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 .
The examiner notes that the current application is without power of attorney. If applicant has any questions please feel free to call the examiner (Matthew Wrubleski) directly at 571-272-1150.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs 0011-0016 reference is made to prior patents. However, none of the provided patent numbers refer to the material described in the instant specification. For example, 10,123,539 said to be directed to an absorbent structure is actually directed to a device for killing microorganisms in water, 9732280 said to be directed to odor control in sanitary napkins is actually directed to a device for paving asphalt, EP 3165482 said to be directed to a biodegradable absorbent is actually directed to a gripping device, CN103784255 said to be directed to a self-cleaning sanitary napkin is actually directed to a hearing assistance system, and 9304264 said to be directed to reusable menstrual pad is actually directed to an optical fiber subassembly. The examiner requests correction of the patent numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 reads “further developed from biodegradable sanitary pad”. This appears to be a grammatical error and should read developed from a biodegradable sanitary pad.
Claim 8 reads “wherein the napkin with antibacterial properties, comprising a surface coating or treatment designed to inhibit bacterial growth and maintain hygiene”. The claim should read “comprises a surface” or “is designed to” 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.
Claim5,9-1 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 10 is rejected under 112b as being unclear. Claim 10 requires “the reusable menstrual pad”. There is no claim that reference “a” reusable menstrual pad, so it unclear as to what the pad is. Based on the claim language it is interpreted that an absorbent where layers are able to be added in to adjust absorbency reads to the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 112b as being unclear. Claim 14 requires “wherein comprises of a combination of natural and synthetic fibers to optimize absorbency and fluid management”. It is unclear from the claim what is required to comprise of a combination of fibers. The examiner notes for the purpose of examination, any device comprising multiple layers where the multiple layers independently may contain natural and synthetic fibers reads to the claimed invention. If applicant is trying to claim that a specific layer comprises a blend of natural and synthetic fibers, the claim should be corrected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the odor-absorbing materials" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “odor absorbing materials” are introduced in claim 4. Therefore claim 5 must either depend from claim 4 or claim 5 must read “an odor absorbing material ”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any device comprising an odor absorbing material incorporated into the layers reads to the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the antibacterial surface coating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “an” antibacterial surface coating is introduced in claim 8. Therefore claim 9 must either depend from claim 8 or claim 9 must read “an antibacterial surface coating”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any device comprising an antibacterial surface coating applied to one or more layers of the napkin reads to the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the removable inserts of layers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “a” removable insert or layer is introduced in claim 10. Therefore claim 11 must either depend from claim 10 or claim 13 must read “a removable insert or layer”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any device comprising a removable insert or layer made from cotton or bamboo reads to the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the breathable outer layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “a” breathable outer layer coating is introduced in claim 12. Therefore claim 13 must either depend from claim 12 or claim 13 must read “a breathable outer layer”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any device comprising breathable outer layer made from a wicking material reads to the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the natural fibers " and “the synthetic fibers” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that “a” natural fiber and “a” synthetic fiber is introduced in claim 14. Therefore claim 15 must either depend from claim 14 or claim 15 must read “a natural fiber” and “a synthetic fiber”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets any device comprising an synthetic fiber and a natural fiber reads to the claimed invention.
Further regarding claims 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner interprets the claim to include only cotton or bamboo (for claim 11) and cotton, bamboo, wood pulp, or synthetic fibers (for claim 15).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-8,12,14-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dunbar US 2014/0039432, hereafter Dunbar.
Regarding Claim 1, Dunbar discloses a sanitary napkin (absorbent pad see figure 2) with an absorbent structure comprising multiple layers (layers 204,206,208,214) of varying absorbency and flexibility properties (paragraph 0009,0013,0031-0033). The examiner notes that per paragraph 0031, layer 204 may comprise any moisture wicking material known in the art, for example 51% cotton, and layer 214 is a layer treated with an antimicrobial solution. Per paragraph 0032, layer 206 (absorbent pad layer) may comprise any liquid absorbing material known in art, for example cotton, cotton blend, synthetic material, foam, or more. Per paragraph 0033, layer 208 (moisture impermeable pad layer) may comprise a moisture blocking material such as plastic, polymer, wax cotton, or more. Said layer 208 may also include a moisture impermeable polymer layer (216) made from breathable urethane. Therefore Dunbar discloses a multilayer pad with each layer being made from a different material. While it is clear that the layers have different absorbent capabilities, different materials have different flexibilities (i.e. cotton is more flexible than a plastic material) and therefore it is interpreted that the layers have varying absorbency and flexibility. The examiner notes that per para. 0010, the pad is removable and thus the pad itself is interpreted as the sanitary napkin.
Regarding Claim 2, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the absorbent structure includes a top layer designed for rapid fluid acquisition and distribution. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the first layer (204) is a wicking layer. Therefore it is interpreted that the layer is configured for rapid fluid acquisition and distribution. See para. 0031
Regarding Claim 3, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, further comprising a core layer with enhanced absorbency to effectively capture and retain menstrual fluid. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the layer (206) is an absorbent layer. Therefore it is interpreted that the layer has enhanced absorbency (With respect to the other layers) and thus effectively captures and retains menstrual fluid. See para. 0032
Regarding Claim 6, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, further developed from biodegradable sanitary pad comprising natural and biodegradable materials to reduce environmental impact and promote sustainability. As detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the layers (respectively) may be made from 51% cotton, cotton, and cotton wax. The examiner notes that cotton is a natural and biodegradable material, and thus the device of Dunbar reads to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1wherein the materials used in the construction of the pad are sourced from renewable resources. The examiner notes that as the materials, as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, may be 51% cotton, cotton, and cotton wax. The examiner notes that cotton is a natural and renewable resource (as it is a plant), and thus the device of Dunbar reads to the claimed invention
Regarding Claim 8, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the napkin with antibacterial properties, comprising a surface coating or treatment designed to inhibit bacterial growth and maintain hygiene (para. 0009, 0015, 0031). The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 and per paragraph 0009, 0015, and 0031, the device may comprise an antimicrobial layer (214) to which an antimicrobial solution is applied. Said solution is silver nitrate (para. 0009)
Regarding Claim 9, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the antibacterial surface coating is applied to one or more layers of the napkin. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 and per paragraph 0009, 0015, and 0031, the device may comprise an antimicrobial layer (214) to which an antimicrobial solution is applied. As the solution is applied to the layer, it is interpreted to be a coating. Should applicant disagree, para. 0035 teaches that the absorbent pad layer may be coated with an antimicrobial solution, and thus further reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 12, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the sanitary napkin comprises a breathable outer layer to enhance comfort and airflow during use. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the layer (208) is a moisture impermeable layer, where said layer may be made from a breathable urethane.
Regarding Claim 14, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein comprises of a combination of natural and synthetic fibers to optimize absorbency and fluid management. Per the 112b interpretation, any device comprising layers independently made from natural and synthetic fibers reads to the claimed limitation. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the absorbent layer may be cotton (0032) and the impermeable layer may be a plastic (para. 0033). Alternatively, the wicking layer (204) may be 51% cotton (0031) and the absorbent layer may be a synthetic material (0032). As such it is interpreted that Dunbar comprises a napkin where the layers (independently) may comprise synthetic and natural fibers.
Regarding Claim 15, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the natural fibers are derived from sources such as cotton, bamboo, or wood pulp, and the synthetic fibers are selected for their absorbency and durability properties. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the wicking layer (204) may be 51% cotton (para. 0031) and the absorbent layer may be a synthetic material (para. 0032). As such it is interpreted that Dunbar sources the natural fibers from cotton and the and the synthetic fibers are suitable for use in the absorbent core and are thus selected for their absorbency and durability.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dunbar as evidenced by Van De Maele US 2013/0226120, hereafter Van De Maele.
Regarding Claim 13, Dunbar discloses sanitary napkin of claim 1, wherein the breathable outer layer is made from a moisture-wicking material to keep the skin dry and comfortable. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the layer (208) is a moisture impermeable layer, where paragraph 0033, teaches that said layer serves to create a leak proof barrier. As said outer layer is closest to the skin and prevents leakage it is interpreted that the device reads to the claimed invention. See also paragraph 0037 where the device provides a leak proof structure as well as comfort to the user. As the impermeable layer does not absorb liquid, the liquid must displace and then, by function of the absorbent layer directly above the impermeable layer, be absorbed by the absorbent layer, the impermeable layer is interpreted to be a wicking layer, as it at least controls fluid flow in the device. Should the applicant disagree that the outer layer of Dunbar is not a wicking layer, the examiner relies upon Van De Maele as an evidentiary reference. Van De Maele teaches an absorbent article and is thus analogous to the claimed invention. Per paragraph 0021, Van De Maele teaches that the device comprises a “substantially impermeable wicking layer”, where “the substantially liquid-impermeable wicking layer allows unbound liquids such as water, urine and/or other bodily exudates to more easily spread out, which allows better distribution and transport so as to wet the side and lower sides of the absorbent polymer materials within the pockets”. Therefore as the outer layer of Dunbar is impermeable and allows unbound liquids to spread out, it is interpreted that the outer layer of Dunbar acts as a wicking layer.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Chan et al. US 2021/0022931, hereafter Chan.
Regarding Claim 4, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, however, Dunbar fails to disclose the device further equipped with odor-absorbing materials integrated into the absorbent structure to mitigate unpleasant odors during use.
Chan teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Chan teaches “the topsheet, the ADL, the absorbent core, and/or any other layers include one or more integrated hygienic or aesthetic gels, oils, lotions, creams, or other fluid, such as antibiotic ointments, moisturizers, anti-odor agents, and/or scented products” (para. 0157). Thus as Chan teaches that it is known in the art to integrate anti-odor agents into layers of an absorbent article, it would have been obvious to provide at least one layer of Dunbar with an anti-odor agent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Doing so would merely involve combining prior art elements (absorbent article combined with absorbent article with integrated anti-odor agents) according to known methods to yield predictable results (the elimination of odor), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 5, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, however, Dunbar fails to disclose wherein the odor-absorbing materials are incorporated into one or more layers of the absorbent structure.
Chan teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Chan teaches “the topsheet, the ADL, the absorbent core, and/or any other layers include one or more integrated hygienic or aesthetic gels, oils, lotions, creams, or other fluid, such as antibiotic ointments, moisturizers, anti-odor agents, and/or scented products” (para. 0157). Thus as Chan teaches that it is known in the art to integrate anti-odor agents into layers of an absorbent article, it would have been obvious to provide at least one layer of Dunbar with an anti-odor agent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Doing so would merely involve combining prior art elements (absorbent article combined with absorbent article with integrated anti-odor agents) according to known methods to yield predictable results (the elimination of odor), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that integrated agents are interpreted to be incorporated in the layers.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunbar in view of Han US 2011/0092935, hereafter after Hann.
Regarding Claim 10, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the reusable menstrual pad with adjustable absorbency levels, featuring removable inserts or layers to customize absorbency based on individual preferences.
Hann teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hann teaches that in the device, additional absorbent material may be inserted or removed as a means to customize absorbency of the article as needed. This is done via a closeable opening in the outer layer (para. 0040). 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 provide an opening in the article of Dunbar to allow for additional absorbent layers to be added or removed as a means to customize the absorbency of the device. Doing so would merely involve use of known technique (adding extra layers) to improve similar devices (absorbent articles) in the same way (to achieve desired characteristics) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 11, Dunbar discloses the sanitary napkin of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the removable inserts or layers are made from absorbent materials such as cotton or bamboo.
Hann teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hann teaches that in the device, additional absorbent material may be inserted or removed as a means to customize absorbency of the article as needed. This is done via a closeable opening in the outer layer (para. 0040). 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 provide an opening in the article of Dunbar to allow for additional absorbent layers to be added or removed as a means to customize the absorbency of the device. Doing so would merely involve use of known technique (adding extra layers) to improve similar devices (absorbent articles) in the same way (to achieve desired characteristics) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that per the disclosure of Dunbar, the absorbent core layer is made from any suitable material such as cotton (Dunbar para. 0032). As such it would further have been obvious to use cotton as the material of the extra absorbent layers, as Dunbar teaches that such material is known to be suitable in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781