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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Komatsubara ‘246 (US 20140076246).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses a pet diaper configured to be accommodated in a package in a folded state (abstract, wherein the flexibility of the article shown in the figures demonstrates capability of being in a package in a folded state), comprising:
a main body portion composed of at least:
a front sheet (fig. 2, surface sheet 2);
a back sheet (fig. 2, backsheet 31); and
an absorbent core disposed between the front sheet and the back sheet (fig. 2, absorbent core 41), wherein
the main body portion has a ventral side configured to cover a ventral side of a pet and a dorsal side configured to cover a dorsal side of the pet (fig. 5 shows the diaper as a whole wrapping around the dog to have both a dorsal and ventral side), the main body portion extends in a longitudinal direction of the diaper (fig. 1, diaper extending in longitudinal direction LD), the longitudinal direction being perpendicular to a width direction of the diaper (fig. 1, longitudinal direction perpendicular to a width direction WD), the ventral side and the dorsal side of the main body portion are connected in the longitudinal direction (fig. 1, diaper divided into back portion A, crotch portion B, and abdominal portion C, the back portion and ab), the main body portion includes:
a first cut portion (100) configured to form a first opening through which a tail of the pet is inserted (fig. 1, tail through-hole portion 100); and
a second cut portion (120) configured to form a second opening through which feces of the pet pass (fig. 2, second cut portion 120 for feces, paragraph 0090.), the second opening having a larger area than the first opening (the second opening may be either an opening separate from the one made from first cut portion 100, or can be one created by the first cut portion 110, second cut portion 120, and the easily-incised portions 130 that extends in between such that the two openings can be connected. The connected openings would then be larger than either of the two openings alone), and at least a part of the first cut portion and a part of the second cut portion are disposed on an outer surface of the main body portion in the folded state (in fig. 6, with the diaper effectively folded in half, the two cut portions 110 and 120 are on the exterior of the body of the diaper).
Regarding claim 2, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the main body portion is configured to be folded three or four times in the longitudinal direction, and the first cut portion and the second cut portion are both entirely disposed on the outer surface of the folded main body portion (given the flexibility of the diaper, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of folding the diaper however is desired, including 3 times and wherein the cut portions are entirely disposed on the outer surface of the folded body).
Regarding claim 3, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the main body portion further includes a non-cut portion (130), disposed between the first cut portion and the second cut portion (fig. 1, easily-incised portion 130), that is configured to break such that the first cut portion and the second cut portion are coupled (paragraph 0089 discusses the tail through-hole size can be formed by incising portions 130 towards second portion 120, with the easily-incised portion 130 looking to couple the cut portions 110 and 120), and the second cut portion is configured to form the second opening so as to enclose the first opening together with the first cut portion when the non-cut portion is broken and the first cut portion and the second cut portion are coupled (as best understood by the examiner, when the first and second cut portions are coupled, the second opening enclosing the first opening means that the two openings become one larger opening, which Komatsubara ‘246 appears capable of performing).
Regarding claim 4, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the first cut portion is disposed on the dorsal side of the main body portion with respect to the absorbent core (fig. 1, first cut portion 110 within the back portion A and does not extend to crotch portion B), and the second cut portion is disposed on the dorsal side of the main body portion with respect to the first cut portion (fig. 1, second cut-portion 120, and/or combination of first cut portion 110, second cut portion 120, and portions 130, also on back side A).
Regarding claim 9, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the first cut portion is disposed on the dorsal side of the main body portion with respect to the absorbent core (fig. 1, fig. 1, first cut portion 110 disposed on the back portion A corresponding to the dorsal side), and the second cut portion (120) is disposed between the first cut portion and the absorbent core in the longitudinal direction (fig. 1, second cut portion 120 between first cut portion 110 and the absorbent core 41).
Regarding claim 14, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses the device further comprising:
a pair of fastening tabs (7) extending outward of the main body portion in the width direction (fig. 1, pair of fastening tapes 7); and
a target portion (8), disposed on the dorsal side of the main body portion with respect to the pair of fastening tabs, engaged with the pair of fastening tabs (fig. 5 shows landing tape 8 on the dorsal side of the dog and engaging with tapes 7), wherein a dorsal side end edge of the second opening (120) is disposed on the ventral side with respect to an intermediate line between a center line of the main body portion in the longitudinal direction and a ventral side end edge of the target portion (fig. 1, the second cut portion 120 is not at the centerline of the article in the longitudinal direction, the intermediate line between the center line and the central side edge of target portion, annotated for clarity in fig. 1 below, can be anywhere in between those areas and below the second cut portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses the device further comprising:
an elastic member (fig. 1, elastic members 61 or 62, paragraph 0046):
fixed to the main body portion stretched in the longitudinal direction (paragraph 0080), and extending to straddle the second opening in the longitudinal direction (fig. 1, elastic members 61/62 extend past the second opening 120 and therefore straddles it).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara ‘246 in view of Martin (US 20180249681).
Regarding claim 8, Komatsubara ‘246 does not teach wherein the first cut portion includes an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening.
However, Martin teaches a pet diaper (abstract) wherein a cut portion for a tail is annular (fig. 1, tail hole 110 as a circular shape). While Martin does not explicitly teach an annular slit, the circular shape provides motivation to change the shape of the first cut portion such that it creates an annular shape, such as with an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that the first cut portion includes an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening, as suggested by Martin, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence a change in shape of an element was significant, the change in shape would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Komatsubara ‘246 does not teach wherein the first cut portion includes an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening.
However, Martin teaches a pet diaper (abstract) wherein a cut portion for a tail is annular (fig. 1, tail hole 110 as a circular shape). While Martin does not explicitly teach an annular slit, the circular shape provides motivation to change the shape of the first cut portion such that it creates an annular shape, such as with an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that the first cut portion includes an annular slit extending over an entirety of a periphery of an end edge of the first opening, as suggested by Martin, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence a change in shape of an element was significant, the change in shape would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)
Claim 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara ‘246 in view of Komatsubara ‘445 (US 20180317455)
Regarding claim 10, Komatsubara ‘246 is silent to wherein the first cut portion is configured to form a flap-shaped tongue piece that is a part of the front sheet and the back sheet, and the non-cut portion is configured to break and the first cut portion and the second cut portion are configured to be coupled when the tongue piece is pulled to the ventral side.
However, Komatsubara ‘445 teaches an article for a pet animal (abstract) wherein a tail-receiving portion forms a flap-shaped tongue piece (31) that is part of the front sheet and back sheet (fig. 6, tongue piece 31 where each sheet layer 22, 23, and 26 is joined, paragraph 0033), and is further configured to be pulled to the ventral side (fig. 6, tongue 31 pointed downwards away from back of dog).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that the first cut portion is configured to form a flap-shaped tongue piece that is a part of the front sheet and the back sheet, wherein the tongue piece is pulled to the ventral side, as taught by Komatsubara ‘445, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that allows the first opening to be easily recognized (see Komatsubara ‘445, paragraph 0039).
Komatsubara ‘246, as modified by Komatsubara ‘445, is silent to wherein the non-cut portion is configured to break and the first cut portion and the second cut portion are configured to be coupled when the tongue piece is pulled to the ventral side.
However, Komatsubara ‘246 teaches wherein the first and second cut portions are coupled when the non-cut portion is broken towards the ventral side (paragraph 0089 describes incising the first easily-incised portions 130 toward the second cut portion 120, see arrow B in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 in view of Komatsubara ‘445 such that the non-cut portion is configured to break and the first cut portion and the second cut portion are configured to be coupled when the tongue piece is pulled to the ventral side, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of more easily increasing the opening for the tail.
Regarding claim 11, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the first cut portion includes a U-shaped slit protruding toward the dorsal side (fig. 1 shows the first cut portion 110 as U-shaped protruding towards the back portion A/dorsal side), and the second cut portion includes a pair of slits (121) adjacent to a pair of end portions of the U-shaped slit via the non-cut portion (fig. 1, second cut portion 120 with two incised portions 121 to be adjacent to first cut portion 110 via the portions 130).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara ‘246 in view of Komatsubara ‘445, and further in view of Komatsubara ‘080 (US 20200368080).
Regarding claim 12, Komatsubara ‘246 discloses wherein the pair of slits extends such that one of the pair of slits is separated from the other of the pair of slits toward the ventral side (fig. 1 shows the incised portions 121 being separated toward the ventral side with non-incised portion 122), but does not teach wherein the slits linearly extend.
However, Komatsubara ‘080 teaches a diaper for dogs (abstract) wherein cut parts (70Y) linearly extend in a similar relation to a tail hole (70) (fig. 1, tail hole 70 and linear cut parts 70Y to enlarge through hole, paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that the pair of slits linearly extends, as taught and suggested by Komatsubara ‘080, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence a change in shape of an element was significant, the change in shape would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding claim 20, Komatsubara ‘246 is silent to wherein a surface of the back sheet has a design, and a surface of the front sheet does not have a design.
However, Komatsubara ‘080 teaches an article for a dog (abstract) wherein a surface of the back sheet has a design (fig. 2, non-skin contact side with a floral design), and a surface of the front sheet does not have a design (fig. 1, skin contact surface side with a blank design).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that a surface of the back sheet has a design, and a surface of the front sheet does not have a design, as taught by Komatsubara ‘080, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of making a user aware of the presence of the tail hole and improving the decorativeness of the diaper as a whole (see Komatsubara ‘080, paragraph 0044).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsubara ‘246.
Regarding claim 15, Komatsubara ‘246 does not explicitly state wherein the area of the second opening is equal to or larger than twice the area of the first opening.
However, [0077-0078] describes the length and width of both the first and second cut portions both being from 20-50 mm., with a length L5 between the two cut portions being 15-40 mm (paragraph 0079). If for instance each of the cut portions had identical lengths and widths, connecting the two would double the area of the opening, plus the additional area gained by opening.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that the area of the second opening is equal to or larger than twice the area of the first opening, for the purpose of providing the predictable benefit of having both the tail and potential feces pass through if needed, and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cer. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225, SPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the device of Komatsubara ‘246 would not function differently given the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Komatsubara ‘246 is silent to wherein in the longitudinal direction, a maximum length of the second opening is equal to or greater than twice a maximum length of the first opening.
However, as similarly recited in the analysis of claim 15 above, the given dimensions for the first and second cuts plus the length of the uncut area would lead to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably achieve this limitation for a predictable benefit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that in the longitudinal direction, a maximum length of the second opening is equal to or greater than twice a maximum length of the first opening, for the purpose of providing the predictable benefit of having both the tail and potential feces pass through if needed, and 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cer. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225, SPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the device of Komatsubara ‘246 would not function differently given the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 17, Komatsubara ‘246 is silent to wherein a maximum width of the first opening in the width direction is larger than a maximum length of the first opening in the longitudinal direction.
However, [0077] teaches wherein the width and length can both range from 20-50 mm. As such, an opening that is wider than it is long is feasible to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Komatsubara ‘246 such that a maximum width of the first opening in the width direction is larger than a maximum length of the first opening in the longitudinal direction, 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cer. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225, SPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the device of Komatsubara ‘246 would not function differently given the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Komatsubara ‘246 is silent to wherein a maximum length of the second opening in the longitudinal direction is larger than a maximum width of the second opening in the width direction.
However, the maximum width of the second opening is given to be 50 mm (paragraph 0079). The second opening, created by the first cut portion, the second cut portion, and the area between of the easily- incised portion has a minimum length of 20 mm +20 mm +15 mm, or 55 mm (paragraph 0077-0079). Thus, even given the maximum width and the minimum length, Komatsubara ‘246 teaches a length of the second opening to be greater than the width.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Komatsubara ‘246 does not teach wherein the first cut portion (110) is configured to form a flap-shaped tongue piece that is a part of the front sheet and the back sheet, wherein the non-cut portion is configured to break when the tongue piece is pulled to the dorsal side.
While Komatsubara ‘246 could in theory have a flap of material taken out to move the first cut portion and make a flap-shaped tongue piece, paragraph 0089 suggests that the non-cut portion is broken in a ventral direction as shown by arrow B in fig. 6. As such, Komatsubara ‘246 does not fairly teach the non-cut portion being configured to break when the tongue piece is pulled in a dorsal direction.
Fang (US 20180014508) teaches a flap for an opening to accept a tail that appears to be lifted toward the dorsal side, but does not fairly teach the relationship between moving the flap and breaking a non-cut portion to couple the first cut portion and the second cut portion, as Fang does not teach as second cut portion.
For these reasons, claim 5 is indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Claims 6-7 are allowable by virtue of being dependent on claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 5712705879. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
