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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024, 09/20/2024, 11/24/2024, 06/03/2025, and 08/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck et al. US 2006/0070163 A1 (hereinafter Beck), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a durable absorbent panel 14 (Fig. 1-2 – gusset 14) comprising:
a wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 – interface 14A), an absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 – wicking layer 14B) disposed to the outward-facing side of the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 – wicking layer 14B is arranged below the interface 14A, which is away from the wearer), and a liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9 – waterproof breathable material WPBM 14C and backing material 14D) disposed to the outward-facing side of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 – WPBM 14C and backing material 14D is arranged below the wicking layer 14B, which is away from the wearer),
wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A and the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D extend beyond the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9),
wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) to form a liquid impermeable seal 3+19 (Fig. 3 – fluid barrier 3 and seam 19) around a perimeter of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9, and Par. 42 – “In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 9, fluid barrier 3 is created by folding an extension of WPBM 14C and backing material 14D up and over wicking material 14B or up and over both wicking layer 14B and interface 14A, and held in place by a method of fastening (eg: heat seal ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or threaded stitch)”),
wherein the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9) is joined to the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9), the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9), or both (Fig. 9 – the layers come into contact in assembly), and
wherein the absorbent panel 14 (Fig. 1-2) is washable (Par. 44 – “the gusset can be removed and separately laundered and reinserted for further use”).
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses the invention of claim 1. Beck further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) by adhesive, tape, thermal bonding (Par. 42 – “folding an extension of WPBM 14C and backing material 14D up and over wicking material 14B or up and over both wicking layer 14B and interface 14A, and held in place by a method of fastening (eg: heat seal ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or threaded stitch)”), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Beck discloses the invention of claim 1. Beck further discloses wherein the absorbent panel 14 (Fig. 1-2) is shaped and configured to conform to a non-ruled or non-planar surface (Fig. 1-2, and Par. 3 – “the gusset comprises multiple thin, soft and flexible composite structure”, thus capable of conforming to non-planar surface).
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.
Claims 3, 5,and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck.
Regarding claim 3, Beck discloses the invention of claim 2. Beck further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) to form a liquid impermeable seal 3+19 (Fig. 3) around the perimeter of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 and Fig. 3) by a C-folded (Fig. 9, and Par. 42 – “folding an extension of WPBM 14C and backing material 14D up”).
However, Beck does not currently disclose a C-folded tape.
Beck, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C by tape (Par. 45 – “WPBM 14C is attached to and made part of a garment, in combination with other fabric or material, elastic bands, hooks, Velcro or similar fasteners, adhesive strips, snaps, ties or other means of attachment or retention, such that a gusset consisting of wicking material 14B and interface 14A, or consisting of wicking material 14B, alone or in combination with other composite structures, can be temporarily attached to and/or held against WPBM 14C forming part of the garment”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the C-fold of Beck to have means of attachment such as adhesive strips, also as taught by Beck, in order to attach the interface and wicking material to the barrier layer (Par. 45 of Beck). It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the C-fold of Beck to have means of attachment, as Beck teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 5, Beck discloses the invention of claim 2. Beck further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) to form a liquid impermeable seal 3+19 (Fig. 3) around the perimeter of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 and Fig. 3).
However, Beck does not currently disclose by an adhesive.
Beck, in another embodiment, teaches wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C by an adhesive (Par. 45 – “WPBM 14C is attached to and made part of a garment, in combination with other fabric or material, elastic bands, hooks, Velcro or similar fasteners, adhesive strips, snaps, ties or other means of attachment or retention, such that a gusset consisting of wicking material 14B and interface 14A, or consisting of wicking material 14B, alone or in combination with other composite structures, can be temporarily attached to and/or held against WPBM 14C forming part of the garment”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the C-fold of Beck to have means of attachment such as adhesive strips, also as taught by Beck, in order to attach the interface and wicking material to the barrier layer (Par. 45 of Beck). It also would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the C-fold of Beck to have means of attachment, as Beck teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses the invention of claim 2. However, Beck does not disclose wherein the tape has a width of about 5 mm to about 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tape have the width of about 5 mm to about 25 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the tape does not change its ability to provide a means of attachment between the layers of the device. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 55 of Applicant’s PG-Pub), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Takahira US 2022/0273502 A1 (hereinafter Takahira).
Regarding claim 4, Beck discloses the invention of claim 2. Beck further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) to form a liquid impermeable seal 3+19 (Fig. 3) around a perimeter of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 and Fig. 3).
However, Beck does not disclose by a first tape and a second tape, wherein the first tape is joined to the wearer-facing layer and the second tape and the second tape is joined to the liquid impermeable barrier layer and the first tape, provided that the first tape and the second tape do not overlap the absorbent layer.
