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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 4, line 3 after “water” insert - - . - - for form;
and in claim 8, line 3 delete “). 67.02%” and insert therein - - ), 67.02% - - for form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 6-8, 13, and 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.
Claims 6 and 8 contain the trademark/trade name “Dow Polywet 700-D” and “Celanese Dur-o-Set Elite 22”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is suggested to delete “Dow Polywet 700-D (sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate)” and insert therein - - sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate - - and to delete “Celanese Dur-o-Set Elite 22 (vinyl acetate ethylene)” and insert therein - - vinyl acetate ethylene - - to overcome this rejection.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation “67.02% by weight water, 7.98% by weight premix water”. The limitation “premix water” is unclear and confusing as there is no step of premixing.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the anionic nonwoven fabric” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 contains the trademark/trade name “Dow Polywet 700-D” and “Celanese Dur-o-Set Elite 22”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the emulsion polymer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is suggested to delete “Dow Polywet 700-D (70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol)” and insert therein - - 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol - - and to delete “Celanese Dur-o-Set Elite 22 (50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water)” and insert therein - - 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water - - to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0088532) in view of Song (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0324004) and optionally further Polyventive (“PolywetTM Series”). Additionally, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph in view of Song and Polyventive.
Regarding claim 1, Joseph discloses a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material and a pH indicating absorbent pad comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation (such as phenol red dye, green dye, etc., paragraphs 0040 and 0041); preparing a binder formulation having an emulsion polymer (such as latex emulsion as water based binding agent, paragraph 0019) and surfactant solution (binding agent, surfactant, and solvent such as water including well mixed until homogenous, paragraphs 0049-0055 and the Examples such as Example 2); and the pH indicating dye formulation; placing the binder formulation in a nonwoven fabric (paragraphs 0015 and 0067) to produce a pH indicating nonwoven material; and adding the separate element of the pH indicating nonwoven material to an absorbent core and backsheet layer to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad (paragraph 0067).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating a nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation, producing a pH indicating nonwoven material”, Joseph does not expressly teach placing the binder formulation in the nonwoven fabric is by at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating the nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to place a binder formulation in a nonwoven fabric by dip and squeeze, i.e. dipping and thereby at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating the nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation and squeezing, as evidenced by Song (Paragraphs 0038, 0051, 0068, 0072, 0073, and 0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the binder formulation in the nonwoven fabric as taught by Joseph by dipping and thereby at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating the nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation and squeezing to produce the pH indicating nonwoven material as is the conventional and predictable technique well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for placing the binder formulation in the nonwoven fabric as evidenced by Song.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with an absorbent core to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad”, Joseph does not expressly teach adding the separate element of the pH indicating nonwoven material to the absorbent core and backsheet layer to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad is by bonding. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to add the layer/separate element of the pH indicating nonwoven material to the absorbent article (such as by the layer/separate element forming the topsheet or another layer within the article) and to the absorbent core and backsheet layer to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad is by bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with the absorbent core with at least one tissue layer and the backsheet layer as evidenced by Song (Paragraphs 0076, 0077, 0087, 0095, 0098, 0111, and 0112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the separate element of the pH indicating nonwoven material to the absorbent core and backsheet layer to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad as taught by Joseph by bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with the absorbent core (and with at least one tissue layer and the backsheet layer) to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad as is the conventional and predictable technique well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for adding and bonding/affixing the separate element of the pH indicating nonwoven material with the absorbent core and backsheet layer to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad as evidenced by Song.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “surfactant solution” and claim 9, as noted above Joseph teaches surfactant solution comprising the binding agent, surfactant, and solvent such as water including well mixed until homogenous. In the event it is somehow considered Joseph does not necessarily teach the limitation the following optional rejection is made (the rejection is also made for claim 9). Joseph teaches the surfactant includes for example sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate (Paragraph 0050) without expressly teaching 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate that is surfactant (reduces surface tension and is wetting and dispersing agent) and increases absorbency and penetration in textiles and commercially available is Polywet 700 D (70% active solution sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol) as evidenced by Polyventive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surfactant taught by Joseph as modified by Song is Polywet 700 D (surfactant solution of 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol) not only as a simple substitution of a sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate surfactant to yield predictable results but as is commercially available and increases absorbency and penetration in textiles as evidenced by Polyventive.
