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
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are pending in the application.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are examined on the merits.
Priority
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
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 AND 09/16/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Itoi (JP 2010194254 with English machine translation - attached).
Regarding claim 1, Itoi discloses an absorbent article (an absorbent article 1: Abstract and Figs. 1-2) comprising at least a liquid-permeable sheet (a liquid permeable surface sheet 2: pg. 2, ¶10, and Figs. 1-2); a liquid- impermeable sheet (a liquid impermeable back sheet 3: pg. 2, ¶10, and Figs. 1-2); and an absorbent material and an activated carbon disposed between the liquid-permeable sheet and the liquid-impermeable sheet (absorbent body 4 disposed between two sheets 2 and 3 and the absorbent body 4 comprises water absorbent resin layer 51 and an activated carbon 6: pg. 2, ¶10, and 12-13; pg. 3, ¶3; Figs. 1-2), wherein the absorbent material comprises water-absorbent resin particles (pg. 2, ¶10, 12-13, and 15).
Itoi does not disclose the water-absorbent resin particles have a heat release rate of 0.10°C/sec or more and 1.00°C/sec or less as measured by the following method of measuring the heat release rate: 50 g of physiological saline at 24.9°C is added into a 300 mL volume, cylindrical thermally insulated container and stirred at 600 rpm; while stirring the physiological saline, 10 g of the water-absorbent resin particles are further added into the thermally insulated container, and the thermally insulated container is closed with a cork stopper having a thermometer; and a time required for the temperature of the physiological saline to increase by 2.0°C after the addition of the water-absorbent resin particles is measured, and a value of heat release temperature per second is calculated as the heat release rate.
Examiner notes that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. Thus, a reference does not need to recite a heat release rate of the water-absorbent resin to read on the claim language. In addition, discovery of a new property for a previously known composition cannot impart patentability of the known composition. When the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims of the instant invention, claimed properties or functions presumed to be inherent (MPEP § 2112-2112.01). In this case, the water-absorbent resin particles of Itoi comprise copolymers of acrylic acid (pg. 2, last paragraph) which are the same as the claimed invention (¶0095 of Applicant’s specification). A prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except for a property or function. Thus, water-absorbent resin particles of Itoi inherently have a heat release rate of 0.10°C/sec or more and 1.00°C/sec or less.
Regarding claim 2, Itoi further discloses when the absorbent article is viewed in plan view, the activated carbon has a basis weight per unit area of 0.001 g/m2 or more and 6.000 g/m2 or less in a region where the activated carbon is contained (5 g/m2: pg. 8, ¶1; the taught basis weight per unit area range is within the claimed basic weight per unit area range).
Regarding claim 3, Itoi further discloses when the absorbent article is viewed in plan view, the activated carbon has a basis weight per unit area of 0.025 g/m2 or more and 7.000 g/m2 or less in a region where the activated carbon is contained (5 g/m2: pg. 8, ¶1; the taught basis weight per unit area range is within the claimed basic weight per unit area range).
Regarding claim 4, Itoi further discloses the activated carbon has a median particle size of 1 µm or more and 100 µm or less (pg. 3, ¶5: the taught particle size range overlaps the claimed particle size range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Itoi by having median particle size of the activated carbon within the claimed range, in order to provide high adsorbability for deodorizing effect, as suggested in pg. 3, ¶3-4 of Itoi and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights