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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italian Republic on 10/23/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT102023000022089 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 7, the limitation “an end” in claim 3 is generally broad. For examining purposes, Examiner currently interprets “an end” to be an end of the distal flap.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianco US 2011/0139352 A1 (hereinafter Bianco).
Regarding claim 1, Bianco discloses a closing element 1 (Fig. 10 – fastening element 1) for producing reclosable absorbent sanitary articles (Abstract – “a fastening element for absorbent sanitary products”, and Par. 111 – “FIGS. 7 to 12 are the currently preferred embodiments of the invention. These are aimed at bestowing on the element 1 characteristics of releasability and refastenability”), comprising a non-woven sheet folded according to an omega-shaped configuration (Par. 72 – “the fastening element 1 represented in FIG. 1 is basically constituted by a strip of laminar material, such as a non-woven fabric,… folded according to a general omega-shaped configuration”, and Par. 71 – Fig. 10 shares the same base configuration with Fig. 1) and including:
- a base 10 (Fig. 10 – base branch 10) divided into two sections located on opposite sides with respect to a central plane X-X (Fig. 10 – plane X-X, and Par. 73 – “the fastening element 1 is divided into two halves along the plane X-X)”) perpendicular to the base 10 (Fig. 10 – plane X-X is perpendicular to base branch 10),
- two intermediate flaps 12 (Fig. 10 – two intermediate branches 12) parallel to the base (Fig. 10 – branches 12 are horizontally parallel to base branch 10) and located on opposite sides of said central plane X-X (Fig. 10 – intermediate branches 12 are on the left and right side of plane X-X), wherein the intermediate flaps 12 (Fig. 10) are connected to respective ends of the base 10 (Fig. 10) by respective first folds F1 (see annotated Fig. 10 below – first folds F1) and are permanently fixed to the base 10 (Fig. 10, and Par. 153 – “two strips of glue (no longer technical, but permanent, for instance of the hot-melt type) corresponding to the layers designated by 16 in FIGS. 7 to 12”),
- two distal flaps 14 (Fig. 10 – two distal stretches 14) parallel to the respective intermediate flaps 12 (Fig. 10 – distal stretches are horizontally parallel to intermediate branches 12) and located on opposite sides of said central plane X-X (Fig. 10 – distal stretches are on the left and right side of plane X-X), wherein the distal flaps 14 (Fig. 10) are connected to respective ends of the respective intermediate flaps 12 (Fig. 10) by respective second folds (see annotated Fig. 10 below – second folds F2) and are separably fixed (Fig. 10, and Par. 151 – “provisional-seal formation 23 entails the establishing of a "technical" connection or tacking (i.e., a non-permanent connection which will be absent in the finished product) between the free ends of the distal branches 14 and the body part of the strip on which said branches are folded back”) to the respective intermediate flaps 12 (Fig. 10, and Par. 73 – “two distal stretches 14 turned up again on the intermediate stretches 12”), wherein said distal flaps 14 (Fig. 10) protrude laterally with respect to the base 10 (Fig. 10) beyond the respective first folds F1 (Par. 77 – “The distal stretches 14 can in fact be made so that they are both of equal length, either shorter or longer as compared to the corresponding portions of the base branch 10”),
wherein the closing element 1 (Fig. 10) comprises at least two surface fastening elements 22 (Fig. 10 – branch 22, Par. 111 – “These are characteristics that can be obtained by bestowing on these complementary elements the characteristics of the parts of a fastening of a microhook (hook-and-loop) mechanical type”, and Par. 113 – “the branch 22 can be configured in such a way as to carry hook-like parts”) fixed on surfaces of said distal flaps 14 (Fig. 10) opposite to the base 10 (Fig. 10),
wherein the base 10 (Fig. 10) has a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (Fig. 10 – the width of base branch 10 in the horizontal direction as shown) equal to a distance between the first folds F1 (see annotated Fig. 10 below – the distance from the left first fold F1 to the right first fold F1), and
wherein said intermediates flaps 12 (Fig. 10) have a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (Fig. 10 the width of intermedia branch 12 as shown) equal to a distance between a first fold F1 (see annotated Fig. 10 below) of the respective first folds F1 (see annotated Fig. 10 below) and a second fold F2 (see annotated Fig. 10 below) of the respective second folds F2 (see annotated Fig. 10 below – the distance from the left first fold F1 to the left second fold F2, and likewise for the right first and second fold).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
1245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anntoated Fig. 10 of Bianco
However, Bianco does not disclose the base comprised between 15 and 90 mm, said intermediate flaps comprised between 5 and 30 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 dimension of Bianco’s base to be between 15 and 90 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the base does not change the base nor the closing element ability to form a double fold fastening element. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 27 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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.
It also 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 dimension of Bianco’s intermediate flaps to be between 5 and 30 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the intermediate flaps does not change the flap ability to form a double fold fastening element. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 28 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 2, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 1. Bianco further discloses wherein a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (see annotated Fig. 10 above) equal to a distance between the second folds F2 (see annotated Fig. 10 above – the distance from the left second fold F2 to the right second fold F2)
However, Bianco does not disclose the distance comprised between 5 and 30 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 space between two second folds of Bianco to be between 5 and 30 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension does not change the second fold ability to form two intermediate flaps for fastening purposes. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 29 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 3, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 2. Bianco further discloses wherein a distance between each second fold and the central plane is less than a dimension of each intermediate flap.
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 distance between each second fold and the central plane less than a dimension of each intermediate flap, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension does not change the fastening element ability to form a double fold for fastening purposes. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 30 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 4, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 1. Bianco further discloses wherein each distal flap 14 (Fig. 10) has a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (Fig. 10) equal to a distance between the second fold F2 (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and a respective end of the respective distal flap 14 (see annotated Fig. 10 above – the distance from a second fold F2 to the end of distal stretch 14).
However, Bianco does not disclose comprised between 10 and 76 mm.
It also 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 dimension of Bianco’s intermediate flaps to be between 10 and 76 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the distal flaps does not change the flap ability to form a double fold fastening element. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 31 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 5, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 4. However, Bianco does not disclose wherein the dimension of each distal flap is greater than a sum of the dimension of each intermediate flap and half the dimension of the base.
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 dimension of each distal flap greater than a sum of the dimension of each intermediate flap and half the dimension of the base, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension does not change the fastening element ability to form a double fold for fastening purposes. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 32 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 6, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 1. Bianco further discloses wherein said at least one surface fastening element 22 (Fig. 10) of said at least two surface fastening elements 22 (Fig. 10) has a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (Fig. 10 – the width of each branch 22 as shown).
However, Bianco does not disclose comprised between 5 and 25 mm.
It also 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 dimension of Bianco’s surface fastening element to be between 5 and 25 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the surface fastening element does not change the its ability to fasten itself onto other surfaces. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 33 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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 7, Bianco discloses the invention of claim 6. Bianco further discloses wherein in each distal flap 14 (Fig. 10), a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the central plane X-X (Fig. 10) equal to the distance between an end (see annotated Fig. 10 above) and an outer edge (see annotated Fig. 10 above) of a corresponding surface fastening element 22 (see annotated Fig. 10 above – the horizontal distance from the annotated end of stretch 14 to an outer edge of branch 22) of said at least two surface fastening elements 22 (Fig. 10).
However, Bianco does not disclose comprised between 3 and 12 mm.
It also 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 dimension of Bianco’s surface fastening element and distal flap to be between 3 and 12 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the distal flaps does not change the flap ability to form a double fold fastening element nor the surface fastening element ability to fasten itself onto other surfaces. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 34 of Applicant’s PGPUB), 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gabriele US 2010/0016823 A1 teaches a closure element for absorbent sanitary products.
Gaudet et al. US 4,981,480 A teaches an adjustable child garment with side tabs.
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
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights