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 § 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 10 and 14-19 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 10 recites the limitations "the first removable absorbent insert" in line 1, “the second removable absorbent insert” in line 3, and “the third removable absorbent insert” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The first, second, and third absorbent inserts were not disclosed until claim 9. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be considered to depend from claim 9.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “about 10 N/m2 to about 100 N/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 10 N/m2 to about 80 N/m2, more preferably about 20 N/m2 to about 50 N/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “about 10 N/m2 to about 100 N/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 10 N/m2 to about 80 N/m2, more preferably about 20 N/m2 to about 50 N/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “about 2 g to about 100 g”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 5 g to about 80 g … even more preferably about 15 g to about 40 g” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “about 0.5 mm to about 7 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm, more preferably about 1.0 mm to about 3.0 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “about 0.1 to about 0.9”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.3 to about 0.7” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “about 0.1 to about 0.9”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 0.4 to about 0.8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deerin (7,322,966).
With respect to claim 1, Deerin discloses a durable absorbent pant 10, as shown in figure 1, adapted to accommodate a removable absorbent insert AP, as shown in figure 3. The pant comprises front and rear waist portions 20 with front and rear waist edges W and left and right leg opening edges L1 and L2, and left and right hip side portions joining the front and rear waist portions to form a waist opening and left and right leg openings, as shown in figure 1. A crotch portion 30 comprises a gusset having a forward portion and a rearward portion, as shown in figure 3. The pant including the front and rear waist portions and gusset comprise a woven material, as disclosed in column 3, lines 34-35. The gusset comprises a durable absorbent panel comprising a wearer-facing, liquid permeable top layer 40, a durable absorbent layer 140 subjacent to the top layer, and a liquid impermeable barrier layer OBF subjacent to the absorbent layer, as shown in figure 3. The top layer 40 and absorbent layer 140 form an enveloping structure having a closed end 110 and an open end 120 adapted to receive the absorbent insert AP in a position subjacent to the top layer, as shown in figure 3.
With respect to claim 20, Deerin discloses a durable absorbent pant 10, as shown in figure 1, adapted to accommodate a removable absorbent insert AP, as shown in figure 3. The pant comprises front and rear waist portions 20 with front and rear waist edges W and left and right leg opening edges L1 and L2, and left and right hip side portions joining the front and rear waist portions to form a waist opening and left and right leg openings, as shown in figure 1. A crotch portion 30 comprises a gusset having a forward portion and a rearward portion, as shown in figure 3. The pant including the front and rear waist portions and gusset comprise a woven material, as disclosed in column 3, lines 34-35. The gusset comprises a durable panel comprising a wearer-facing, liquid permeable top layer 40 and a liquid impermeable barrier layer OBF beneath to the top layer, as shown in figure 3. The top layer 40 and barrier layer OBF form an enveloping structure having a closed end 110 and an open end 120 adapted to receive the absorbent insert AP in a position subjacent to the top layer, as shown in figure 3.
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) 2-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deerin (7,322,966) in view of Dunbar et al. (2014/0039432).
With respect to claim 2, Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of each absorbent insert comprising an insert liquid impermeable backsheet and an insert absorbent core. Deerin discloses an absorbent core AP, as shown in figure 3, with a backsheet attached thereto, but remains silent as to the backsheet being liquid impermeable. Dunbar discloses an absorbent insert for use with an absorbent pant, and teaches providing the insert with a liquid impermeable backsheet, as disclosed in paragraph [0010]. It would 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 insert of Deerin with an insert liquid impermeable backsheet, as taught by Dunbar, to combine known prior art elements to achieve the predictable result of preventing leakage of liquid from the insert.
With respect to claim 3, the insert absorbent core AP of Deerin is positioned subjacent to the top layer 40, as shown in figure 3.
With respect to claim 4, Dunbar further teaches providing the absorbent insert with an insert liquid permeable topsheet, as disclosed in paragraph [0010]. It would 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 insert of Deerin with an insert liquid permeable topsheet, as taught by Dunbar, to combine known prior art elements to achieve the predictable result of containing the absorbent material within the insert.
With respect to claim 5, the insert of Deerin is positioned subjacent to the top layer 40, as shown in figure 3, and therefore when modified to include the insert topsheet of Dunbar, the insert topsheet will also be positioned subjacent to the top layer.
With respect to claim 6, both Deerin and Dunbar do not disclose adhesive on the outward-facing surface of the insert backsheets, and therefore they are substantially free of adhesive.
With respect to claim 7, Deerin discloses the insert comprises a pull tab T, as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 8, the pull tab T of Deerin is part of the backsheet, as shown in figure 3, which is modified by Dunbar to be liquid impermeable, or hydrophobic.
With respect to claim 17, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a caliper of about 0.5-7 mm. It would 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 insert of Deerin with a caliper of about 0.5-7 mm to achieve the predictable result of an insert that is thin and not bulky for a more comfortable fit for the wearer.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deerin (7,322,966) in view of LaVon et al. (2003/0199844).
With respect to claims 9-10, Deering discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of first, second, and third absorbent inserts positioned subjacent to each other. LaVon teaches providing a three absorbent inserts subjacent to one another, as shown in figure 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pant of Deerin with three subjacent absorbent inserts, as taught by LaVon, to achieve the predictable result of being able to remove insert sequentially as they are soiled without having to replace the pant.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deerin (7,322,966) in view of Labit et al. (8,062,276).
With respect to claim 11, Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the open end comprising a slit in the wearer-facing top layer. Labit discloses a durable pant 210 for use with an absorbent insert 206, as shown in figure 7, wherein the pant has a wearer-facing top layer 260 having a slit 204 therein to allow access to a pocket for insertion of the insert, as disclosed in column 10, lines 12-15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the open end of Deerin comprise a slit in the wearer-facing top layer, as taught by Labit, to achieve the predictable result of simple substitution of one known prior art element for another.
With respect to claim 12, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the slit being reinforced. Labit is silent as to the structure of the slit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the slit of modified Deerin reinforced to achieve the predictable result of an opening that maintains its structure during use of the article.
With respect to claim 13, Deerin, when modified by Labit to have the open end be a slit in the top layer, anticipates the structure of an open end being inboard of the perimeter seal of the enveloping structure.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deerin (7,322,966) in view of Dunbar et al. (2014/0039432), and further in view of Wang et al. (2014/0257229).
With respect to claim 14, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a bending stiffness in the MD of about 10-100 N/m2. Wang discloses an absorbent insert for use with a durable pant, as shown in figure 1M, and teaches a bending stiffness of about 100 N/m2 achieves a comfortable insert, as disclosed in paragraph [0240]. It would 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 insert of Deerin with a bending stiffness of about 100 N/m2, as taught by Wang, to achieve an insert that has structural integrity but still is comfortable to wear.
With respect to claim 15, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a bending stiffness in the CD of about 10-100 N/m2. Wang discloses an absorbent insert for use with a durable pant, as shown in figure 1M, and teaches a bending stiffness of about 100 N/m2 achieves a comfortable insert, as disclosed in paragraph [0240]. It would 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 insert of Deerin with a bending stiffness of about 100 N/m2, as taught by Wang, to achieve an insert that has structural integrity but still is comfortable to wear.
With respect to claim 16, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a capacity of about 2-100 g. Wang teaches a providing the absorbent insert with a larger capacity to allow for longer usage periods such as at night, as disclosed in paragraph [0287]. 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 insert of Deerin with a capacity of about 2-100 g to achieve the predictable result of an insert than can be worn for longer periods of time, as taught by Wang.
With respect to claim 18, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a kinetic coefficient of friction of about 0.1-0.9. Wang teaches that materials with a coefficient of friction of 0.5 are preferred in absorbent inserts. 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 insert of Deerin with a coefficient of friction of 0.5, as taught by Wang, to achieve the predictable result of an insert that stays in place within the gusset during wear.
With respect to claim 19, modified Deerin discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent insert having a kinetic coefficient of friction of about 0.1-0.9. Wang teaches that materials with a coefficient of friction of 0.5 are preferred in absorbent inserts. 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 insert of Deerin with a coefficient of friction of 0.5, as taught by Wang, to achieve the predictable result of an insert that stays in place within the gusset during wear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents and Publications 2016/0338881; 3,489,149; 4,352,356; and 12,121,431; and WIPO Publication 2021/187677 disclose pant articles having enveloping structures for absorbent inserts.
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