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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first visual signal area" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second visual signal area" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer et al. (US 2013/0123731) in view of JP 2014-223216 and further in view of Arora et al. (US 2016/0129626).
With reference to claims 1 and 9, Mercer et al. (hereinafter “Mercer”) discloses a feminine hygiene article (10) having a chassis comprising a topsheet (12), a backsheet (14), and an absorbent core (16) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet [0014]; a longitudinal centerline (L) and a lateral centerline (T) perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline (figure 1); a first end having a width, an opposing second end having a width and an intermediate region connecting the first end and the second end (figure 1); the feminine hygiene article further comprising:
first (20) and second (30) wings each extending laterally outboard of the chassis and having a leading edge extending outboard of the chassis, a trailing edge extending outboard of the chassis and a first curvilinear edge (i.e., connecting edge) connecting the trailing and leading edge (see annotated figure 1) wherein the first curvilinear/connecting edge forms an outermost portion of the respective wing (see figure 1 below),
wherein each wing has a length and further comprises a first distal zone and a first bisecting line (considered as lateral centerline T) forming at least a portion of a boundary between the first distal zone and the first proximal zone as shown in annotated figure 1 below.
The wings have first and second opposing surfaces and each wing includes two (considered first and second on the first wing and third and fourth on the opposite wing) adhesive areas. The first and second wings may be asymmetrical as set forth in [0024].
Mercer also teaches that the wings may include a visual signal in the form of ink printing (cl. 9) as set forth in [0032] and first (24) and second (26) as well as third (36) and fourth (37) adhesives as shown in figure 1.
[AltContent: textbox (fold line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (boundary)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second transition
edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (boundary)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connecting
edge)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (first transition
edge)][AltContent: textbox (second proximal zone)][AltContent: textbox (second trailing
edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: textbox (second proximal edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first proximal edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first proximal zone)][AltContent: textbox (first distal edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first leading
edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second distal edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second distal zone)][AltContent: textbox (connecting
edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second leading
edge)][AltContent: textbox (trailing
edge)][AltContent: textbox (first distal zone)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (intermediate portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (chassis)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
948
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Mercer and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the first and third adhesives as well as the first and second visual signals have specific placement and that a density of the first visual signal is higher in the first distal zone than the first proximate zone and a density of the second visual signal is higher in the second distal zone than the second proximate zone.
JP 2014-223216 (hereinafter ‘216) teaches an analogous absorbent article including first and second wings having first, second, third and fourth adhesives which are asymmetrically disposed relative to the respective bisecting line as set forth in annotated figure 2 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the article of Mercer with the asymmetrically disposed adhesive as taught by ‘216 in order to prevent undesirable twisting and/or premature detachment of the article from the undergarment as taught by ‘216 in [0092] and in [0094].
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (bisecting line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bisecting line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (fourth adhesive)][AltContent: textbox (third adhesive)][AltContent: textbox (second adhesive)][AltContent: textbox (first adhesive)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first wing)][AltContent: textbox (second wing)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
1285
1005
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The difference between Mercer in view of ‘216 and claim 1 is the provision that a density of the first visual signal is higher in the first distal zone than the first proximate zone and a density of the second visual signal is higher in the second distal zone than the second proximate zone.
Arora et al. (hereinafter “Arora”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including first and second wings may include first and second visual signals as set forth in [0222]. Arora also discloses that the visual signal (i.e., printing) may have varied density as set forth in [0152].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first and second wing of Mercer in view of ‘216 with the visual signals as taught by Arora in order to provide the article with additional signals related to orientation as taught by Arora in [0152].
As to claim 2, Mercer discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the first distal zone is more proximal to the second end than the first proximal zone and wherein the second distal zone is more proximal to the first end than the second proximal zone as shown in annotated figure 1 above.
As to claim 3, Mercer discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the first distal zone is more proximal to the second end than the second distal zone as shown in annotated figure 1 above.
With reference to claim 4, Mercer discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the first distal zone and the second distal zone are longitudinally offset from one another as shown in figure 1 above where first distal zone is located diagonally from second distal zone.
Regarding claim 5, Mercer discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the first distal zone is disposed on a second side of the lateral centerline of the feminine hygiene article, and the second distal zone on a first side of the lateral centerline zone as shown in annotated figure 1 above.
With respect to claims 6-7, see the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Mercer in view of ‘216 and Miura and claims 6-7 is the explicit recitation that bisecting line is disposed more proximal to the first or second end.
Referring to annotated figure 2 of ‘216, the examiner contends that in view of both claims being dependent on independent claim 1, the top of the article nearest the bisecting lines as shown may be considered as either a first end or a second end in alternate scenarios as there is no further limitation of what defines a first end or a second end.
As to claim 8, see figure 1 of Mercer.
With respect to claim 10, Mercer modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
The difference between Mercer modified and claim 10 is the explicit recitation that the print signal is located in a specific area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the print signals as desired since it has been held that mere changes in location of elements previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 11-13, see the rejection of claim 10 and [0031-0032] of Mercer.
Regarding claim 14, Mercer discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the article further comprises a folding line positioned between the chassis and the first wing wherein the second adhesive area is disposed laterally outboard of the folding line as shown in annotated figure 1 above.
With reference to claims 15 and 16, Mercer discloses first and second visual signal areas disposed asymmetrically with respect to the respective bisecting line as shown in figure 1.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, see figure 1 of Mercer above.
With respect to claim 19, Mercer modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Mercer modified and claim 19 is the explicit recitation that the visual signals are located in a specific area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the print signals as desired since it has been held that mere changes in location of elements previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 20, Mercer modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Mercer modified and claim 20 is the explicit recitation that the visual signals comprise an arrow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the visual signal image as desired since it has been held that mere change in size or shape of an element previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,226,297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,226,297 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,226,297.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,232,940. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,232,940 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,232,940.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,684,524. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,684,524 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,684,524.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,058,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,058,591are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,058,591.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,083,647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,083,647 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,083,647.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,246,770. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,246,770 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,246,770.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,813,153 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,153.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,065,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,065,163 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,065,163.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,684,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 11,684,525 are directed to a feminine hygiene article having first and second wings which are asymmetrical around respective bisecting lines and include a visual signal.
The limitations of claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,684,525.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights