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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025, 04/08/2025, and 03/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 is recited to depend upon claim 23, which is believed to be a typo. For examining purposes, Examiner currently interprets claim 23 to be dependent on claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “a distance from the circumferential outer edge of less than 5 mm”, and the claim also recites “such as less than 2 mm, such as less than 1 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examining purposes, Examiner currently interprets the limitation as “a distance from the circumferential outer edge of less than 5 mm”.
Additionally, regarding claim 6, 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.
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 1-8, and 12-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. US 2024/0415707 A1 (hereinafter Stanley).
Regarding claim 1, Stanley discloses a washable and reusable undergarment 10 (Fig. 1 – pant 10, and Par. 45 – “The durable (and/or washable) absorbent pant”), comprising one or more fabric panels 100+120 (Fig. 2 – front waist portion 100 and rear waist portion 120) forming a front side 100 (Fig. 2) and a back side 120 (Fig. 2) being joined such that the undergarment 10 forms a waist opening WO (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a pair of leg openings LO (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and with a crotch region 130 (Fig. 2 – crotch portion 130) extending between the leg openings LO (see annotated Fig. 1 below),
wherein a central longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2 – longitudinal axis 200) of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2) extends along the one or more fabric panels 100+120 (Fig. 2) of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2) in a direction from the back side 120 (Fig. 2) and towards the front side 100 (Fig. 2), and a transversal axis 300 (Fig. 2 – lateral axis 300) of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2) extends along the one or more fabric panels 100+120 (Fig. 2), perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2), dividing the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2) into the front side 100 (Fig. 2) and said backside 120 (Fig. 2);
the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2) further comprising an absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2 – absorbent panel 230) comprising a wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B – wearer-facing layer 231a), a moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B – liquid impervious barrier layer 231c), and optionally one or more intermediate layers 231b (Fig. 5B – absorbent layer 231b) being superimposed along a height axis (Fig. 5B), perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2) and the transversal axis 300 (Fig. 2), between the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) and the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 2),
the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) defining a circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B – perimeter seal 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A), wherein:
at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4A) comprises one or more sealed edge sections 232 (Fig. 5B – perimeter seals 232 in Fig. 5B shows the lateral sealed sections, according to the sectional view along line 4A-4A in Fig. 4A, and perimeter seals 232 in Fig. 6A shows the longitudinal sealed sections, according to the sectional view along line 6-6 in Fig. 2) wherein a bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) is sealingly attached to a top surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B), and a bottom surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B) is directly attached to a top surface of at least one fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A), the sealed edge sections 232 providing continuous sealing along the sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 4A) and between the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B) and the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Stanley
However, Stanley does not currently disclose an absorbent assembly being arranged in at least part of the crotch region.
Stanley, in another embodiment, teaches an absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 3) being arranged in at least part of the crotch region 130 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent assembly of Stanley to be arranged in at least part of the crotch region, also as taught by Stanley, as Stanley teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.). Also, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent assembly of Stanley to be arranged in at least part of the crotch region, also as taught by Stanley, in order to increase the surface area of the absorbent assembly, thus proving more absorbent capacity.
Regarding claim 2, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A) forms a front sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2) and faces the front 100 of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232 faces toward the front waist portion 100).
Regarding claim 3, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A) forms a rear sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 2 – the bottom edge of perimeter seals 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2) and faces the back 120 of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the bottom edge of perimeter seals 232 faces toward the rear waist portion 120).
Regarding claim 4, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2) comprises a front sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232) facing the front 100 of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232 faces toward the front waist portion 100) and a back sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232) facing the back 120 of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the bottom edge of perimeter seals 232 faces toward the rear waist portion 120).
Regarding claim 5, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein, a first fluid seal 233 (Fig. 5B – adhesive 233) is arranged to extend between the bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) and the top surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B) of the one or more sealed edge sections 232 (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 6, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 5. Stanley further discloses wherein the first fluid seal 233 (Fig. 5B) extends along the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B) of the one or more sealed edge sections 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B).
However, Stanley does not disclose at a distance from the circumferential outer edge of less than 5 mm, such as less than 2 mm, such as less than 1 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 distance of the first fluid seal from the circumferential outer edge be of less than 5 mm, such as less than 2 mm, such as less than 1 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the absorbent assembly. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 208 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 5. Stanley further discloses wherein a second fluid seal 236 (Fig. 6A – tape 236) is arranged to extend between the bottom surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 6A) and the top surface of the at least one fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A) along the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 6A – outermost edge of tape 236 is between the bottom surface of layer 231a and front waist portion 100).
However, Stanley does not disclose at a distance from the circumferential outer edge in the one or more sealed edge sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the second fluid seal to so it was arranged at a distance from the circumferential outer edge, since this claimed position of the second fluid seal does not change the seal’s ability to provide attachment means between the absorbent assembly and the undergarment. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the second fluid seal disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 7. However, Stanley does not disclose wherein the distance is less than 5 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 distance of the second fluid seal from the circumferential outer edge be of less than 5 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the absorbent assembly. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 208 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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 12, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 5. Stanley further discloses wherein in the one or more sealed edge sections 232 (Fig. 4A) the first fluid seal 233 (Fig. 5B) substantially coincide with the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 5B) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 5. Stanley further discloses wherein the first fluid seal 233 (Fig. 5B) is a fluid sealing joint (Fig. 5B, and Par. 42 – adhesive 233).
Regarding claim 14, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 13. Stanley further discloses wherein the fluid sealing joint 233 (Fig. 5B) is a fluid sealing adhesive joint (Fig. 5B and Par. 42 – “as shown in FIG. 5B, the wearer-facing layer 231a may be joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 231c by an adhesive 233 to form a liquid impermeable seal 232 around the perimeter of the absorbent layer 231b”).
Regarding claim 15, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 13. However, Stanley does not currently disclose wherein the fluid sealing joint is an adhesive tape.
Stanley, in another embodiment, teaches that wherein the fluid sealing joint is an adhesive tape (Par. 52 – “The wearer-facing layer 231a and the liquid impermeable barrier layer 231c may extend beyond the absorbent layer 231b, and the wearer-facing layer 231a may be joined directly to the liquid impermeable barrier layer 231c, by adhesive, tape,…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified substitute the adhesive fluid sealing joint of Stanley that allows for attachment between the layers within an absorbent article, for the adhesive tape, also as taught by Stanley, since these mechanisms perform the same function of provide attaching connection between layers. Simply substituting one attaching means for another would yield the predicable result of providing attachment of layers within an absorbent article. See MPEP 2143. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fluid sealing joint be of adhesive tape, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 13. Stanley further discloses wherein the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) and the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B) are directly joined by at least one of the fluid sealing joints 233 (Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 17, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 13. Stanley further discloses wherein the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 6A) and fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A) are directly joined by at least one of the fluid sealing joints 236 (Fig. 6A – tape 236).
Regarding claim 18, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 13. Stanley further discloses wherein the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 6A) and the fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A) are directly joined by at least one of the fluid sealing joints 236 (Fig. 6A – tape 236).
Regarding claim 19, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein a pair of sealed assembly side portions 232 (Fig. 5B – seals side potions 232) are located opposite to each other (Fig. 5B).
However, Stanley does not disclose and on each side of the longitudinal axis, in each sealed assembly side portion a top surface of the wearer facing top layer is sealingly attached to the moisture barrier, and wherein optionally each sealed assembly side portion extends longitudinally along at least a part of the crotch region of the undergarment.
Stanley, in another embodiment, teaches on each side of the longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 5B), in each sealed assembly side portion 232 (Fig. 5B) a top surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5A) is sealingly attached to the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5A – via C-folded tape 236), and wherein optionally each sealed assembly side portion extends longitudinally along at least a part of the crotch region of the undergarment (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealed assembly side portion of Stanley to have the top surface of the wearer facing top layer to attach to the moisture barrier, also as taught by Stanley, as Stanley teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding claim 20, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 19. Stanley further discloses wherein, in each sealed assembly side portion 232 (Fig. 4A), at least a part of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 2) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2) follows the contour 140 (Fig. 2 – leg opening edges 140) of a respective leg opening LO (see annotated Fig. 1 above) of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the bottom region of absorbent assembly 230 has curves that follow the contour of the leg opening edges 140).
Regarding claim 21, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 19. Stanley further discloses wherein each sealed assembly side portion 232 (Fig. 5A) comprises a fluid sealing member 236 (Fig. 5A) providing a continuous sealing between the top surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5A, upon modification as discussed in claim 19) and a bottom surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5A, upon modification as discussed in claim 19).
Regarding claim 22, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 19. Stanley further discloses wherein each of the fluid sealing members 236 (Fig. 5A) in the sealed assembly side portions 232 (Fig. 5A) extends continuously over a longitudinal side sealing length (Fig. 4A – the lateral edges of 232).
Regarding claim 23, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 22 (See objection of claim above). However, Stanley does not disclose wherein the longitudinal side sealing length is at least 5 cm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal side sealing length of Stanley to be at least 5 cm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the absorbent assembly. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 223 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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 24, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 23. However, Stanley does not disclose wherein the longitudinal side sealing length is less than 45 cm.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal side sealing length of Stanley to be less than 45 cm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the absorbent assembly. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 224 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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 25, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 24. Stanley further discloses wherein the rear sealed edge section (see annotated Fig. 4A below – bottom edge of 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) is longitudinally located between the rearmost longitudinal end of the sealed absorbent assembly side portion (see annotated Fig. 4A below) and the rearmost end of the absorbent assembly (see annotated Fig. 4A below), and the front sealed edge section (see annotated Fig. 4A below – top edge of 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) is longitudinally located between the frontmost longitudinal end of the sealed absorbent assembly side portion (see annotated Fig. 4A below) and the frontmost end of the absorbent assembly (see annotated Fig. 4A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
596
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4A of Stanley
Regarding claim 26, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 1. Stanley further discloses wherein at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A) forms a front sealed edge section (see annotated Fig. 4A above) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) and faces the front of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2), and wherein the rear sealed edge section (see annotated Fig. 4A above) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) has a Rear Edge Length (see annotated Fig. 4A above – the rear sealed edge section has a lateral length) along the longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4A) and/or the front sealed edge section (see annotated Fig. 4A above) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) has a Front Edge Length (see annotated Fig. 4A above = the front sealed edge section has a lateral length) along the longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 4A).
However, Stanley does not disclose wherein the Rear Edge Length and/or the Front Edge Length is at least 2 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 Rear Edge Length and/or the Front Edge Length be at least 2 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the absorbent assembly. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 113 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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 27, Stanley discloses a washable and reusable absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A – absorbent panel 230, and Par. 39 – “The absorbent panel may be durable, washable…”) for an undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – pant 10), the assembly 230 (Fig. 4A) comprising
a wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B – wearer-facing layer 231a), a moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B – liquid impervious barrier layer 231c), and optionally one or more intermediate layers 231b (Fig. 5B – absorbent layer 231b) being superimposed along a height axis (Fig. 5B), perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 200 (Fig. 2 – longitudinal axis 200) and the transversal axis 300 (Fig. 2 – lateral axis 300), between the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) and the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 2),
the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) defining a circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B – perimeter seal 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 4A), wherein
at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4A) comprises one or more sealed edge sections 232 (Fig. 5B – perimeter seals 232 in Fig. 5B shows the lateral sealed sections, according to the sectional view along line 4A-4A in Fig. 4A, and perimeter seals 232 in Fig. 6A shows the longitudinal sealed sections, according to the sectional view along line 6-6 in Fig. 2) wherein a bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B) is sealingly attached to a top surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B), and a bottom surface of the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 5B) is configured to be directly attached to a top surface of at least one fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A) of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2), the sealed edge sections 232 providing continuous sealing along the sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 4A) and between the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B) and the moisture barrier 231c (Fig. 4A and Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 28, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 27. Stanley further discloses wherein at least a portion of the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 4A) forms a front sealed edge section 232 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232) of the absorbent assembly 230 (Fig. 2) and faces the front 100 of the undergarment 10 (Fig. 2 – the top edge of perimeter seals 232 faces toward the front waist portion 100).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Akin et al. US 6,287,286 B1 (hereinafter Akin).
Regarding claim 9, Stanley discloses the invention of claim 5. However, Stanley does not disclose wherein in the one or more sealed edge sections, the wearer facing top layer extends beyond the moisture barrier, and the bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer is directly attached to the top surface of the fabric panel by means of a second fluid seal.
Akin, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article (Title), teaches wherein in the one or more sealed edge sections (Fig. 2 – the two side edges), the wearer facing top layer 22 (Fig. 2 – liquid permeable topsheet 22) extends beyond the moisture barrier 32 (Fig. 2 – ventilation layer 32, and Col. 16, line 58-59 – “the ventilation layer 32 includes a hydrophobic”), and the bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer 22 (Fig. 2) is directly attached to the top surface of the fabric panel 20 (Fig. 2 – backsheet 20) by means of a second fluid seal (Fig. 2, and Col. 8, line 36-39 – “In the shown embodiment, for example, the topsheet 22 and backsheet 20 are assembled to each other and to the absorbent body 24 with lines of adhesive, such as a hot melt, pressure-sensitive adhesive”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wearer facing top layer of Stanley to extend beyond the moisture barrier and directly attach to the fabric panel as taught by Akin, in order to form side margins and end margins of the diaper (Col. 7, line 22-28 of Akin).
Regarding claim 10, Stanley in view of Akin discloses the invention of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the second fluid seal (Col. 9 line 36-39 of Akin, and Fig. 2) is arranged to extend between the bottom surface of the wearer facing top layer 231a (Fig. 5B and Fig. 6A of Stanley) and the top surface of the at least one fabric panel 100 (Fig. 6A of Stanley) along the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 6A of Stanley) at a distance from the circumferential outer edge 232 (Fig. 6A of Stanley) in the one or more sealed edge sections (Fig. 2 of Akin – the attachment region where layer 22 and layer 20 meets are spaced at a distance from the outer edge).
Examiner notes that once the modification is made as discussed in claim 9, the second fluid seal of Akin that assembles the topsheet 22 and backsheet 20 together is incorporated into the wearing facing top layer 231a of Stanley, including the spacing from the circumferential outer edge.
Regarding claim 11, Stanley in view of Akin discloses the invention of claim 10. However, the combination dose not disclose wherein the distance is less than 5 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 distance of the second fluid seal from the circumferential outer edge be less than 5 mm, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the fluid seal does not change the its ability to provide attachment means between two layers of the undergarment. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 208 of Applicant’s PG-PUB), 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.
Bäck et al. WO 2023160857 A1 teaches absorbent core with multiple layers and their attachment.
Mizutani US 5,851,204 A teaches an absorbent article with attachment means.
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
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights