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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “the inertial research and development thought of the skilled in the art continuing a research and development path in a physical direction of the diaper itself is broken” is not grammatically easily understood. Does this mean that research of the diaper unit is not pursued? A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, Lines 26-28: Similar to the objection of the Abstract above, the phrase “how to break the inertial research and development thought of continuing a research and development path in a physical direction of the diaper itself” is not easily understood.
Page 16, Line 17: The phrase “In one of embodiments” should read either –In one of the embodiments—or –In one embodiment--.
Page 17, Line 4: The article “a” before “non-woven fabrics” is not needed.
Page 17, Line 20: A space is needed in the phrase “1and”.
Page 19, Line 13: The phrase “In one of embodiments” should read either –In one of the embodiments—or –In one embodiment--.
Page 19, Line 13: The phrase “In one of embodiments” should read either –In one of the embodiments—or –In one embodiment--.
Page 20, Lines 21-22: It is unknown exactly why the quotations are used around this phrase.
Page 20, Lines 25-26: It is unknown exactly why the quotations are used around this phrase.
Page 27, Line 23: The phrase “In one of embodiments” should read either –In one of the embodiments—or –In one embodiment--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/825,084 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to a diaper-based method and system that uses dual means to detect whether a user is located in a perceptible area and whether a liquid has been detected. The claims of the ‘084 reference further include a human perception unit not found in the current claims that assist in human detection. Furthermore, the independent claims of the ‘084 reference mention a monitoring device similar to the current claims that generate electromagnetic induction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/825,084 in view of Nhan et al [U.S. 8,334,226].
The claims of the ‘084 reference do not mention a half-wave dipole antenna. However, half-wave dipole antennas have been used in diapers for wetness sensing for some time. The conductive webs containing electrical pathways taught by Nhan includes a diaper liner working in conjunction with an RFID system (Abstract) that also uses a half-wave dipole antenna (Fig. 7) to act as a radiating element. The Nhan reference uses this dipole antenna in order to produce a relatively inexpensive way to produce electrical circuits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dipole antenna such as that found in Nhan for the purpose of producing an inexpensive circuit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
A prior art rejection has not been formulated in this Office action.
Diapers and absorbing garments have used moisture sensors and RFID tags for some time as seen in the Bergman et al [U.S. 9,107,776] reference, which includes an incontinence management system that receives signals from absorbent articles remotely located. However, the current claims present a detailed system that includes both a first radio frequency electronic tag that represents that the garment is located in a perceptible area and a second radio frequency electronic tag for detecting a signal representing the existence of a liquid in conjunction with a monitoring device so that the first radio frequency signal is sent when generating electromagnetic induction with a radio frequency signal and utilizing a first analysis algorithm so as to analyze whether the second radio frequency signal needs to be analyzed. This combination of element is considered unobvious subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Homolle et al [U.S. 7,289,066] has an imprinted antenna using a half-wave dipole.
Copeland [U.S. 7,804,411] includes a combination EAS and RFID label.
Clement et al [U.S. 8,237,572] is a self-powered RFID tag activated by a fluid.
Salehi et al [US 2019/0286963] describes an RFID moisture sensor.
Lai et al [US 2025/0073091] discloses a diaper-based anomaly analysis method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
6/9/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights