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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/8/2024 has been entered: Claims 1-22 remain pending in the present application. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-22 are amended. Claims 1-22 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “releasable fastening elements” in claim 22, where “releasable fastening” is the function and “elements” is the generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “releasable fastening elements” are interpreted as an adhesive layer, hook patch, and all known equivalents, as described in paragraph 35 of Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 8, and 17 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5, 8, and 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaney et al. (US 2003/0163106 A1), cited in Applicant’s IDS filed 11/8/2024, in view of O’Leary (US 2011/0023216 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blaney discloses an absorbent undergarment (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising a fabric panel (cloth outer layer 36) and an integrated absorbent assembly comprising a wearer facing top layer (top layer 21), a garment facing moisture barrier (inner laminate 50 and filament layer 54), an intermediate layer between the top layer and the moisture barrier (surge layer 13 or breathable film 52, the placement of which can be seen in Fig. 2).
Blaney does not explicitly teach the moisture barrier comprises a woven or knitted fabric comprising activated carbon.
However, O’Leary teaches an odor absorbent garment (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising an odor filter layer (insert 162 and knitted material 166) comprising a knitted fabric of activated carbon fibers (¶ 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney, particularly the filament layer, to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
The limitation of the absorbent garment being “washable” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary comprises all the claimed structures. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it would be capable of being washed).
Regarding claim 2, O’Leary teaches the odor barrier comprises a knit of activated carbon fibers (¶ 133).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would thus comprise a knit of activated carbon fibers comprised by the moisture barrier. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the moisture barrier having a thickness between 0.2 mm and 1.0 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have a thickness between 0.2 and 1.0mm 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed thickness. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 14 of Applicant’s specification indicates the moisture barrier may be of any suitable thickness).
Regarding the thickness being measured with ISO 5084 (1996), 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 measuring thickness using ISO 5084 (1996) to read on the claim language as both the material and structure of Blaney and O’Leary meets the claims.
Regarding claim 4, Blaney further teaches a moisture impermeable material laminated to the moisture barrier layer (liquid impervious film inner layer 37; Fig. 2 and ¶ 44; ¶s 5-7 indicate a laminate).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would thus comprise a knit of activated carbon fibers comprised by the moisture barrier which would subsequently be laminated with the moisture impermeable material of Blaney. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
Regarding claim 5, Blaney further teaches the moisture impermeable layer is a thermoplastic film (¶ 25 indicates the term film refers to thermoplastic films, which ¶ 44 describes layer 37 as a film).
Regarding claim 6, Blaney teaches a basis weight of between 0.1 ounces per square yard to 4.0 ounces per square yard (approximately 3-135 gsm) which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 gsm and 300 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basis weight of Blaney and O’Leary from between 3 and 150 gsm to between 50 and 300 gsm as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (¶s 16 of Applicant’s specification merely indicates the surface weight “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the activated carbon having a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have an activated carbon with a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed surface area (O’Leary indicates a high surface area on Page 8, right column, under numeral 41). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 18 indicates the claimed surface area is only “in an embodiment”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the knitted material comprising activated carbon covers an area of at least 10 cm2 of the assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have activated carbon covers an area of at least 10 cm2 of the assembly 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed area. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 25 indicates the area may be adapted to particular garments or intended uses).
Regarding claim 9, Blaney teaches the moisture barrier layer being generally breathable, which is described as having a moisture vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of at least 300 grams/m2-24 hours and in the range off 1000g to 5000g (¶ 19; ¶ 42 further indicates the inner laminate having a WVTR in the range of 1000g to 5000g), which encompasses the claimed range of between 800g and 2000g.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basis weight of Blaney and O’Leary from between 1000g and 5000g to between 800g and 2000g as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (¶ 19 of Applicant’s specification merely indicates the WVTR “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding the WVTR being measured with NWSP 070.5.RO Mocon, 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 measuring WVTR using NWSP 070.5.RO Mocon to read on the claim language as both the material and structure of Blaney and O’Leary meets the claims.
Regarding 10, Blaney teaches the absorbent assembly is permanently attached to the fabric panel (¶ 35 describes using adhesive, ultrasonic, or thermal bonding techniques, which are interpreted as being permanent).
Regarding 11, Blaney teaches the absorbent assembly is permanently attached to the fabric panel (¶ 35 describes using adhesive, ultrasonic, or thermal bonding techniques, which are interpreted as creating bonding members; also see edges 23 and 25).
Regarding claim 12, Blaney teaches the fabric panels forming a front region (front portion 5), a back region (rear portion 7), and an intermediate region extending between the front and back regions (crotch portion 15; ¶ 32), the front region and the back region being joined such that the undergarment forms a waist opening (waist opening 10) and a pair of leg openings (leg openings 12 and 14), wherein a central longitudinal axis of the undergarment is defined the one or more fabric panels of the undergarment from the back region towards the front region (inherent to the shape of the front and back regions), and a transversal crotch axis of the undergarment is defined in a direction extending between the leg openings (inherent to the shape of the leg openings) and so as to divide the intermediate region into a front intermediate region extending longitudinally between the transversal crotch axis and a front end of each leg opening, and a rear intermediate region extending longitudinally between the transversal crotch axis and a rear end of each leg opening (such regions would necessarily arise from the division by the above axes), the transversal crotch axis being perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis of the top layer (the leg openings 12 and 14 are positioned on opposite sides of the front and back portions 5 and 7, thus the resulting axes would be perpendicular), intermediate layer and moisture barrier being superimposed along a height axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the transversal crotch axis (Fig. 2 shows a cross-section where the layers are superimposed in a height axis that would be perpendicular to the axes formed by the leg openings and the front and back portions).
Regarding claim 13, Blaney teaches the absorbent assembly being located in the intermediate region (¶ 34 indicates how the cross-section in Fig. 2 is taken along like 2-2 within central region 15).
Regarding claim 14, Blaney discloses an absorbent assembly (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising a wearer facing top layer (top layer 21), a garment facing moisture barrier (inner laminate 50 and filament layer 54), an intermediate layer between the top layer and the moisture barrier (surge layer 13 or breathable film 52, the placement of which can be seen in Fig. 2).
Blaney does not explicitly teach the moisture barrier comprises a woven or knitted material comprising activated carbon.
However, O’Leary teaches an odor absorbent garment (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising an odor filter layer (insert 162 and knitted material 166) comprising a knitted material of activated carbon fibers (¶ 133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney, particularly the filament layer, to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
The limitation of the absorbent garment being “washable” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary comprises all the claimed structures. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it would be capable of being washed).
Regarding claim 15, O’Leary teaches the odor barrier comprises a knit of activated carbon fibers (¶ 133).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would thus comprise a knit of activated carbon fibers comprised by the moisture barrier. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
Regarding claim 16, Blaney further teaches a moisture impermeable material laminated to the moisture barrier layer (liquid impervious film inner layer 37; Fig. 2 and ¶ 44; ¶s 5-7 indicate a laminate).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture barrier layer of Blaney to comprise the knitted carbon fibers of O’Leary. Doing so would thus comprise a knit of activated carbon fibers comprised by the moisture barrier which would subsequently be laminated with the moisture impermeable material of Blaney. Doing so would be advantageous in providing an odor filter that is flexible and does not cause discomfort for the user (¶s 15, 28, and 86 of O’Leary).
Regarding claim 17, Blaney further teaches the moisture impermeable layer is a thermoplastic film (¶ 25 indicates the term film refers to thermoplastic films, which ¶ 44 describes layer 37 as a film).
Regarding claim 18, Blaney teaches a basis weight of between 0.1 ounces per square yard to 4.0 ounces per square yard (approximately 3-135 gsm) which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 gsm and 300 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the basis weight of Blaney and O’Leary from between 3 and 150 gsm to between 50 and 300 gsm as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (¶s 16 of Applicant’s specification merely indicates the surface weight “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the activated carbon having a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have an activated carbon with a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed surface area (O’Leary indicates a high surface area on Page 8, right column, under numeral 41). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 18 indicates the claimed surface area is only “in an embodiment”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the knitted material comprising activated carbon covers an area of at least 10 cm2 of the assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have activated carbon covers an area of at least 10 cm2 of the assembly 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed area. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 25 indicates the area may be adapted to particular garments or intended uses).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary does not explicitly disclose the activated carbon having a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the moisture barrier layer of Blaney and O’Leary to have an activated carbon with a surface area of more than 800 m2/g and less than 2000 m2/g 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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Blaney and O’Leary would not operate differently with the claimed surface area (O’Leary indicates a high surface area on Page 8, right column, under numeral 41). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 18 indicates the claimed surface area is only “in an embodiment”).
Regarding the WVTR being measured with NWSP 070.5.RO Mocon, 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 measuring WVTR using NWSP 070.5.RO Mocon to read on the claim language as both the material and structure of Blaney and O’Leary meets the claims.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaney and O’Leary as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Stefu et al. (US 2022/0110800 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Blaney and O’Leary do not explicitly disclose the absorbent assembly comprising releasable fastening elements on a garment facing surface.
However, Stefu teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising adhesives on a garment facing surface (¶ 42 describes lateral portions 22a and 22b as having an adhesive material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent assembly of Blaney and O’Leary to comprise releasable fastening elements on a garment facing surface, as taught by Stefu. Doing so would be advantageous in better securing the article (¶s 14 and 24 of Stefu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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 E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