Regarding claim 3, Joseph teaches the binder formulation includes additional ingredients comprising solvent including isopropyl alcohol and water employed at levels that are effective at providing the benefits of the ingredients such as about 0.001% to about 50% by weight (Paragraph 0055) wherein solvent is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as included to about 90% by weight as evidenced by Song (Paragraph 0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the binder formulation having an emulsion polymer and surfactant solution and the pH indicating dye formulation taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive includes isopropyl alcohol and water as solvents as taught by Joseph employed at levels that are effective at providing the benefits of the solvents as also directed to by Joseph and Song (including 18% by weight isopropyl alcohol and 78% by weight water, wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that the particular solvent(s) and/or % by weight are critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Joseph teaches the binder formulation having the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes additional ingredients comprising solvent including water employed at levels that are effective at providing the benefits of the ingredients such as about 0.001% to about 50% by weight (Paragraph 0055) wherein solvent is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as included to about 90% by weight as evidenced by Song (Paragraph 0053). Joseph further teaches optional/second binding agent including ammonium chloride from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight (Paragraphs 0025 and 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the binder formulation having the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution and the pH indicating dye formulation taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive includes water as solvent as taught by Joseph employed at levels that are effective at providing the benefits of the solvent as also directed to by Joseph and Song and ammonium chloride as second binding agent as also directed to by Joseph (including 67.02% by weight water and 7.98% by weight premix water such as 75% by weight water (the limitation rejection in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above), and 0.1% by weight ammonium chloride wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that the claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Joseph does not expressly teach the binder formulation includes 0.95% by weight pH indicating dye formulation. Joseph teaches the pH indicating dye formulation is employed to achieve a desired color change/shift (Paragraph 0040). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the binder formulation includes from about 0.01% by weight to about 10% by weight the pH indicating dye formulation for the color change/shift as evidenced by Song (Paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the binder formulation taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive includes the pH indicating dye formulation employed at levels achieving the desired aesthetic color change/shift as achieving color change/shift is the reason for including the dyes as taught by Joseph wherein 0.95% by weight well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as conventional and predictable to achieve color change/shift as evidenced by Song (wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that the claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph and Song and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Gil (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0152805).
Regarding claim 2, Joseph teaches the pH indicating dye formulation includes dyes that change color upon coming into contact with water or urine such as Phenol Red dye, Green dye (brilliant green, methyl green, etc.), etc. (Paragraphs 0002 and 0040-0046). Joseph does not expressly teach the dyes include Acid Green 16 dye. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the pH indicating dyes that change color upon coming into contact with water or urine include green dyes such as Erio green B (i.e. Acid Green 16), brilliant green, methyl green, etc. as evidenced by Gil (Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the pH indicating dye formulation taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive include Acid Green 16 dye as a simple substitution one known dye that changes color upon coming into contact with water or urine as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Gil wherein selection of dyes, including Phenol Red dye and Acid Green 16 dye, and ratio of each, including equal parts, selected as nothing more than the color change achieving a desired aesthetic color change/shift (yellow/green to red/purple) as achieving color change/shift is the reason for including the dyes as taught by Joseph and Gil and further as expressly noted by Song employing one or more pH color changing dyes to achieve a desired color changing effect (Paragraph 0059).
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph and Song and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Dutkiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0290344). Additionally, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph and Song and Polyventive as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dutkiewicz.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11, Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 and Joseph as modified by Song and Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claim 11 except for a specific teaching the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes as emulsion polymer 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water. Joseph teaches the surfactant includes sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate (Paragraph 0050), and Joseph as modified by Polyventive teaches the surfactant includes 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol. Joseph is not limited to any particular polymer binding agent (Paragraphs 0018 and 0019) including suggesting those based on ethylene vinyl acetate (Paragraph 0036 and not expressly described as emulsion). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art Celanese Emulsions DUR-O-SET Elite 22 (considered acidic emulsion polymer of 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water as evidenced by applicants use of the same) is commercially available binder for bonding with fibers in a nonwoven as evidenced by Dutkiewicz (Paragraphs 0067 and 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the polymer binding agent taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song and Polyventive is Celanese Emulsions DUR-O-SET Elite 22 (acidic emulsion polymer of 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water) not only as a simple substitution of a polymer binding agent to yield predictable results but as is commercially available as evidenced by Dutkiewicz.
Regarding claim 6, Joseph teaches the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes from about 1% by weight to about 30% by weight surfactant (Paragraph 0054) and from about 1% by weight to about 90% by weight binding agent/emulsion polymer (Paragraph 0023) wherein surfactant is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as included as low as 0.1% by weight as evidenced by Song (Paragraph 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive includes 0.31% by weight sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate/surfactant and 23.64% by weight vinyl acetate ethylene/emulsion polymer as directed to by Joseph and Song as wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that the claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Joseph and Song are each described above in full detail regarding additional ingredients and amounts thereof of both the binder formulation and the additional ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the binder formulation having the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution and the pH indicating dye formulation taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive includes water as solvent as taught by Joseph employed at levels that are effective at providing the benefits of the solvent as also directed to by Joseph and ammonium chloride as second binding agent as directed to by Joseph and the solvent, surfactant, and binding agents at levels as directed to by Joseph and Song (including 0.31% by weight sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate/surfactant, 23.64% by weight vinyl acetate ethylene/emulsion polymer, 67.02% by weight water and 7.98% by weight premix water such as 75% by weight water (the limitation rejection in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) and 0.1% by weight ammonium chloride wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that the claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Joseph teaches the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes from about 1% by weight to about 30% by weight surfactant (Paragraph 0054) and from about 1% by weight to about 90% by weight binding agent/emulsion polymer (Paragraph 0023) wherein surfactant is further well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as included as low as 0.1% by weight as evidenced by Song (Paragraph 0073). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution taught by Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz includes 0.31% by weight 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol/surfactant and 23.64% by weight 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water/emulsion polymer as directed to by Joseph and Song as wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph and Song and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. Patent 4,297,410).
Regarding claims 13-15, Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claims 13-15 except for a specific teaching the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers (it being noted the method taught by Joseph as modified by Song above further comprises the steps of bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material and absorbent core with at least one tissue layer and a backsheet layer). Joseph is not limited to any particular nonwoven fabric. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art nonwoven fabric used in absorbent materials that is soft includes rayon and 10 to 50% polyethylene fibers as evidenced by Tsuchiya (Column 1, lines 6-9 and line 38 to Column 2, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nonwoven fabric taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive is anionic nonwoven fabric includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close and considered anionic as evidenced by applicants use of the same material and/or by addition of anionic surfactant as taught by Joseph, Paragraph 0049) not only as a simple substitution of one nonwoven fabric used in the art to obtain predictable results but that is soft as evidenced by Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 14, Joseph as modified by Song and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive above teach the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes an acidic (by addition of acidic stabilizer see paragraph 0058 of Joseph) emulsion polymer and an anionic surfactant (see paragraph 0049 of Joseph), and the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric (includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers and anionic surfactant).
Regarding claim 15, Joseph as modified by Song and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive above teach a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic (by addition of acidic stabilizer see paragraph 0058 of Joseph) emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; and at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating an anionic nonwoven fabric (includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers) into the binder formulation to produce the pH indicating nonwoven material.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya. Additionally, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya.
Regarding claims 14-16, Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claim 14 and 15 and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz above teach all of the limitations in claim 16 except for a specific teaching the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric (it being noted Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz above teach in claim 14 the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes an acidic emulsion polymer of 50% active vinyl acetate in water and an anionic surfactant and in claim 15 a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; and at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating a nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation to produce the pH indicating nonwoven material). Tsuchiya is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nonwoven fabric taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz is anionic nonwoven fabric includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close) not only as a simple substitution of one nonwoven fabric used in the art to obtain predictable results but that is soft as evidenced by Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 16, Joseph and Song are described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution taught by Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, Dutkiewicz, and Tsuchiya includes 0.31% by weight 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol/surfactant and 23.64% by weight 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water/emulsion polymer as directed to by Joseph and Song as wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 13-15 above, and further in view of Szypka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0243139). Additionally, claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, Dutkiewicz, and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Szypka.
Regarding claims 18-20, Joseph as modified by Song and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive above and Joseph as modified by Song, Dutkiewicz, and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claims 18-20 (including regarding claims 18 and 20 wherein the anionic nonwoven fabric includes 50% rayon and 50% polyethylene fibers, the method further comprising the steps of bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with an absorbent core together with at least one tissue layer and a backsheet layer and regarding claim 19 a method of manufacturing a pH indicating absorbent pad comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating an anionic nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation, producing a pH indicating nonwoven material; and bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with an absorbent core to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad) except for a specific teaching the absorbent core having a pulp layer and a superabsorbent polymer layer. Joseph is not limited to any particular absorbent core. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art absorbent core for a wide variety of applications that is thin, soft and pliable, and yet can achieve a high level of absorbency has a pulp layer and a superabsorbent polymer layer as evidenced by Szypka (Abstract and Paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the absorbent core taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive above and Joseph as modified by Song, Dutkiewicz, and Tsuchiya and optionally further Polyventive having a pulp layer and a superabsorbent polymer layer wherein the absorbent core is thin, soft and pliable, and yet can achieve a high level of absorbency as evidenced by Szypka.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph and Song and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 1, 3, 7, and 12 above, and further in view of Shik et al. (KR 10-2006-0003787).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claims 14 and 15 except for a specific teaching the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric. Joseph is not limited to any particular nonwoven fabric. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the nonwoven fabric is anionic nonwoven fabric is antimicrobial/sanitary as evidenced by Shik (Pages 1 and 2 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nonwoven fabric taught by Joseph as modified by Song and optionally further Polyventive is an anionic nonwoven not only as a simple substitution of one nonwoven fabric used in the art to obtain predictable results but that is antimicrobial/sanitary as evidenced by Shik.
Regarding claim 14, Joseph as modified by Song and Shik and optionally further Polyventive above teach the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes an acidic (by addition of acidic stabilizer see paragraph 0058 of Joseph) emulsion polymer and an anionic surfactant (see paragraph 0049 of Joseph), and the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric.
Regarding claim 15, Joseph as modified by Song and Shik and optionally further Polyventive above teach a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic (by addition of acidic stabilizer see paragraph 0058 of Joseph) emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; and at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating an anionic nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation to produce the pH indicating nonwoven material.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 5, 6, 8, and 10 above, and further in view of Shik. Additionally, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shik.
Regarding claims 14-16, Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claims 14 and 15 and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz above teach all of the limitations in claim 16 (it being noted Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz above teach in claim 14 the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution includes an acidic emulsion polymer of 50% active vinyl acetate in water and an anionic surfactant and in claim 15 a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; and at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating a nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation to produce the pH indicating nonwoven material) except for a specific teaching the nonwoven fabric is an anionic nonwoven fabric. Shik is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nonwoven fabric taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Dutkiewicz and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, and Dutkiewicz is anionic nonwoven fabric not only as a simple substitution of one nonwoven fabric used in the art to obtain predictable results but that is antimicrobial/sanitary as evidenced by Shik.
Regarding claim 16, Joseph and Song are described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the emulsion polymer and surfactant solution taught by Joseph as modified by Song, Polyventive, Dutkiewicz, and Shik includes 0.31% by weight 70% active sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate in diethylene glycol/surfactant and 23.64% by weight 50% active vinyl acetate ethylene in water/emulsion polymer as directed to by Joseph and Song as wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close there being no evidence of record showing that claimed % by weight is critical and Joseph and Song do not teach away from the claimed % by weight, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, and Shik and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Szypka. Additionally, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph, Song, Dutkiewicz, and Shik and optionally further Polyventive as applied to claims 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Szypka.
Regarding claim 19, Joseph as modified by Song and Shik and optionally further Polyventive above and Joseph as modified by Song, Dutkiewicz, and Shik and optionally further Polyventive above teach all of the limitations in claim 19 (including a method of manufacturing a pH indicating absorbent pad comprising the steps of: preparing a pH indicating dye formulation; preparing a binder formulation having an acidic emulsion polymer, an anionic or nonionic surfactant solution, and the pH indicating dye formulation; at least partially immersing or otherwise saturating an anionic nonwoven fabric into the binder formulation, producing a pH indicating nonwoven material; and bonding the pH indicating nonwoven material with an absorbent core to produce the pH indicating absorbent pad) except for a specific teaching the absorbent core having a pulp layer and a superabsorbent polymer layer. Joseph is not limited to any particular absorbent core. Szypka is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the absorbent core taught by Joseph as modified by Song and Shik and optionally further Polyventive and Joseph as modified by Song, Dutkiewicz, and Shik and optionally further Polyventive having a pulp layer and a superabsorbent polymer layer wherein the absorbent core is thin, soft and pliable, and yet can achieve a high level of absorbency as evidenced by Szypka.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method of manufacturing a pH indicating absorbent pad as claimed and including wherein the pH indicating dye formulation includes 2% by weight Phenol Red dye, 2% by weight Acid Green 16 dye, 18% by weight isopropyl alcohol, and 78% by weight water.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method of manufacturing a pH indicating nonwoven material as claimed and including wherein the pH indicating dye formulation includes 2% by weight Phenol Red dye, 2% by weight Acid Green 16 dye, 18% by weight isopropyl alcohol, and 78% by weight water, and the binder formulation includes 0.95% by weight of the pH indicating dye formulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights