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 6 July 2026: claim(s) 1 have been amended, claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsubo et al. (US 20050080394 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Otsubo discloses a re-sizable diaper (see Abstract), comprising: a three-dimensional absorption core ("absorbent structure 18 comprises a liquid-absorbent core 28" [0049]; FIG. 3); two leak-proof portions, respectively provided on left and right sides of said three-dimensional absorption core ("absorbent structure 18 is provided along its transversely opposite side edges with a pair of flaps 33" [0049]; FIG. 3);
a front waistline ("front waist region 12" [0040]; FIG. 1) and a rear waistline ("rear waist region 13" [0040]; FIG. 1), one longitudinal end of said three-dimensional absorption core extending to form said front waistline, the other longitudinal end of said three-dimensional absorption core extending in a transverse direction to form said rear waistline ("absorbent structure 18 extends over the crotch region 14 further into the front and rear waist regions 12, 13" [0040]; FIG. 2);
a number of elastic threads, respectively seamed on said front waistline and said rear waistline to fold said front waistline and said rear waistline into fold pleats ("plurality of elastic members 19 arranged in the front and rear waist regions 12, 13" [0040]);
two side edges of said front waistline are respectively connected to two side edges of said rear waistline ("side edge portions of the respective ear flaps 40 are overlapped and connected together" [0058]; FIG. 7);
two side edges of said front waist portion and two side edges of said rear waist portion are respectively connected by sutures or adhesive glue ("by seam lines 41 extending along these side edge portions" [0058]);
wherein said two side edges of said rear waistline are respectively provided with an extension portion ("ear flaps 40" [0058]; FIG. 8) and a side edge of said extension portion is provided with an adhesive flap ("fastener means 21, 22" [0062]);
said adhesive flap is adhered to said extension portion and can be torn off and adhered to said front waistline ("front and rear waist regions may be connected with each other by mutual engagement of the fastener means 21, 22" [0040]);
if said front waistline and said rear waistline are too large for a wearer, a waistline of said re-sizable diaper can be narrowed by tearing said adhesive flaps from said extension portion and affixing to an appropriate position horizontally or diagonally down on said front waistline ("fastener means 21, 22 can be easily put in mutual engagement and disengagement" [0047]); if sizes of said front waistline and said rear waistline are too small for said wearer, two sides where said front waistline and said rear waistline are bonded together may be torn off ("front waist region 12 to be torn off from the rear waist region 13" [0060]), said adhesive flaps are torn off said extension portion and attached to said front waistline in an appropriate position ("fastener means 21, 22 can be easily put in mutual engagement and disengagement" [0047]); and if the size of a leg circumference if said re-sizable diaper is too large relative to a thigh root of said wearer, joints between said two side edges and of said front waist portion and said rear waist portion are folded ("side edge portions of the respective ear flaps 40 are overlapped and connected together by seam lines 41 extending along these side edge portions" [0058]), and said adhesive flaps are adhered to an appropriate position of said front waist portion, thereby reducing said size of said leg circumference ("fastener means 21, 22 can be easily put in mutual engagement and disengagement" [0047]); if said size of the leg circumference is too small relative to said thigh root of said wearer, said joints of wearer two side edges of said front waist portion and said rear waist portion are torn off ("front waist region 12 to be torn off from the rear waist region 13" [0060]), said size of said leg circumference is increased by using the extension portion ("ear flaps 13A" [0053]; FIG. 5), said adhesive flaps are torn off from said extension portion and adhered to said front waist portion at an appropriate position ("first waist region being provided along transversely opposite side edge portions thereof with a fastener means adapted to releasably connect the first to the second waist regions" [0016]).
NOTE: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04. In this case, Otsubo has the structures that can perform the claimed functions should the claimed conditions occur. Thus, Otsubo meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Otsubo discloses a side edge of each of said leak-proof portions is sewn with said elastic threads to form a elastic corrugation region ("Each of the flaps 33 further has an elastic member 37 attached in a stretched state to the distal edge portion 35 so that the elastic member 37 may function as an elastic spacer means to space apart the flap 33 upward from the upper sheet 29 thereby forming a channel 38 adapted to receive body waste" [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Wade et al. (US 20130310793 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Otsubo discloses said elastic threads are uniformly and transversely distributed in a center region of said front waistline to form a sparse elastic corrugation region ("elastic members 19 are arranged over almost whole area defined between the vicinity of respective upper edges of the front and rear waist regions 12, 13 and the vicinity of respective upper edges of the crotch region 14" [0043]) and are uniformly and transversely distributed in two side regions of said front waistline to form a dense elastic corrugation region ("plurality of elastic members 20 provided in the crotch region 14 along the respective leg regions 14a as second elastic members" [0040]). Otsubo fails to specify said center region is relatively loose and said two side regions are relatively tight. However, Wade teaches that regional elasticity is a results effective variable in that changing the characteristics of the elastic members changes the relative tightness/looseness of the diaper region ("One or more of elastic members 36, 37, 38 and 39 may be varied from one or more of the others in various ways to impart differing stretch and force characteristics" [0047]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed structure since it involves only adjusting the number of the elastic members. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed structure as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Raycheck et al. (US 20120277713 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Otsubo fails to specify said extension portion is elastic in tension. However, Raycheck teaches an analogous disposable absorbent article (see Abstract) wherein said extension portion is elastic in tension ("ears 40, 42 may be formed of a stretch laminate such as a nonwoven/elastomeric material laminate or a nonwoven/elastomeric material/nonwoven laminate" [0043]; FIG. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Otsubo as taught by Raycheck "to provide improved fit and containment" ([0034]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo in view of Strasemeier et al. (US 20230016210 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Otsubo fails to specify said three-dimensional absorption core is provided with color-changing indicators. However, Strasemeier teaches a diaper (see Abstract) wherein said three-dimensional absorption core is provided with color-changing indicators ("wetness indicator 100 visible through the garment-facing area of the article and placed at least partially within the area of the garment-facing side superposed with the channels" [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Otsubo as taught by Strasemeier to communicate “at an early stage to the caregiver that the diaper has been wetted" ([0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
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.
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights