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 were received on June 24, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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, 2, 4, 25, 29, 30, 41, 71, 72, 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klofta et al (US 2014/0088530 A1) (provided by applicant in IDS dated 7/1/2024).
With respect to claim 1 Klofta discloses an absorbent article (an absorbent article; See Para. 0008) excluding those absorbent articles designed to be worn by a human (devices placed against or in proximity to the body of the wearer, including care mats, bibs, and the like; Se Para. 0008), comprising:
a composition (wetness indicator composition; See Para. 0022) comprising:
a colorant (colorant; See Para. 0022) which undergoes a visible color change upon exposure to a wetness threshold (the colorant changes color upon coming in contact with water or urine; See Paras. 0022 and0038); and
a leaching inhibitor (binding agent; See Para. 0018);
wherein, following application to a substrate (substrate; See Para. 0018), said colorant resists leaching from said substrate by being chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor (the binding agent immobilizes the colorant on the substrate by binding the colorant; See Paras. 0018 and 0025).
With respect to claim 2 Klofta discloses that said colorant is formulated into a printable ink formulation (the colorant is a printable ink; See Paras.00210022 and 0046) configured for printing on said substrate.
Applicant should note the italicized limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Klofta and the apparatus of Klofta is capable of the recitation of claim 2. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Klofta (see MPEP §2114).
With respect to claim 4 Klofta discloses that said printable ink formulation is in a liquid state at room temperature (the ink is in a liquid state at room temperature; See Paras.0046 and 0057).
With respect to claim 25 Klofta discloses that said printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent (the formulation includes a solvent; See Para. 0031).
With respect to claim 29 Klofta discloses that said solvent comprises a volatile solvent (the solvent is a volatile solvent; See Paras. 0031-0032).
With respect to claim 30 Klofta discloses that at least a portion of said volatile solvent evaporates upon said printing (the solvent evaporates upon printing; See Paras. 0031 and 0057).
With respect to claim 41 Klofta discloses that said printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature (the solvent is a liquid; See Para. 0031).
With respect to claim 71 Klofta discloses that said printable ink formulation configured as a urine indicator (the colorant changes color upon coming in contact with urine; See Para. 0022).
With respect to claim 72 Klofta discloses that said colorant comprises a pH-sensitive colorant (the colorant is a pH indicator; See Para. 0022 and 0039).
With respect to claim 86 Klofta discloses that said leaching inhibitor functions to immobilize said colorant relative to said substrate when said colorant is chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor (the binding agent immobilizes the colorant on the substrate by binding the colorant; See Paras. 0018 and 0025).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 25, 41, 71, 72, 86, 92, 100 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klofta et al (US 2003/0164136 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Klofta 2) (provided by applicant in IDS dated 7/1/2024).
With respect to claim 1 Klofta 2 discloses an absorbent article (absorbent article; See Paras. 0013 and 0019) excluding those absorbent articles designed to be worn by a human (devices placed against or in proximity to the body; See Para. 0013), comprising:
a composition (wetness indicator composition; See Paras. 0020-0021) comprising:
a colorant (colorant; See Para. 0022) which undergoes a visible color change upon exposure to a wetness threshold (colorant changes in color in response to urine or a component thereof; See Para. 0022-0023); and
a leaching inhibitor (leaching inhibitor; See Para. 0027);
wherein, following application to a substrate (substrate; See Para. 0078), said colorant (colorant; See Para. 0027) resists leaching from said substrate (substrate; See Para. 0078) by being chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor (leaching inhibitor is chemically bound to the colorant to reduce or eliminate leaching of the colorant from the carrier matrix; See Para. 0027).
With respect to claim 2 Klofta 2 discloses that said colorant is formulated into a printable ink formulation (the wetness indicator is applied to a substrate via any means of liquid or semi-liquid application including gravure printing, ink jet printing, and digital printing; See Para. 0077).
With respect to claim 4 Klofta 2 discloses that said printable ink formulation in a liquid state at room temperature (the wetness indicator is applied to a substrate via any means of liquid or semi-liquid application including gravure printing, ink jet printing, and digital printing, and thus is in a liquid state at room temperature; See Para. 0077).
With respect to claim 25 Klofta 2 discloses that said printable ink formulation further comprising a solvent (the wetness indicator comprises a solvent; See Paras.0033 and 0077).
With respect to claim 41 Klofta 2 discloses that said printable ink formulation does not include a solvent which is solid or meltable at room temperature (the solvent is a liquid at room temperature; See Para. 0033).
With respect to claim 71 Klofta 2 discloses that said printable ink formulation configured as a urine indicator (the wetness indicator is a urine indicator, See Paras. 0023 and 0077).
With respect to claim 72 Klofta 2 discloses that said colorant comprises a pH-sensitive colorant (the colorant is a pH indicator; See Para. 0023).
With respect to claim 86 Klofta 2 discloses that said leaching inhibitor functions to immobilize said colorant relative to said substrate when said colorant is chemically bound to said leaching inhibitor (the leaching inhibitor eliminates leaching of the colorant from the carrier matrix when the colorant is chemically bound, and thus immobilizes the colorant relative to the substrate; See Para. 0027).
With respect to claim 92 Klofta 2 discloses that said leaching inhibitor comprises a quaternary ammonium compound (the leaching inhibitor is a quaternary ammonium compound; See Para. 0027 and 0042).
With respect to claim 100 Klofta 2 discloses that said quaternary ammonium compound and said colorant comprise a similar molecular weight (the quaternary ammonium compound is distearyldimethylammonium chloride and the colorant is bromothymol blue, which have similar molecular weights; See Paras. 0044-0045).
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.
Claim(s) 96 and 108 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al (US 2014/0088530 A1).
With respect to claim 96, although Klofta fails to disclose that the molar ratio of said leaching inhibitor:said colorant is between about 1:1 and about 4:1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a molar ratio of said leaching inhibitor:said colorant to be between about 1: 1 and about 4: 1, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize immobilization of the colorant, thereby preventing colorant leaching.
With respect to claim 108, although Klofta fails to disclose that said printable ink formulation comprises a viscosity in the range of between about 25 cP and about 125 cP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date for the printable ink formulation to comprise a viscosity in a range of between about 25 cP and about 125 cP, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize a viscosity for printing, thereby facilitating application of the ink.
Claim(s) 113 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al (US 2014/0088530 A1) in view of Klofta 2 (US 2003/0164136 A1).
Refer above for the disclosure of Klofta.
With respect to claim 113 Klofta fails to disclose the incorporation of a viscosity increaser in the printable ink formulation, wherein the viscosity increaser comprises silica.
Klofta 2 discloses specifics of wetness indicating (See Para. 0001) and teaches an absorbent article (absorbent article; See Para. 0013 and 0019), wherein said viscosity increaser comprises silica (the viscosity increasing agent includes silica; See Para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the absorbent article of Klofta to include ink with viscosity increasing agents as taught by Klofta 2 in order to facilitate formation of an appropriate printing viscosity (See Para. 0034 of Klofta 2).
Claim(s) 114 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al (US 2014/0088530 A1) and Klofta 2 (US 2003/0164136 A1) in view of Pan et al (US 2012/0089110 A1).
With respect to claim 114 the combination of Klofta and Klofta 2 fails to teach that the viscosity increaser comprises fused silica.
Pan teaches an absorbent article, such as a catamenial device, having a liquid pervious topsheet, a backsheet joined to the topsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet is disclosed. The absorbent article has a lotion composition applied to at least a portion of the outer surface of the topsheet, the lotion composition including a rheology structurant selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline wax, alkyl dimethicone, ethylene glycol dibehenate, ethylene glycol distearate, glycerol tribehenate, glycerol tristearate, and ethylene bisoleamide (See abstract). An optional ingredient that can be incporpated into the lotion composition is a fumed silica to adjust lotion viscosity to a desired level in an amount to perform to its intended function without adversely affecting the lotion composition, about 0.001% to about 5% by weight of the lotion composition (See Para. 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate fumed silica as the viscosity increaser as it is a well-known substance utilized for the purpose of increasing viscosity (See Para. 0041 of Pan).
Claim(s) 134, 136, and 137 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al (US 2016/0038628 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Klofta 3).
With respect to claim 134 Klofta 3 discloses an absorbent article excluding those absorbent articles designed to be worn by a human (See Para. 0006 for discussion of how absorbent articles may include care mats), comprising:
A composition (wetness indicator composition, See abstract and Para. 0004) comprising:
A colorant (See Para. 0016) which undergoes a visible color change upon exposure to a wetness threshold, said colorant in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition (See Para. 0027 for discussion of the colorant being employed at various levels, to include 0.02 to about 2 wt%, or 0.01 to about 5 wt%);
A leaching inhibitor (binding agent) in an amount of about 0.3% to about 3% by weight of said composition (See Para. 0033 for discussion of the binding agent being employed in compositions at levels including from about 1% to about 90%); and
A solvent (See Para. 0051 for discussion of additional ingredients that can be included in the composition, to include solvents).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 136 Klofta 3 teaches that the composition further comprises an acid (acidic stabilizer, See Para. 0057) in an amount of about 2% to about 8% by weight of said composition (See Para. 0051 for discussion of additional ingredients being incorporated from about 1% to about 35% by weight of the composition). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 137 Klofta 3 teaches that the composition further comprises a viscosity modifier (viscosity modifiers, See Para. 0063) in an amount of about 3% to about 15% by weight of said composition (See Para. 0051 for discussion of how structural adjuncts can be employed in the composition at levels from about 1% to about 35% by weight of the composition). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 135 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klofta et al (US 2016/0038628 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Klofta 3) in view of (US 2011/0137274 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Klofta 4).
Refer above for the teachings of Klofta 3.
Klofta 3 fails to teach the incorporation of a resin in an amount of about 10% to about 30% by weight of said composition.
Klofta 4 teaches absorbent articles that includes a wetness indicator composition, wherein said composition can include a tackifier to immobilize an included colorant in its first color state (See abstract and Para. 0037). The tackifier may be employed in compositions at levels which are effective at immobilizing and stabilizing the colorant in its first state, including from 20% to 50%, from 25% to 45%, and from 30% to 40%, by weight of the wetness indicator composition (See Para. 0038). The tackifier can include resins (See Para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate resin as a tackifier, as taught by Klofta 4, into the composition of Klofta 3 in order to effectively immobilize and stabilize the colorant in its first state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY I FISHER whose telephone number is (469)295-9182. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRITTANY I FISHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1796
