DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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
1. Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 1, 2024 and October 3, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 3-8 and 11-13 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.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 11-13, the term "preferably" and phrases “more preferably” and “even more preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term/phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, the limitations following the indefinite term/phrases will be interpreted as not being part of the claimed invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system is equal to or less than 500 mg”, and the claim also recites “preferably equal to or less than 450 mg, more preferably equal to or less than 300 mg, even more preferably equal to or less than 200 mg or even equal to or less than 150 mg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system is equal to or more than 5 mg”, and the claim also recites “preferably equal to or more than 10 mg, more preferably equal to or more than 25 mg, even more preferably equal to or more than 50 mg or even equal to or more than 75 mg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the acquisition and distribution system comprises from one to ten saturated carboxylic acids”, and the claim also recites “preferably from one to five saturated carboxylic acids, even more preferably from one to three saturated carboxylic acids or even only one saturated carboxylic acid” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a Neutralization Area Value of from 0.35 mmol/m2 to 100.00 mmol/m2”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 0.50 mmol/ m2 to 750.00 mmol/ m2, more preferably from 1.00 mmol/ m2 to 50.00 mmol/ m2, even more preferably from 10.00 mmol/ m2 to 35.00 mmol/ m2 or even from 15.00 mmol/ m2 to 25.00 mmol/ m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a Neutralization Value of from 0.015 mmol to 1.500 mmol”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 0.025 mmol to 1.000 mmol, more preferably from 0.050 mmol to 0.900 mmol, even more preferably from 0.100 mmol to 0.800 mmol or even from 0.500 mmol to 0.750 mmol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a Total Neutralization Value of from 0.150 mmol to 1.525 mmol”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 0.200 mmol to 1.250 mmol, more preferably from 0.250 mmol to 1.050 mmol, even more preferably from 0.300 mmol to 0.900 mmol or even from 0.600 mmol to 0.800 mmol” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 recite the limitation "from M’min to M’max" in line 3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. M’min to M’max is introduced in claim 2; however, claims 5, 7 and 8 depend from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the Neutralization Area Value test method disclosed herein" in the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what Neutralization Area Value test method is being recalled or referred to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the Neutralization Area Value test method disclosed herein" in the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what Neutralization Area Value test method is being recalled or referred to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the Neutralization Area Value test method disclosed herein" in the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what Neutralization Area Value test method is being recalled or referred to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the Neutralization Value test method disclosed herein" in the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what Neutralization Value test method is being recalled or referred to.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the Total Neutralization Value test method disclosed herein" in the final line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to what Total Neutralization Value test method is being recalled or referred to.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0258650 A1).
6. With regard to claim 1, Rosati discloses an absorbent article (diaper, 1900; Figs. 25-27; abstract; [0105]; [0220]) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (1924), a liquid impermeable backsheet (1925), an absorbent core (1928), and an acquisition and distribution system (liquid management system, 1950; Fig. 26) comprising at least one acquisition (1952) and/or distribution layer (1954; [0221]); wherein the absorbent core (1928) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the backsheet (1925; Fig. 26); the acquisition and distribution system (1950) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the absorbent core (1928; Fig. 26); wherein the acquisition and distribution system (1950) comprises one or more saturated carboxylic acids ([0186-0188]; [0191]; [0193]), wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids are each selected from the group of monocarboxylic acids (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, caproic acid; [0193]), dicarboxylic acids (succinic acid, fumaric acid; [0193]) or tricarboxylic acids (citric acid; [0193]); wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each have a pKa for the first acid dissociation in water at 25°C and 1 atm and the pKa of each of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is from 2.5 to 5.0 (pKa in water at 25°C and 1 atm of: acetic acid is ~4.76, propionic acid is ~4.88, butyric acid is ~4.82, caproic acid is ~4.88, succinic acid is ~4.2, fumaric acid is ~4.4, citric acid is ~3.13, ~4.76 and ~6.4); and wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each are in monomeric, dimeric or oligomeric form ([0186]; [0188]; [0193]; claims 17-20).
Rosati is silent in regard to at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is comprised by the acquisition and distribution system (1950) in an amount from Mmin to Mmax, wherein Mmin is calculated according to Formula A and Mmax is calculated according to Formula B:
Mmin = 10pKa-9.00mol + 10-5.00mol (Formula A)
Mmax = 10pKa-6.50mol + 10-3.75mol (Formula B).
However, Rosati already discloses the same components included in the acquisition and distribution system (1950) for the same reasons to that being claimed, as the inclusion of skin treatment agents and pH control agents are clearly suggested ([0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of determining the minimum and maximum amount of at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system disclosed by Rosati, to be calculated according to claimed Formulas A and B, in order for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a determination of the proper amount of the saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system to neutralize the pH of the skin during use, as suggested by Rosati in paragraph [0191], through routine experimentation. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover the optimum or workable ranges of saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system, in order to control the pH of the user’s skin during use, with as reasonable expectation of success.
7. With regard to claim 2, Rosati is silent in regard to at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is comprised by the acquisition and distribution system (1950) in an amount from M’min to M’max, wherein M’min is calculated according to Formula A’ and M’max is calculated according to Formula B’:
M’min = 10pKa-7.80mol + 10-4.40mol (Formula A’)
M’max = 10pKa-6.60mol + 10-3.8mol (Formula B’).
However, Rosati already discloses the same components included in the acquisition and distribution system (1950) for the same reasons to that being claimed, as the inclusion of skin treatment agents and pH control agents are clearly suggested ([0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of determining the minimum and maximum amount of at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system disclosed by Rosati, to be calculated according to claimed Formulas A’ and B’, in order for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a determination of the proper amount of one of the saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system to neutralize the pH of the skin during use, as suggested by Rosati in paragraph [0191], through routine experimentation. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover the optimum or workable ranges of saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system, in order to control the pH of the user’s skin during use, with as reasonable expectation of success.
8. With regard to claim 3, Rosati is silent in regard to the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system being equal to or less than 500 mg, preferably equal to or less than 450 mg, more preferably equal to or less than 300 mg, even more preferably equal to or less than 200 mg or even equal to or less than 150 mg.
However, Rosati suggests that the compositions may include a plurality of composition sites each comprising a density of spaced-out discrete dots comprising the composition; and the compositions may comprise a density of from about 0.6 grams/cubic cm to about 2.0 grams/cubic cm, specifically including all values within this range and any ranges created thereby ([0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system disclosed by Rosati to be equal to or less than 500 mg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are optimum or workable ranges to the amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system in order to produce a desired skin neutralization effect, and through routine experimentation, a desired range of inclusion can be determined, with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. With regard to claim 4, Rosati fails to explicitly disclose that the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system is equal to or more than 5 mg, preferably equal to or more than 10 mg, more preferably equal to or more than 25 mg, even more preferably equal to or more than 50 mg or even equal to or more than 75 mg.
However, Rosati suggests that the compositions may include a plurality of composition sites each comprising a density of spaced-out discrete dots comprising the composition; and the compositions may comprise a density of from about 0.6 grams/cubic cm to about 2.0 grams/cubic cm, specifically including all values within this range and any ranges created thereby ([0207]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the total mass amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system disclosed by Rosati to be equal to or more than 5 mg, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are optimum or workable ranges to the amount of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system in order to produce a desired skin neutralization effect, and through routine experimentation, a desired range of inclusion can be determined, with a reasonable expectation of success.
10. With regard to claims 5, 7 and 8, Rosati discloses that the at least one saturated carboxylic acids comprised by the acquisition and distribution system in an amount from Mmin to Mmax (see rejection to claim 1 above), each is a linear C3- to C6- saturated carboxylic acid (‘fatty acids’; [0188]; [0193]); each is a dicarboxylic acid (succinic acid, fumaric acid; [0193]); and each is selected from the group consisting of malic acid and succinic acid ([0193]).
11. With regard to claim 6, Rosati discloses that the acquisition and distribution system (1950) comprises from one to ten saturated carboxylic acids ([0193]).
12. With regard to claim 9, Rosati discloses that the acquisition and distribution system (1950) comprises at least two acquisition (1952) and/ or distribution layers (1954; [0221]), wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids ([0193]) each are only comprised by the acquisition (1952) and/ or distribution layer (1954) located most proximate to the topsheet (1924; Figs. 26, 27; [0186-0188]; [0191]; [0193]),
13. With regard to claim 10, Rosati discloses that the absorbent core (1928) comprises superabsorbent polymer material in an effective amount (“absorbent core may vary (e.g., the absorbent core may have varying caliper zones, a hydrophilic gradient, a superabsorbent gradient, or lower average density and lower average basis weight acquisition zones; or may comprise one or more layers or structures)”; [0210-0211]; [0231]).
However, Rosati fails to explicitly disclose that the absorbent core comprises at least 5.0 g of superabsorbent polymer material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amount of superabsorbent polymer material within the absorbent core disclosed by Rosati to be at least 5.0 g, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are optimum or workable ranges to the amount of superabsorbent polymer material within the absorbent core in order to produce a desired absorptive effect, and through routine experimentation, a desired range of inclusion can be determined, with a reasonable expectation of success.
14. With regard to claims 11-13, Rosati discloses an absorbent article (diaper, 1900; Figs. 25-27; abstract; [0105]; [0220]) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (1924), a liquid impermeable backsheet (1925), an absorbent core (1928), and an acquisition and distribution system (liquid management system, 1950; Fig. 26) comprising at least one acquisition (1952) and/or distribution layer (1954; [0221]); wherein the absorbent core (1928) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the backsheet (1925; Fig. 26); the acquisition and distribution system (1950) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the absorbent core (1928; Fig. 26); wherein the acquisition and distribution system (1950) comprises one or more saturated carboxylic acids ([0186-0188]; [0191]; [0193]), wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids are each selected from the group of monocarboxylic acids (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, caproic acid; [0193]), dicarboxylic acids (succinic acid, fumaric acid; [0193]) or tricarboxylic acids (citric acid; [0193]); wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each have a pKa for the first acid dissociation in water at 25°C and 1 atm and the pKa of each of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is from 2.5 to 5.0 (pKa in water at 25°C and 1 atm of: acetic acid is ~4.76, propionic acid is ~4.88, butyric acid is ~4.82, caproic acid is ~4.88, succinic acid is ~4.2, fumaric acid is ~4.4, citric acid is ~3.13, ~4.76 and ~6.4); and wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each are in monomeric, dimeric or oligomeric form ([0186]; [0188]; [0193]; claims 17-20).
Rosati is silent in regard to the acquisition and/ or distribution layer exhibiting a Neutralization Area Value of from 0.35 mmol/ m2 to 100.00 mmol/ m2 according to the Neutralization Area Value test method disclosed herein (as required by claim 11); the absorbent article exhibiting a Neutralization Value of from 0.015 mmol to 1.500 mmol according to the Neutralization Value test method disclosed herein (as required by claim 12); and the absorbent article exhibiting a Total Neutralization Value of from 0.150 mmol to 1.525 mmol according to the Total Neutralization Value test method disclosed herein (as required by claim 13).
However, Rosati already discloses the same components included in the acquisition and distribution system (1950) for the same reasons to that being claimed, as the inclusion of skin treatment agents and pH control agents are clearly suggested ([0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Neutralization Area Value range, Neutralization Value range and Total Neutralization Value range of the acquisition and/or distribution layer and absorbent article, disclosed by Rosati, to be between 0.35 mmol/ m2 to 100.00 mmol/ m2, between 0.015 mmol to 1.500 mmol and between 0.150 mmol to 1.525 mmol, respectively, in order to ensure that the acquisition and/or distribution layer and absorbent article exhibit the desired properties of neutralizing the pH of the skin during use, as suggested by Rosati in paragraph [0191], through routine experimentation. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover the optimum or workable ranges of Neutralization included within the absorbent article, in order to control the pH of the user’s skin during use, with as reasonable expectation of success.
15. With regard to claim 14, Rosati discloses a process for making an absorbent article (diaper, 1900; Figs. 25-27; abstract; [0059]; [0105]; [0122]; [0126-0129]; [0220]) comprising: a liquid permeable topsheet (1924), a liquid impermeable backsheet (1925), an absorbent core (1928), and an acquisition and distribution system (liquid management system, 1950; Fig. 26) comprising at least one acquisition (1952) and/or distribution layer (1954; [0221]); wherein the absorbent core (1928) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the backsheet (1925; Fig. 26); the acquisition and distribution system (1950) is provided between the topsheet (1924) and the absorbent core (1928; Fig. 26); wherein the process comprises the step of applying one or more saturated carboxylic acids to the acquisition and distribution system (1950; [0186-0188]; [0191]; [0193]), wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids are each selected from the group of monocarboxylic acids (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, caproic acid; [0193]), dicarboxylic acids (succinic acid, fumaric acid; [0193]) or tricarboxylic acids (citric acid; [0193]); wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each have a pKa for the first acid dissociation in water at 25°C and 1 atm and the pKa of each of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is from 2.5 to 5.0 (pKa in water at 25°C and 1 atm of: acetic acid is ~4.76, propionic acid is ~4.88, butyric acid is ~4.82, caproic acid is ~4.88, succinic acid is ~4.2, fumaric acid is ~4.4, citric acid is ~3.13, ~4.76 and ~6.4); and wherein the one or more saturated carboxylic acids each are in monomeric, dimeric or oligomeric form ([0186]; [0188]; [0193]; claims 17-20).
Rosati is silent in regard to at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids is comprised by the acquisition and distribution system (1950) in an amount from Mmin to Mmax, wherein Mmin is calculated according to Formula A and Mmax is calculated according to Formula B:
Mmin = 10pKa-9.00mol + 10-5.00mol (Formula A)
Mmax = 10pKa-6.50mol + 10-3.75mol (Formula B).
However, Rosati already discloses the same components included in the acquisition and distribution system (1950) for the same reasons to that being claimed, as the inclusion of skin treatment agents and pH control agents are clearly suggested ([0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the means of determining the minimum and maximum amount of at least one of the one or more saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system disclosed by Rosati, to be calculated according to claimed Formulas A and B, in order for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make a determination of the proper amount of the saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system to neutralize the pH of the skin during use, as suggested by Rosati in paragraph [0191], through routine experimentation. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover the optimum or workable ranges of saturated carboxylic acids included within the acquisition and distribution system, in order to control the pH of the user’s skin during use, with as reasonable expectation of success.
16. With regard to claim 15, Rosati discloses that one or more saturated carboxylic acids each are applied to the acquisition and distribution system (1950) in an aqueous solution and/ or suspension ([0187-0191]).
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parikh et al. (US 6,005,053) discloses polyolefin elastomer blends exhibiting improved properties.
Gagliardi et al. (US PGPUB 2004/0058159) discloses a liquid absorbent thermoplastic composition comprising superabsorbent material particles of substantially angle-lacking shape.
Blanchi et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0312149) discloses an absorbent article with a distribution layer comprising channels.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights