.9 mN, as taught by Kimura, to ensure the absorbent article does not overly deform or feel foreign to the user (as motivated by Kimura Col. 3 lines 1-16).
Takahashi/Johnston/Kimura does not specifically indicate the stiffness of the absorbent body is 0.1 to 3.0 mN, inclusive.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stiffness of Takahashi/Johnston/Kimura to be from 0.98 mN – 4.9 mN to 0.1 to 3.0 mN as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see ¶ [0109] of Applicant’s published specification indicating the stiffness “may” be within the claimed range) and 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).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2015/0164041) in view of Johnston et al (US 2013/0115437) further in view of Takagi et al (US 2014/0338607).
Regarding Claim 24, Takahashi/Johnston is silent whether the release paper has a mark indicating a peel-off in an oblique direction of the pet sheet.
Takagi teaches an absorbent pet sheet, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a release paper (300, Fig. 22) with a mark (display part 360, Fig. 22) indicating a peel-off in an oblique direction of the pet sheet (¶ [0163]). This allows the user to easily know what direction to peel the release paper.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the release paper of Takahashi/Johnston to have a mark indicating a peel-off in an oblique direction of the pet sheet, as taught by Takagi, to allow the user to easily known what direction to peel the release paper (as motivated by Takagi ¶ [0163]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights