3DETAILED 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 .
Abstract
1. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and should avoid using numerals. Correction is required, with a clean copy. See MPEP § 608.01 (b).
Claim Objections
2. Claims 16 and 24-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 4; the word “where” should be changed to --wherein-- for proper grammatic correctness.
In claims 24-27, line 1; the word “where” should be changed to --wherein-- for proper grammatic correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31; the limitation, “the paper may be configured to be liquid impermeable for a period greater than 5 minutes” appears to lack support in the application as originally filed. The present application does not further disclose a structure capable of enabling the functions recited within the claim. The present disclosure does not provide details on how one of ordinary skill in the art would measure, maintain, or ensure this condition.
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.
Claim 31 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 31; the limitations, “the paper may be configured to be liquid impermeable for a period greater than 5 minutes” is unclear. In so far that this limitation may require a structure, is not understood what that structure is (manually or other means). It is unclear what structure would yield this function as described within the claim. As such the claim limitation is indefinite.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20180148246-A1 to Fu; Thomas Z,
US-20170312148-A1 to Dobrosielska-Oura.
CA-2782520-A1 to GAGNIEU CHRISTIAN.
KR-101822577-B1 to NA JEONG KYOON.
JP-2018000645-A to TANGE SATORU.
CN-105691943-A to WANG, CHAO.
WO-9307965-A1 to FARMER HARLEY.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
03/30/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights