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 the Claims
Claims filed 02/28/2024 has been entered. At entry, claims 1-15 are pending and under consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 1 recites “the core wrap top layer” which should read “the top layer”
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recites “the core wrap top layer and core wrap bottom layer” which should read “the top and bottom layer”
Claim 4 line 1 recites “the core wrap top layer” which should “the top layer”
Claim 8 lines 4-5 recites “to at least any one of point R and point L” which should read “to at least any one of the point R and the point L”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “about” which renders the claim indefinite. The use of word “about” when indicating a value, duration, numerical range, location, shape, or comparative sizing or proximity is considered indefinite as the specification or arguments previously presented fails to provide some standard for measuring that degree; and there is no standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of said degree. Terms of Degree: When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by submitting a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing examples that meet the claim limitation and examples that do not. <Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / February 9, 2011 / Notices, (Page 7165: Col 3, Par. 0003)>.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/589495 (reference application, hereinafter ‘495) as follows (with claim dependencies shown in paratheses, e.g., 3(2(1)) as claim 3 incorporating claims 1 and 2):
Clm
1
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
13
‘495
1
14(1)
9(1)
14(1)
1
2(1)
5+6(1)
8(1)
11(1)
Clm
14
15
‘495
12(1)
15(1)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims include all the limitations of the instant claims then the patented claims (species) anticipates the instant application (genus).
Regarding claim 2, ‘495 does not expressly teach wherein the top layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2to 200 g/m2; though
Claim 14 of ‘495 teaches wherein the basis weight of the spunlace core wrap top layer ranges from about 40 g/m2to about 200 g/m2.
one of skill in the art would have modified the claim and provides the top layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2to 200 g/m2 as claimed 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.” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In the instant case, the applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range (specification [0065]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/589495 in view of Peri et al (US 20200306105 A1).
Regarding claim 5, ‘495 claims the absorbent article according to claim 1.
‘495 does not claim wherein the spunlace comprises from about 20 percent to about 75 percent, by weight, of absorbent fibers, from about 1 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of stiffening fibers, and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of resilient fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a nonwoven suitable for use in absorbent article, Peri teaches wherein the spunlace comprises from about 20 percent to about 75 percent, by weight, of absorbent fibers, from about 1 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of stiffening fibers, and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of resilient fibers ([0027-0031] spunlace nonwoven comprises a combination of absorbent fibers, stiffening fibers and resilient fibers, for example the nonwoven comprises, from about 20 percent to about 75 percent of absorbent fibers; from about 1 percent to about 50 percent of stiffening fibers; and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent of resilient fibers).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘495 to incorporate the teachings of Peri and provides the spunlace as claimed for the purpose of providing desired softness perception while maintaining an adequate level of acquisition performance as taught by Peril ([0004])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20210186772 A1) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 20220265488 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sillerstrom substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s claimed invention (except for the limitations shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
an absorbent article (figure 1, 1) comprising a longitudinal centerline (figure 1, longitudinal axis y1) extending in a longitudinal direction and bisecting the absorbent article in a right half and a left half, a transversal centerline (figure 1, transverse axis x1 extending orthogonal to the longitudinal axis) extending in a transversal direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and bisecting the absorbent article in a front half and back half, wherein the absorbent article comprises:
a liquid permeable topsheet ([0078] figure 2, liquid permeable topsheet 3);
a liquid impermeable backsheet ([0083] figure 2, liquid impermeable backsheet 4); and
an absorbent core (figures 1 and 2, an absorbent core 5), wherein the absorbent core comprises an absorbent material layer disposed within a core wrap (figure 2, absorbent components 5a-c disposed within core wraps 11 and 12), wherein the core wrap comprises a top layer (figure 2, upper cover 11) and a bottom layer (figure 2, lower cover 12), the top layer forming substantially the wearer-facing side of the absorbent core and the bottom layer substantially forming the garment-facing side of the absorbent core (figure 2, upper cover 11 facing topsheet forming the wearer-facing side and opposite lower cover 12 facing the backsheet 4 forming the garment-facing side ), wherein the top layer and the bottom layer are discrete layers (figure 2 and [0057]);
wherein the top layer comprises a mechanically integrated nonwoven, and wherein the top layer has a basis weight of at least 20 g/m2 ([0094] the core cover made of nonwoven material with a basis weight of 5-20 g/m2).
Sillerstrom does not teach wherein the top layer comprises a mechanically integrated nonwoven.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent laminate including a spunlace nonwoven layer, Chmielewski teaches wherein the top layer comprises a mechanically integrated nonwoven ([0061] laminate layers of the absorbent laminate can comprises spunlace nonwoven, as indicated applicant’s specification [0008 and 0056] spunlace nonwoven is considered mechanically integrated nonwoven).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom to incorporate the teachings of Chmielewski and provides the top layer as claimed for the purpose of improving fluid acquisition and transport through the absorbent core while giving the core and article containing the core a softer, more pliable feel as taught by Chmielewski ([0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the top layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2to 200 g/m2.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent laminate including a spunlace nonwoven layer, Chmielewski teaches wherein the top layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2to 200 g/m2 ([0061] upper laminate or lower laminate layers having a basis weight from 20 gsm to 80 gsm).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom to incorporate the teachings of Chmielewski and provides the top layer as claimed for the purpose of improving fluid acquisition and transport through the absorbent core while giving the core and article containing the core a softer, more pliable feel as taught by Chmielewski ([0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the core wrap top layer and core wrap bottom layer are longitudinally bonded by one or more longitudinal core wrap bond(s) (Sillerstrom; figures 1 and 2 and [0071], first and side seams 15 and 16 joining cover covers 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 4, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the top layer is a spunlace (Chmielewski; [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the absorbent article does not comprise an acquisition layer between the topsheet and the absorbent core (Sillerstrom; figure 2, the absorbent article consists of topsheet, backsheet and absorbent core )
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20210186772 A1) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 20220265488 A1), and in further view of Peri et al (US 20200306105 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the spunlace comprises from about 20 percent to about 75 percent, by weight, of absorbent fibers, from about 1 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of stiffening fibers, and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of resilient fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a nonwoven suitable for use in absorbent article, Peri teaches wherein the spunlace comprises from about 20 percent to about 75 percent, by weight, of absorbent fibers, from about 1 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of stiffening fibers, and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent, by weight, of resilient fibers ([0027-0031] spunlace nonwoven comprises a combination of absorbent fibers, stiffening fibers and resilient fibers, for example the nonwoven comprises, from about 20 percent to about 75 percent of absorbent fibers; from about 1 percent to about 50 percent of stiffening fibers; and from about 10 percent to about 50 percent of resilient fibers).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Peri and provides the spunlace as claimed for the purpose of providing desired softness perception while maintaining an adequate level of fluid acquisition performance as taught by Peril ([0004])
Claims 6, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20210186772 A1) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 20220265488 A1), and in further view of Hird et al (US 20070016153 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach further comprising a narrow stabilization element between the absorbent core and the topsheet, wherein the narrow stabilization element has a width (W2) of 50 mm or less, at a point C disposed at a distance of about 40 mm from the transversal centerline towards the front of the article and transversally aligned on the absorbent material layer of the core, as measured according to the Width And Caliper Measurement Method described therein.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a disposable absorbent articles, Hird teaches comprising a narrow stabilization element (figure 1 and [0067], acquisition and distribution members 51 and 52 disposed between storage component 10 and topsheet 61) between the absorbent core and the topsheet, wherein the narrow stabilization element has a width (W2) of 50 mm or less (figure 1 and [0067 and 0076] rectilinear members 51 and 52 having a width less than 5 cm throughout longitudinal axis of the absorbent article), at a point C disposed at a distance of about 40 mm from the transversal centerline towards the front of the article and transversally aligned on the absorbent material layer of the core, as measured according to the Width And Caliper Measurement Method described therein.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Hird and provide the narrow stabilization element as claimed for the purpose of enhancing liquid communication between the core and the topsheet while providing suitable width for the crotch area as taught by Hird ([0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski and Hird, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 6.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the width of the narrow stabilization element is in the range of from 20 mm to 50 mm; though
Hird teaches wherein the width of the narrow stabilization element is less than 50 mm ([0067 and 0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski and Hird, and provides the width of the narrow stabilization element is in the range of from 20 mm to 50 mm 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.” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In the instant case, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of providing adequate surface areas while avoiding interference with inner legs. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range (specification [0013 and 0044]), and therefore the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski and Hird, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 6.
The combination further teaches wherein the narrow stabilization element has an average basis weight of at least 50 g/m2 (Hird; [0071 and 0102] the acquisition and distribution members 52 and 51 preferably has a basis weight of about 50 g/m2 and between about 50 g/m2 and 80 g/m2 respectively ) and wherein the narrow stabilization element comprises a material selected from:
a layer of cross-linked cellulose fibers; or
an airlaid material (Hird; [0101] the distribution member 51 comprises an airlaid web ); or
a spunlace nonwoven.
Regarding claim 11, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the absorbent article further comprising an acquisition layer between the topsheet and the absorbent core, wherein the acquisition layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2 to 70 g/m2.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a disposable absorbent articles, Hird teaches wherein the absorbent article further comprising an acquisition layer between the topsheet and the absorbent core, wherein the acquisition layer has a basis weight in the range of from 20 g/m2 to 70 g/m2 (figure 1 [0071], acquisition member 52 between topsheet 61 and the absorbent core 10 and has a basis weight of about 60 g/m2 ).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Hird and provides the acquisition layer as claimed for the purpose of providing desired fluid handling properties as taught by Hird ([0012])
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20210186772 A1) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 20220265488 A1), and in further view of Kreuzer et al (US 20150173967 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the absorbent core comprises at least 10 g of superabsorbent polymers.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Kreuzer teaches wherein the absorbent core comprises at least 10 g of superabsorbent polymers ([0049] absorbent core 28 comprises from 10 g to 50 g of SAP).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Kreuzer and provides the absorbent core as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of providing desired fluid absorption capacity while reducing the profile of the absorbent article as taught by Kreuzer ([0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the absorbent material layer comprises from 80% to 100% by weight of superabsorbent particles
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Kreuzer teaches wherein the absorbent material layer comprises from 80% to 100% by weight of superabsorbent particles ([0049] absorbent material of the absorbent core 28 comprises at least 80% of SAP).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Kreuzer and provides the absorbent core as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of providing desired fluid absorption capacity while reducing the profile of the absorbent article as taught by Kreuzer ([0047]-[0049]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20210186772 A1) in view of Chmielewski et al (US 20220265488 A1), and in further view of Fell et al (US 20020177829 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the absorbent article is an adult incontinence pant comprising a front panel, a rear panel, wherein the front panel and the rear panel are joined to each other along left and right side seams, and an absorbent pad assembly extending between the front panel and the rear panel, wherein the topsheet, backsheet and absorbent core form at least in part the absorbent pad assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a disposable underpants and method, Fell teaches wherein the absorbent article is an adult incontinence pant ([0007] and figure 1a, underpants 12 comprising front and back body portions 14 and 15 ) comprising a front panel, a rear panel, wherein the front panel and the rear panel are joined to each other along left and right side seams (figures 1 and 4, the front and back body portions are joined along side seams 64), and an absorbent pad assembly (figure 1a, container 73 extending between the front and back body portions 14 and 15) extending between the front panel and the rear panel, wherein the topsheet, backsheet and absorbent core form at least in part the absorbent pad assembly (figures 1a and 9, topsheet 49, liquid barrier 48 and absorbent core 50 form at least in part of container 73 ).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chmielewski, to incorporate the teachings of Fell and provides the absorbent article as claimed for the purpose of providing an absorbent garment that flees and moves with the adult wearer for enhanced comfort as taught by Fell ([0009])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art, alone or in combination, could be found to teach (claim 8) wherein the absorbent core extends at least transversally 5 mm outboard of a point R and at least 5 mm outboard of a point L disposed respectively 30 mm right and left in the transversal direction of the point C,
wherein the narrow stabilization element does not extend transversally to at least any one of point R and point L,
wherein the absorbent article has a first caliper C1 at the point C,
wherein the absorbent article has a second caliper C2 at point R and a third caliper C3 at point L, and
wherein the caliper ratio C1/(C2+C3) is at least 0.6, the calipers being measured according to the Width And Caliper Measurement Method disclosed herein.
The closest prior art Sillerstrom (US 20210186772 A1), Chmielewski (US 20220265488 A1) and Hird (US 20070016153 A1) teaches the device as claimed, specifically Hird teaches the narrow stabilization element of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the narrow stabilization element does not extend transversally to at least any one of point R and point L and wherein the caliper ratio C1/(C2+C3) is at least 0.6, the calipers being measured according to the Width And Caliper Measurement Method disclosed herein
The claimed structure is provided to reduce wrinkling where wrinkling is most noticeable both visually and tactilely, and prevent pressure on the inner legs during walking or other activities, while providing increased stability to the article (applicant’s specification [0012] and [0013]). Examiner did not find any teachings/motivation to modify the device to incorporate the claimed limitation above without altering the cited prior art and expect a reasonable degree of success. There is not an apparent/obvious reason/motivation for this modification as this modification increases the complexity of the system in the prior art in terms of structure, function, and design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Viens (US 20200315861 A1) Sartini (US 20220280350 A1) and Garcia (US 20200060891 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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.
/SETH HAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights