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 § 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, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110077606 A1 (Wilcox et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 4, Wilcox teaches a urine-blocking and absorbing pad (10) (Figs. 1, 2) to cover a pelvic area (as described in [0006]) of a child during a diaper-change, the urine-blocking and absorbing pad comprising:
a waterproof layer (12) to prevent urine from exiting the urine-blocking and absorbing pad ([0020] describing the layer as a moisture barrier which prevents moisture from wetting the clothes);
a fluff layer (22) to contact the pelvic area (being in contact with the genitalia [0030]) of the child (layer 22 being considered a fluff layer as defined in the Specification which states the “fluff layer may include at least one of a hydrophilic fibrous nonwoven fabric, a composite sheet composed of a hydrophobic fibrous nonwoven fabric, a breathable liquid-impervious plastic film laminated together, a water repellent finished hydrophobic fibrous nonwoven fabric, a mixture of particulate and/or fibrous superabsorbent polymers, fluff pulp fibers, a mixture of particulate and/or fibrous superabsorbent polymers, thermoplastic synthetic resin fibers, cotton, and tissue paper [0009]); and
an absorbing layer (20) disposed between the waterproof layer and the fluff layer to absorb the urine [0032];
wherein the urine-blocking and absorbing pad has an overall concave shape to conform to the pelvic area (the distance DG indicating a concave area as seen in Fig. 2 [0021]) of the child;
wherein the fluff layer comprises at least one of a hydrophilic fibrous nonwoven fabric (cotton [0030]), a composite sheet composed of a hydrophobic fibrous nonwoven fabric (polyester and nylon being hydrophobic), thermoplastic synthetic resin fibers (polyester and nylon being thermoplastic synthetic fibers), and cotton [0030].
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilcox in view of US 20190133838 A1 (Joshi et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Wilcox further teaches the absorbent layer may contain super-absorbent polymers (SAP), including polyacrylate, but fails to explicitly teach the absorbing layer comprises sodium polyacrylate.
Joshi teaches an absorbent article (10) wherein the absorbing layer (24) comprises sodium polyacrylate [0066, 0028].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SAP of Wilcox with the sodium polyacrylate SAP of Joshi as a simple substitution of one known absorbent for another with a reasonable expectation of retraining fluids MPEP 2143 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060106356 A1, US 20250041133 A1, US 20140257225 A1, US 5702381 A, US 6520945 B1, US 4685914 A disclose urine collection device which posses a concave shape by default, or during use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781