Takahira, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article for men (Title), teaches by a first tape and a second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below – outer adhesive and inner adhesive), wherein the first tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below) is joined to the wearer-facing layer 3 (Fig. 11 – liquid permeable face sheet 3) and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below – outer tape and inner tape are side by side) and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below) is joined to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 2 (Fig. 11 – liquid impermeable back sheet 2) and the first tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below), provided that the first tape and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 below) do not overlap the absorbent layer 4 (Fig. 11 – absorber 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11 of Takahira
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layers of Beck to have them joined by a first tape and second tape as taught by Takahira, in order to prevent the absorbent layer to form on an outer periphery (Par. 44 of Takahira).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Palmqvist et al. WO 2023155997 A1 (hereinafter Palmqvist).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Beck does not disclose wherein the wearer-facing layer is a knitted fabric material.
Palmqvist, in the same field of endeavor of washable absorbent undergarment (Abstract), teaches wherein the wearer-facing layer is a knitted fabric material (Page 4, line 4 – “The top layer may be a weft knit, warp knit, flat knit or circular knit”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearer-facing layer of Beck to be a knitted fabric material as taught by Palmqvist, since the knit technique provides the layer with openings (Page 6, line 25 of Palmqvist) so that said layer can receive a high amount of fluid in a short time without feeling overly wet (Page 2, line 28-29 of Palmqvist).
Regarding claim 18, Beck in view of Palmqvist discloses the invention of claim 8. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the absorbent front panel has a Handle of about 0.1 gf/mm to about 2.0 gf/mm and a Volume Absorption Capacity of about 0.1 mL/cm3 to about 10.0 mL/cm3.
Examiner notes that it is the Office's position 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. As such, a reference does not need to recite using a Handle, and a Volume Absorption Capacity values to determine that the properties of the crotch gusset read on the claim language. In addition, the crotch gusset of the combination above resembles the material and structure of the claimed invention recited in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of the combination to have a crotch gusset/absorbent panel that exhibits a Handle of about 0.1 gf/mm to about 2.0 gf/mm and a Volume Absorption Capacity of about 0.1 mL/cm3 to about 10.0 mL/cm3, since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed Handle and Volume Absorption Capacity since the absorbent panel of the combination made with the same crotch gusset material, with similar components and structure (see combination disclosed above) and is intended to absorb bodily fluid and to be comfortably worn by the user; Applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 91 of Applicant’s PG-Pub).
Claims 9, 10, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Ehmsen et al. US 2007/0245449 A1 (hereinafter Ehmsen), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 9, Beck discloses a durable absorbent pant 2 (Fig. 2 – garment 2, and Par. 31) comprising:
an absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 2 – gusset 14; Examiner notes that numerical reference “4” in Fig. 2 should read “14”);
a front waist portion 12 (Fig. 2 – body of garment 12) with a front waist edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below), an optional waist band (Par. 31 discusses the garment can be undergarment wear or sportwear, thus indicating a waist band), and left and right front leg opening edges (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the front waist portion 12 (Fig. 2) comprising the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 2);
a rear waist portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below – annotated with dashed lines to indicate non-visible rear component) a rear waist edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and left and right rear leg opening edges (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
a crotch portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the crotch portion bridging the front waist portion 12 and the rear waist portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below); and
left and right hip side portions (see annotated Fig. 2 below) joining the front waist portion 12 (Fig. 2) to the rear waist portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below) to form a waist opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below) with a waist opening edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising the front waist edge and the rear waist edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and left and right leg openings (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
wherein the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 2-3) extends longitudinally from near the front waist edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below) to a minimum rear extent (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and laterally from a left lateral edge to a right lateral edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below – gusset 14 extends from near the front waist edge to the rear and towards the two sides);
wherein the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 1-2) comprises a wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 – interface 14A), an absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 – wicking layer 14B) disposed to the outward-facing side of the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 – wicking layer 14B is arranged below the interface 14A, which is away from the wearer), and a liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9 – waterproof breathable material WPBM 14C and backing material 14D) disposed to the outward-facing side of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9 – WPBM 14C and backing material 14D is arranged below the wicking layer 14B, which is away from the wearer),
wherein at least one of, preferably both of, the wearer-facing layer 14A or the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D extends beyond the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9),
wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9) is joined, directly or indirectly, to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9) to form a liquid impermeable seal 3+19 (Fig. 3 – fluid barrier 3 and seam 19) around a perimeter of the absorbent layer 14B (Fig. 9, and Par. 42 – “In one embodiment, as shown in FIG. 9, fluid barrier 3 is created by folding an extension of WPBM 14C and backing material 14D up and over wicking material 14B or up and over both wicking layer 14B and interface 14A, and held in place by a method of fastening (eg: heat seal ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or threaded stitch)”);
wherein the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 1-2) is joined to the durable pant 2 (Fig. 2) by adhesive, tape, thermal bonding, stitching, or a combination thereof (Par. 32 – “the gusset 14 may be manufactured separately from the body of the garment 12, with the composite structures of the gusset first being joined together by means of the fluid barrier 3, and second being attached at the periphery of the gusset, e.g., at one or more of its edges, to the body of the garment by traditional stitching or other methods (such as ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or heat seal)”), and wherein the durable absorbent pant 2 (Fig. 2) is washable (Par. 31; Examiner notes that the garment type discussed in Par. 31 is washable).
PNG
media_image2.png
711
1443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Beck
However, Beck does not currently disclose wherein each of the front waist portion, rear waist portion, and crotch portion comprises a knitted material.
Ehmsen, in the same field of endeavor of garment (Title), teaches wherein each of the front waist portion, rear waist portion, and crotch portion comprises a knitted material (Par. 19 – “the body part is preferably prepared from a knitted material”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of Beck’s pant to be a knitted material as taught by Ehmsen, in order to provide an elastically extensible garment (Abstract). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the main body of Trinder out of a knitted material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 of Beck) of the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 9 of Beck) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9 of Beck) of the absorbent front panel by adhesive, tape, thermal bonding (Par. 42 of Beck – “folding an extension of WPBM 14C and backing material 14D up and over wicking material 14B or up and over both wicking layer 14B and interface 14A, and held in place by a method of fastening (eg: heat seal ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or threaded stitch)”), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent panel 14 (Fig. 1-2 of Beck) is shaped and configured to conform to a non-ruled or non-planar surface (Fig. 1-2 of Beck, and Par. 3 of Beck – “the gusset comprises multiple thin, soft and flexible composite structure”, thus capable of conforming to non-planar surface).
Regarding claim 14, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 10. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the tape has a width of about 5 mm to about 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the tape have the width of about 5 mm to about 25 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the tape does not change its ability to provide a means of attachment between the layers of the device. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 55 of Applicant’s PG-Pub), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 15, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 2 of Beck) is reversibly joined to the pant 2 (Fig. 2 of Beck), preferably using Velcro, adhesive, or a combination thereof (Par. 45 of Beck – “WPBM 14C is attached to and made part of a garment, in combination with other fabric or material, elastic bands, hooks, Velcro or similar fasteners, adhesive strips, snaps, ties or other means of attachment or retention, such that a gusset consisting of wicking material 14B and interface 14A, or consisting of wicking material 14B, alone or in combination with other composite structures, can be temporarily attached to and/or held against WPBM 14C forming part of the garment”).
Regarding claim 16, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent front panel 14 (Fig. 2 of Beck) is irreversibly joined to the pant 2 (Fig. 2 of Beck), preferably using adhesive, stitching, thermal bonding, ultrasonic welding, or a combination thereof (Par. 32 of Beck – “the gusset 14… being attached at the periphery of the gusset, e.g., at one or more of its edges, to the body of the garment by traditional stitching or other methods (such as ultrasonic, radiofrequency, or heat seal)”).
Regarding claim 17, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the absorbent front panel has a Handle of about 0.1 gf/mm to about 2.0 gf/mm and an Area Absorption Capacity of about 0.1 mL/cm2 to about 1.0 mL/cm2.
Examiner notes that it is the Office's position 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. As such, a reference does not need to recite using a Handle, and a Area Absorption Capacity values to determine that the properties of the crotch gusset read on the claim language. In addition, the crotch gusset of the combination above resembles the material and structure of the claimed invention recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of the combination to have a crotch gusset/absorbent panel that exhibits a Handle of about 0.1 gf/mm to about 2.0 gf/mm and a Area Absorption Capacity of about 0.1 mL/cm2 to about 1.0 mL/cm2, since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed Handle and Area Absorption Capacity since the absorbent panel of the combination made with the same crotch gusset material, with similar components and structure (see combination disclosed above) and is intended to absorb bodily fluid and to be comfortably worn by the user; Applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 60 and Par. 111 of Applicant’s PG-Pub).
Regarding claim 19, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the absorbent front panel has a central Caliper at the intersection of the lateral and longitudinal axes of about 1.0 mm to about 5.0 mm.
Examiner notes that it is the Office's position 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. As such, a reference does not need to recite using a central Caliper value to determine that the properties of the crotch gusset read on the claim language. In addition, the crotch gusset of the combination above resembles the material and structure of the claimed invention recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of the combination to have a crotch gusset/absorbent panel that exhibits a central Caliper at the intersection of the lateral and longitudinal axes of about 1.0 mm to about 5.0 mm, since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed Handle and Volume Absorption Capacity since the absorbent panel of the combination made with the same crotch gusset material, with similar components and structure (see combination disclosed above) and is intended to absorb bodily fluid and to be comfortably worn by the user; Applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 59 of Applicant’s PG-Pub).
Regarding claim 20, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the absorbent front panel exhibits a Volume Absorption Capacity of at least 0.5 ml/cm3, up to 1.2 ml/cm3.
Examiner notes that it is the Office's position 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. As such, a reference does not need to recite using a Volume Absorption Capacity value to determine that the properties of the crotch gusset read on the claim language. In addition, the crotch gusset of the combination above resembles the material and structure of the claimed invention recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of the combination to have a crotch gusset/absorbent panel that exhibits a Volume Absorption Capacity of at least 0.5 ml/cm3, up to 1.2 ml/cm3, since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the device would not operate differently with the claimed Handle and Volume Absorption Capacity since the absorbent panel of the combination made with the same crotch gusset material, with similar components and structure (see combination disclosed above) and is intended to absorb bodily fluid and to be comfortably worn by the user; Applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 59 of Applicant’s PG-Pub).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Ehmsen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kajanthan et al. US 2021/0030605 A1 (hereinafter Kajanthan), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 11, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. However, the combination does not disclose wherein the absorbent layer is joined to the wearer-facing layer, the liquid impermeable barrier layer, or both by adhesive.
Kajanthan, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent pad for a garment (Tilte), teaches wherein the absorbent layer 104 (Fig. 4A - liquid absorbent component 104) to the wearer-facing layer 102 (Fig. 4A – wicking component 102) by adhesive 108 (Fig. 4A – bonding means 108, and Par. 43 – “The bonding means 108 may be an adhesive…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint between the absorbent layer and the wearer-facing layer of the combination to be connected via adhesive as taught by Kajanthan, as Kajanthan discusses that it is well-known in the field to attach different layers with a bonding means, such as adhesive, adhesive tape, liquid glue, etc. (Par. 43 of Kajanthan).
Regarding claim 12, Beck in view of Ehmsen discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the wearer-facing layer 14A (Fig. 9 of Beck) is joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 14C+14D (Fig. 9 of Beck), wherein the absorbent front panel 12 (Fig. 2 of Beck) is joined to the durable pant 12 (Fig. 2 of Beck) by stitching (Par. 32 of Beck – “the gusset 14… being attached at the periphery of the gusset… to the body of the garment by traditional stitching or other”), through the first tape and the second tape, provided that the stitching does not puncture the liquid impermeable barrier layer.
However, the combination does not disclose by a first tape and a second tape, wherein the first tape is joined to the wearer-facing layer and the second tape and the second tape is joined to the liquid impermeable barrier layer and the first tape, provided that the first tape and the second tape do not overlap the absorbent layer, stitching through the first tape and the second tape, provided that the stitching does not puncture the liquid impermeable barrier layer.
Takahira, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article for men (Title), teaches by a first tape and a second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above – outer adhesive and inner adhesive), wherein the first tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above) is joined to the wearer-facing layer 3 (Fig. 11 – liquid permeable face sheet 3) and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above – outer tape and inner tape are side by side) and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above) is joined to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 2 (Fig. 11 – liquid impermeable back sheet 2) and the first tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above), provided that the first tape and the second tape (see annotated Fig. 11 above) do not overlap the absorbent layer 4 (Fig. 11 – absorber 4).
Kajanthan, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent pad for a garment (Tilte), teaches by a first tape 110 (Fig. 10A – peripheral sealing element 110, and Par. 49 – “The peripheral sealing element 110 may include a single-sided adhesive tape”) and a second tape 112 (Fig. 10A – peripheral attaching element 112 with a first portion 112a and a second portion 112b), wherein the first tape 110 (Fig. 10A) is joined to the wearer-facing layer 102 (Fig. 10A – wicking component 102) and the second tape 112 (Fig. 10A) and the second tape 112 (Fig. 10A) is joined to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 106 (Fig. 10A – impermeable barrier layer 106) and the first tape 112 (Fig. 10A), provided that the first tape 110 (Fig. 10A) and the second tape 112 (Fig. 10A) do not overlap the absorbent layer 104 (Fig. 10A – liquid absorbent component 104), stitching 114 (Fig. 10A – stitches 114) through the second tape 112 (Fig. 10A), provided that the stitching 114 (Fig. 10A) does not puncture the liquid impermeable barrier layer 106 (Fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layers of the combination to have them joined by a first tape and a second tape and stitched to the garment as taught by Kajanthan, in order to provide an absorbent panel positioned freely within the garment with minimal constraints (Par. 55 of Kajanthan). Furthermore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the stitching to the first tape, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144. The stitching through the first tape allows reinforcement between the first and second tape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Riha-scott US 2025/0381071 A1 teaches a reusable moisture retaining article
Siebert et al. US 2025/0302672 A1 teaches an absorbent core
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights