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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upper pulp material sheet and the lower pulp material sheet must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 1 and “the recess” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasano et al. (US 2020/0288665) and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2005/0031850).
With reference to claim 1, Sasano et al. (hereinafter “Sasano”) discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet (abstract) comprising:
a liquid-permeable top side layer (12);
a liquid-impermeable backside layer (14);
an absorption member (20) arranged between the top side layer and the backside layer [0042] and configured to absorb a liquid that permeated through the top side layer; and
a tissue layer (33a) arranged between the top side layer and the absorption member [0044], wherein a portion where the top side layer and the tissue layer cover the absorption member has an unevenness part (figure 4), wherein the absorption member contains a pulp material and a water-absorbent polymer material as set forth in [0045].
The difference between Sasano and claim 1 is the provision that the ratio of the weight of the water-absorbent polymer material to the weight of the pulp material in the absorption member is less than 1.
Mitchell et al. (hereinafter “Mitchell”) teaches an analogous pet mat [0002] wherein the ratio of the weight of the water-absorbent polymer material to the weight of the pulp material in the absorption member is less than 1 as set forth in [0211] where Mitchell discloses that the core may include as little as .5% and up to 100% of an SAP.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the ratio of Sasano utilizing the ratio as taught by Mitchell in order to provide an overall thinner product as taught by Mitchell in [0211].
As to claim 2, Sasano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein the unevenness part is formed of a recess and a protrusion, and the recess is configured to allow a liquid to flow in the recess as set forth in [0049].
Regarding claim 3, Sasano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein a tissue layer (33b) is further arranged between the absorption member and the backside layer as set forth in [0044] and as shown in figure 4.
As to claim 4. Sasano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein the ratio of the weight of the water-absorbent polymer material to the weight of the pulp material in the absorption member is less than 0.5 as set forth in [0211] where Sasano discloses that the core may include as little as .5% of an SAP.
Regarding claims 5-6, Sasano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein the liquid- permeable top side layer is a nonwoven fabric as set forth in [0043].
With reference to claim 7, Sasano modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-6.
The difference between Sasano modified and claim 7 is the provision that the nonwoven sheet is manufactured by a specific process.
It is noted that the manner by which a product is produced does not provide a patentable distinction from the product itself.
Sasano discloses a nonwoven topsheet in [0043].
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
With reference to claim 8, Sasano modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-7.
The difference between Sasano modified and claim 8 is the explicit recitation that tissue layer is hydrophilic absorbent paper.
Sasano discloses the tissue as a liquid permeable tissue in [0045].
The plain and ordinary meaning of the term tissue isas set forth in
As to claim 9, see figures 2-3 of Sosano.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the tissue layer as desired since it has been held that mere changes in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 10, Sasano modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Sasano modified and claim 10 is the explicit recitation that the absorption member comprises two layers of sheets of the pulp material including an upper pulp material sheet and a lower pulp material sheet, wherein the water-absorbent polymer material is dispersed between the lower pulp material sheet and the upper pulp material sheet and between the tissue layer and the upper pulp material sheet.
Initially, it is noted that the duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Sosano provides the absorbent structure with pulp material and water-absorbent polymer material as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Absent any teaching of an unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate and/or modify the configuration of the elements previously set forth by Sasano since it has been held that the mere duplication and/or rearrangement of elements previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, Sosano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein the liquid- impermeable backside layer is made of a synthetic resin (i.e., film) as set forth in [0043].
Regarding claim 12, Sosano discloses a pet-use absorbent sheet wherein the unevenness part is an embossed part formed by embossing as set forth in [0020] and [0051].
With reference to claim 13, Sasano modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Sasano modified and claim 13 is the explicit recitation that the unevenness part is provided in a lattice pattern over an entire surface covering the absorption member.
Sasano depicts an embossed pattern covering the absorption member as shown in figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the embossed pattern as desired since it has been held that mere changes in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 14, as best understood, see the rejection of claims 12 and 13 where embossed elements are understood to have protrusions and/or recesses as supported by figures 4 and 8 of Sosano.
With reference to claim 15, Sasano modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Sasano modified and claim 15 is the provision that the sheet further comprises a second tissue layer wherein the absorption member and the tissue layer are crimped to the second tissue layer such that the absorption member, the tissue layer and the second tissue layer are integrated.
Absent any teaching of an unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to duplicate and/or modify the configuration of the elements previously set forth by Sasano since it has been held that the mere duplication and/or rearrangement of elements previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
It is noted that Sasano discloses embossing of the layers and, according to the instant specification, embossing is the method that provides crimping and crimping allows for integration.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claimed ratio are not persuasive because Mitchell teaches the use of at least at 0.5% of SAP with a reduction in the amount of fluff or pulp as set forth in [0211], thereby providing the knowledge and the motivation to arrive at the claimed ratio.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sosano is concerned with the perception of thickness [0007] through the use of embossing and Mitchell seeks to provide an improved pet mat [0002] with the benefit to optimize absorption capacity, absorption rate, acquisition time, gel strength, and permeability as set forth in [0006].
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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights