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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application 2023216251165, however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet.
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (m)(2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 November 2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-8 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 conductive pogo pin being configured to establish a non-penetrating compressive surface contact with the conductive cable is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. While the present specification discloses that the conductive pogo pin establishes contact with the conductive cable, it does not disclose that it does so in a non-penetrating manner or that the contact with the conductive cable is a surface contact.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (12,070,330) in view of Roe et al. (6,093,869) and Grudno (2020/0163808).
Mehta discloses an intelligent monitoring diaper, as shown in figure 1, comprising a diaper body 110 and a monitor 120 comprising a battery 135, a main control board 160, a body temperature sensor 124, a humidity sensor 125, and a motion sensor 165, as shown in figure 4A. The diaper body 110 comprises a conductive cable 121a, as disclosed in column 4, lines 47-48.
Mehta discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a spring-loaded conductive pogo pin configured to establish a non-penetrating compressive surface contact with the conductive cable, an odor sensor, and the monitor being detachably connected to the diaper body.
Roe discloses a diaper having a monitor, and teaches providing the monitor with an odor sensor, as disclosed in column 20, lines 5-8. 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 monitor of Mehta with an odor sensor, as taught by Roe, to achieve the predictable result of identifying and reducing offensive odors.
Grudno discloses a diaper having a monitor, as shown in figure 10, and teaches making 3 the monitor detachably connected to the diaper body 10. Grudno further discloses conductive pogo pins 9b, as shown figure 9, that are spring-loaded, as disclosed in paragraph [0126]. The conductive pogo pins 9b are configured to establish non-penetrating compressive surface contact with conductive cables 9a on the diaper body, as shown in figure 10 and disclosed in paragraph [0129]. 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 monitor of Mehta removable, as taught by Grudno, to achieve the predictable result of allowing the monitor to be reused after the diaper is soiled. It would further have been obvious to provide the monitor of Mehta with a spring-loaded conductive pogo pin in contact with the conductive cable, as taught by Grudno, to achieve the predictable result of using a known device to achieve the predictable result of creating an electronic connection between the monitor and the conductive cables.
With respect to claim 2, Mehta discloses a computer 170, as shown in figure 1, which comprises control buttons (i.e. keyboard keys) that are electrically connected to the main control board 160 and allows for user interaction.
With respect to claim 3, Mehta discloses a communication module for communication with smart devices, as disclosed in column 5, lines 4-9.
With respect to claim 4, Mehta discloses a GPS locator 140 connected to the main control board 160, as shown in figure 1.
With respect to claim 5, modified Mehta discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of an enzyme detection module. Mehta discloses a biosensor for detecting analytes to monitor the health of the patient, as disclosed in column 7, lines 58-61, but does not disclose an enzyme as one of the analytes detected. Roe teaches using a biosensor to detect enzymes, as disclosed in column 11, lines 60-61. Roe further discloses that fecal enzymes can lead to irritated skin, as disclosed in column 12, lines 42-45. 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 biosensor of Mehta an enzyme detection module, as taught by Roe, to detect enzymes that may lead to irritated skin.
With respect to claim 6, the diaper body of Mehta comprises a waterproof layer 111, a water-absorbing layer 112, and a conductive layer 120, as shown in figure 5, wherein the conductive cable is positioned within the conductive layer, as disclosed in column 4, lines 43-49, and column 6, lines 18-22.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (12,070,330) in view of Roe et al. (6,093,869) and Grudno (2020/0163808), and further in view of Heirman et al. (2022/0233363).
With respect to claim 7, modified Mehta discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the conductive cables being distributed in a grid-like pattern crossing vertically and horizontally. Heirman discloses distributing conductive cables within a diaper in a grid-like pattern, as shown in figure 1A, and teaches that crossing vertically and horizontally is beneficial to result in reliable sensing under extreme conditions, as disclose din paragraph [0132]. 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 conductive cables of Mehta in a grid-like pattern crossing vertically and horizontally, as taught by Heirman, to improve sensing reliability.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (12,070,330) in view of Roe et al. (6,093,869) and Grudno (2020/0163808), and further in view of Stevens et al. (11,090,001).
With respect to claim 8, Stevens teaches an elastic clip 44 on the back of the monitor, as shown in figure 3, to provide an additional attachment mechanism to ensure a secure attachment, as disclosed in column 7, line 66, to column 8, line 3. 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 monitor of Mehta with an elastic clip, as taught by Stevens, to ensure a secure attachment of the monitor to the diaper. It would further have been obvious to provide a conductive spring needle to achieve the predictable result of using a known device to achieve the predictable result of creating an electronic connection between the monitor and the conductive cables.
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