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 .
Status of Claims
As directed by the amendment filed on 7 April 2026: claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 15 have been amended, claim(s) 13-14 have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-12 & 15 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that "the features "a pull means (PM) comprising at least one longitudinally extending pull means strip(s) extending at least partially along said longitudinal centerline" are not disclosed or suggested by the cited references", Sugiyama discloses the claimed features as discussed below (see FIG. 8).
Regarding the argument that "the pull means of the claim 1 does not need to be elastic and may be in fact non-elastic", it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., non-elastic pull means) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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, 3-8, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20040039363 A1) in view of Tilly et al. (US 6520947 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama discloses
A hygiene article for being worn on a lower torso of a wearer adapted to receive and retain bodily exudates ("diaper" [0093]-[0111]; FIG. 1),
- said article exhibiting:
a first dimension that is one or more of a length dimension, a longitudinal dimension, or an x-direction dimension, a longitudinal centerline ([0132]; FIGs. 7 & 8),
a second dimension that is one or more of a width dimension, cross- directional dimension or y-direction dimension, wherein the second dimension is perpendicular to the first dimension and corresponds to the left-right direction of the wearer ([0132]; FIGs. 7 & 8),
a third dimension that is one or more of a thickness dimension or z-direction dimension perpendicular to both the first and second dimensions ([0132]; FIGs. 9 & 10);
- said article comprising, relative to the wearer when worn by the wearer,
a rear waist region and a front waist region ("waist surrounding opening 114 of the diaper 110" [0132]; FIGs. 7 & 8), and
a crotch point region positioned longitudinally between said rear and front waist regions ("crotch region of the diaper 110" [0132]; FIGs. 7 & 8)
- and comprising a crotch point positioned between an anal opening and genital organs when the article is worn by the wearer ([0132]; FIGs. 7 & 8),
- said article being adapted to be converted from a manufacturing configuration, into an in-use configuration (NOTE: inherent property of absorbent articles),
- wherein in the in-use configuration, said article adopts a general U-shape by a longitudinally extending center line extending from one region from the front and rear waist regions of the wearer through the crotch point region into an opposite waist region from the front and rear waist regions ("U shape" [0132]; FIG. 10),
- and wherein in the in-use configuration, said front and rear waist regions are adapted to encircle the waist of the wearer ([0132]; FIG. 7),
- said article comprising
a skin protection sheet (SPS) ("skin contact sheet 118" [0132]; FIG. 10)
- adapted to separate bodily exudates from a skin of the wearer ("stool is guided into the gap through the opening 120" [0141]; FIG. 10),
- comprising at least one opening adapted to be positioned in registry with a bodily exudate releasing body opening or a genital organ ("opening 120 formed in the portion forming the crotch region of the diaper 110" [0132]; FIG. 10), and
- extending from said front or said rear waist regions at least into the crotch point region of said article ("extend to the back body region 110R from the front body region 110F of the diaper 110 [0132]; FIG. 10);
a backsheet adapted to retain said bodily exudates ("liquid-impervious back sheet 112" [0132]),
wherein at least one of said SPS or an exudate separation sheet (ESS), comprise(s) longitudinal side margins that are overfolded along a longitudinal fold line towards but not over said longitudinal center line of said article ("plurality of stretchable leg surrounding elastic members 117" [0132]; FIG. 8),
- said article further comprising
a spreading means (SM) adapted to maintain at least one of said at least one opening cross-directionally open during wearing of the article by the wearer,
a pull means (PM) (see Annotated FIG. 8) comprising
- at least one longitudinally extending pull means strip(s) extending at least partially along said longitudinal centerline ("elastic members 121a, 121b, 122a, 122b" [0145]; FIG. 8).
Annotated FIG. 8
PNG
media_image1.png
522
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugiyama fails to specify one or more suspender connecting means adapted to be connected to a suspender system which is connectable to but separate from said article. However, Tilly teaches “disposable absorbent articles such as diapers, adult incontinence products, sanitary napkins and the like comprising a reusable fastening device” (see Abstract) wherein one or more suspender connecting means ("second releasably engageable members are joined to the garment facing side of the backsheet or the backsheet comprises the second releasably engageable member, i.e. the backsheet or a region thereof may serve as a second releasably engageable member" col. 6 ln. 60-65) adapted to be connected to a suspender system ("fastening device 40" col. 5 ln. 25; FIG. 1) which is connectable to but separate from said article (col. 5 ln. 25-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide improved fit and containment” (col. 10 ln. 65-66).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugiyama fails to specify said suspender connecting means of said PM strip(s) is / are positioned in the front and/or rear waist region. However, Tilly teaches said suspender connecting means of said PM strip(s) is / are positioned in the front and/or rear waist region ("releasable engagement between the end members of a fastening device and the first and second waist regions" col. 6 ln. 66-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide improved fit and containment” (col. 10 ln. 65-66).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugiyama discloses at least one pull means strip extend(s) from at least one of said cross-directionally margins in the front or rear waist region of said SPS or ESS towards said crotch point ("One set of elastic members 121a, 121b pass through the crotch region from a width-direction one end of the front body region so as to hold the opening 120, and extend to the width-direction other end of the back body region. The other set of elastic members 122a, 122b pass through the crotch region from the other end of the width direction of the front body region so as to hold the opening 120, and extend to the width-direction one end of the back body region" [0133]; FIG. 8),
if covering said at least one opening of said SPS, further comprises (a) pull means opening(s) in registry with said at least one opening of said SPS (see FIG. 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiyama discloses said spreading means (SM) being unitary with said pull means ("elastic members 121a, 121b, 122a, 122b are held between the upper sheet 118U and lower sheet 118L" [0133]),
- wherein said spreading means and said PM are partially cut from said pull means by a separation line extending from and intersecting a longitudinal side margin of said pull means towards but terminating at a termination point before intersecting said pull means opening(s) [0142]; FIG. 8), wherein said intersection of said longitudinal side margin is distanced further away from said crotch point than the termination point of said separation line (see FIG. 8);
and connected at its laterally outward end to overfolded portions of said SPS or ESS (see FIG. 8).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugiyama discloses said PM comprises a first pull means strip permanently connected to said article in at least one of said waist regions and a second pull means strip ("elastic members 121a, 121b, 122a, 122b" [0145]; FIG. 8) but fails to specify suspender connection means. However, Tilly teaches suspender connection means ("releasable engagement between the end members of a fastening device and the first and second waist regions" col. 6 ln. 66-67). Sugiyama/Tilly fails to specify the second pull means strip positioned z-directionally adjacent to said first pull means strip. However, the court has held that a rearrangement of part is an obvious matter of design choice. Since the location of the second pull means strip would not have modified the operation of the device (the device is still able to be supported by the suspender on the wearer) and the specification lacks any criticality of the claimed arrangement, it would have been obvious to rearrange the second pull means strip to be positioned z-directionally adjacent to said first pull means strip as an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 7, Sugiyama/Tilly teaches a kit of a hygiene article according to claim 1 (see above) and said suspender system (col. 1 ln. 66 thru col. 2 ln. 11).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugiyama fails to specify the claim limitations. However, Tilly teaches said suspender system is selected from the group consisting of
- a waist girdle ("fastening devices may be put around the waist of the wearer" col. 3 ln. 60-61);
- a braces system running over shoulders of said wearer ("putting the fastening devices over the shoulders of the wearer" col. 3 ln. 66-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide improved fit and containment” (col. 10 ln. 65-66).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugiyama discloses further comprising an absorbent core adapted to absorb liquids of said bodily exudates ("absorber 113" [0132]).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugiyama fails to specify the claim limitations. However, Tilly teaches said suspender system is a reusable suspender system ("reusable fastening device" col. 2 ln 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide an disposable absorbent article comprising a reusable fastening system that can be separated into its individual components” so that only soiled components need to be disposed and save cost (col. 1 ln. 59-61).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. in view of Tilly et al., further in view of Burger (US 3729004 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugiyama/Tilly fails to specify said suspender connecting means of said pull means strip(s) is / are positioned at a front and/or rear ends of said pull means strip(s). However, Burger teaches an discloses an analogous diaper suspender system (see FIG. 1) wherein said suspender connecting means of said PM strip(s) is / are positioned at the front and/or rear ends of said pull means strip strip(s) ("ends 2 and 3 of the backing 1 are located inside the envelope constituted by the tight layers 6, 7 but all the stack constituting the napkin is provided with holes 13 permitting the hooking of a suspender 14 for the fixing of the napkin" col. 2 ln. 29-32; FIGs. 3 & 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Sugiyama/Tilly to incorporate the teachings of Burger to suitably enable “a perfect adjustment” or perfect fitment of the absorbent article (col. 1 ln. 62-68).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. in view of Tilly et al., further in view of Saitoh (US 20160331599 A1).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Sugiyama/Tilly fails to specify a sensor system comprising - a sensor element;- an energy supply; - a connecting element; - a signal transmitter, whereby at least said energy supply and said signal transmitter are connected to or integral with said suspender system; said sensor element is adapted to detect physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of said disposable article or of exudates deposited therein. However, Saitoh teaches a fecal receiving diaper (see Abstract) comprising a sensor system ("insert-type toilet seat 9" [0061]; FIG. 6) comprising
- a sensor element ("fecal sensor 23" [0063]);
- an energy supply ("electric cord 55 is connected to the fecal sensor 23 and the urine sensor 24 and conducts input and output of electric signals and supply of electric power" [0068]);
- a connecting element ("hip receiving portion 13" [0072]);
- a signal transmitter ("conducts input and output of electric signals" [0068]),
wherein at least said energy supply and said signal transmitter are connected to or integral with said suspender system (see FIG. 9); wherein said sensor element is adapted to detect physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of said disposable article or of exudates deposited therein (“the fecal sensor 23 or the urine sensor 24 detects defecated feces or discharged urine” [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Sugiyama/Tilly to incorporate the teachings of Saitoh to suitably enable the timely disposal of excrements ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugiyama fails to specify said hygiene article is a disposable hygiene article and said suspender system is a re-usable suspender system. However, Tilly teaches said hygiene article is a disposable hygiene article ("disposable absorbent articles" col. 1 ln. 7-8) and said suspender system is a re-usable suspender system ("reusable fastening device" col. 1 ln. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide an disposable absorbent article comprising a reusable fastening system that can be separated into its individual components” so that only soiled components need to be disposed and save cost (col. 1 ln. 59-61).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12156796 in view of Tilly et al. (US 6520947 B1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12156796 discloses all of the limitations except one or more suspender connecting means adapted to be connected to a suspender system which is connectable to but separate from said article. However, Tilly teaches “disposable absorbent articles such as diapers, adult incontinence products, sanitary napkins and the like comprising a reusable fastening device” (see Abstract) wherein one or more suspender connecting means ("second releasably engageable members are joined to the garment facing side of the backsheet or the backsheet comprises the second releasably engageable member, i.e. the backsheet or a region thereof may serve as a second releasably engageable member" col. 6 ln. 60-65) adapted to be connected to a suspender system ("fastening device 40" col. 5 ln. 25; FIG. 1) which is connectable to but separate from said article (col. 5 ln. 25-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sugiyama to incorporate the teachings of Tilly to suitably “provide improved fit and containment” (col. 10 ln. 65-66).
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 Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/Adam Marcetich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights