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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on October 14, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the differences amongst the constructions of the species packages were not sufficiently delineated. This is not found persuasive because each individual species of package has different features that are not presently seen as obvious variants, and applicant has not identified the various species as obvious variants one of the other. Accordingly, the species requirement is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The seams of claim 11 are not found in elected species A and as such claim 11 is held to be non-elected.
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.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In claim 18, line 2 “and/or” is indefinite due to the slash, and the phrasing should be --at least one of a brand identifier and artwork--.
In claim 19, lines 3 and 4, the phrases “at least one surface” is unclear whether such refers to the previously defined surfaces, or another new additional surface.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Remus et al. (11,794,976)(based on its earlier printed publication date and earlier filing date) in view of Noguchi et al. (2013/00987793). Remus et al. disclose a package (4) enclosing one or more compressed absorbent articles (see column 20, lines 8-23), the package comprising a plurality of panels (10-15) forming an outer surface, at least one of the plurality of panels comprises a package material and the package material comprises natural fibers (see column 1, lines 44-51 and column 19, lines 42-61). A tactile indicium is not disclosed. However, Noguchi et al. discloses a similar package enclosing one or more absorbent articles wherein the outer surface of the package comprises a tactile indicium (embossed Braille, see paragraph 0123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package of Remus et al. with tactile indicium in the manner of Noguchi et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide product information properly provided to visually challenged users.
As to claim 2, the paper package of Remus et al. is inherently flexible.
As to claim 4, to employ a particular standard braille text would appear to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 5, to provide braille of a height that such is tactile discernible would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patently distinct from
the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claims 6 and 7, the disclosed braille is an embossment pattern disposed on a package outer surface.
As to claims 8 and 19, Remus et al. discloses a six panel parallelepiped bag construction (Figure 1C) of respective front, back, two side, top and bottom panels defining an interior compartment and the compressed absorbent articles disposed in the interior compartment through an open end before the finality of the package.
As to claim 9, Remus et al. further discloses the package (4) comprises a continuous packaging material (see column 19, line 41 through column 20, line 7).
As to claim 10, Remus et al. further discloses the package (4) comprises one panel in a block bottom, cross bottom or pinch bottom configuration (see column 20, line 52 through column 21, line 15).
As to claim 12, Remus et al. disclose the package material may be a paper-based material (see column 3, line 61 through column 4, line 22).
As to claim 13, Remus et al. disclose the package material may comprise a moisture barrier layer (see column 23, lines 30-46).
As to claim 14, Remus et al. disclose the package material may have a basis weight between 50 gsm and 120 gsm (see column 2, lines 5-16).
As to claim 15, Remus et al. disclose the package material comprises at least 70 percent by weight natural fibers (see claim 2).
As to claim 16, Remus et al. disclose the package material forms the plurality of panels.
As to claim 17, Remus et al. disclose the package material has the described recyclable percentage (see column 6, line 53 through column 7, line 49).
As to claim 18, Remus et al. disclose the package information may be brand identifiers and artwork (icons)(see column 14, lines 35-61).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either one of DuVal et al. (8,662,301) and Hooyman et al. (8,261,914). The previous combination discloses the tactile indicium as an identifier for information in general, but not particularly properties of the absorbent articles selected from type, size and absorption capacity. However, DuVal et al. and Hooyman et al. each disclose it was known to provide a package of absorbent articles with information (see the Abstract; see column 5, lines 12-22; respectively) relative to the absorbent articles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package of the previous combination with indicia directed particularly to properties of the absorbent articles in the manner of either one of DuVal et al. and Hooyman et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide recognized pertinent information to the consumer.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the art as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Conrad et al.(5,655,843). The previous employed art does not disclose wicket holes in a bag of absorbent articles. However, Conrad et al. disclose wicket holes (170) in a bag of absorbent articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package of the previous combination with wicket holes in the manner of Conrad et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a hanging capability of the bag during a filling step as suggested by Conrad et al..
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Orlando Aviles, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG