DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received June 15, 2026.
The amendments of claim 1 and the cancellations of claims 15 and 17-27 are acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Previous drawing objections are withdrawn in response to cancellation of claims.
Previous 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections are withdrawn in response to cancellations of claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited references are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest a zone of skin beneficial agent with boundaries at least 1 mm from the transversal and longitudinal edges, arguing that disclosing a stripe of a skin care composition that does not extend the entire length of an article is not the same as, and does not meet the requirement that, a zone ends at least 1 mm from transversal edges. However, the explanation involved much more than merely describing what applicant alleges. There was a calculation of possible ranges of the size of stripes combined with the size of the spacing between the stripes along with centering area of stripes/no stripes, and comparing that in terms of width with a width disclosed by the prior art (see pages 13-14 of previous non-final office action or March 27, 2026), that would result in a range of 9.8-31 mm on each longitudinal side of the boundary, which is much greater than 1 mm. Applicant additionally argues the routine optimization regarding the length adjustment, arguing that the limitation relates to the zone ending at least 1 mm form the transversal edges. However, applicant ignores that these are directly related, especially with the disclosure, as mentioned above, of the boundary zone being centered, specifically pointing out that Vega discloses no skin care composition be above and below, with the above and below amounts being directly related to the length, which is optimized. Applicant additionally argues that there was identification of length as a result effective-variable but, as explained above, the length is related to the boundary and possible position of the boundary with no zone below and above the zone, and therefore the provided transfer of composition to the skin and reduced abrasion between the bodyside liner/topsheet and skin, showing the direct relation of position and length of the composition in relation to the liner that would be optimized.
Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at a zone of skin beneficial agent with boundaries at least 1 mm from the transversal and the longitudinal edges in view of Vega, additionally arguing that Vega discloses slot coating. However, as explained above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in light of teachings of both Krzysik and Vega, with specific citations related to printing disclosed by Krzysik cited previously and with Vega disclosing alternatively that printing, specifically flexographic printing, can be a suitable method in addition to coating such as slot coating (see col. 28, lines 48-54).
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the compositions limitations of claim 1, specifically that the composition printed on the first (skin facing) surface of the topsheet does not include ink and that the ink composition printed on the second (garment facing) surface of the topsheet does not include the sink beneficial agent. Specifically, applicant alleges that because Krzysik fails to disclose that the composition does not include ink and it is silent, that the composition can include ink, and that courts have held that a negative limitation is not disclosed by the prior art by mere silence. However, “[w]hile silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). In this case, circumstances can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure. Regarding Krzysik, there is no mention of ink in specification, including in column 22, line 30 to column 27, line 28, which describes various possible parts that may be in the composition and column 28, lines 6-10 disclosing the importance of transferring the composition to the skin. Additionally, while applicant is correct that Krzysik discloses colorants that impart color to the product (see col. 27, lines 48-49), this is listed under additional ingredients that can be included (see col. 27, lines 35-39), and therefore Krzysik discloses that they may not be included as they are optional, and not using them would result in the skin beneficial agent not comprising the colorant. Furthermore, combining the teachings of Gust with Vega and Krzysik would result in the ink composition not comprising the skin beneficial agent as not only is it a different composition than that of Krzysik and Vega on the topsheet layer, which is not linked to the ink composition, but also as Gust discloses the ink composition (see par. 28, various types of ink that can be used), with disclosed inks not including the skin beneficial agent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik et al. (US 6,756,520), disclosed in the PTO-892 of November 21, 2024, in view of Vega et la. (US 6,153,209) and further in view of Gust et al. (US 2015/0112293) and further in view of Noel (US 2015/0257943), disclosed by Applicant in the IDS of May 21, 2021.
Regarding claim 1, Krzysik discloses an absorbent article (see col. 11, II. 56-59, 60-66 describing
both feminine care pad and diaper) comprising at least a topsheet layer 22 and a backsheet layer 20 (see Fig. 2), the topsheet layer and the backsheet layer each having a first and a second surface (see Fig. 2, front and back surfaces of each), wherein the topsheet layer has a composition (see col. 22, II. 30-33 and col. 29, lines 41-56) printed (col. 30, II. 10-11, 16-18) on the first surface (see col. 22, lines 30-33, composition applied to bodyfacing surface 11 of the bodyside liner 22), wherein the composition comprises a skin beneficial agent (see col. 25, II. 58-59) and does not comprise ink (no mention of ink in specification, including in col. 22, line 30-col. 27, line 28 describing various possible parts that “may” be in the composition, with many like “colorant” being optional, and col. 28, lines 6-10 disclosing the importance of transferring the composition to the skin), wherein the first surface of the topsheet layer is skin facing (see Fig. 2, col. 22, II. 30-33), and wherein the topsheet layer comprises a zone of skin beneficial agent (see Fig. 3, col. 29, II. 41-55, zone being stripes 54 with spaces of no composition between stripes).
Krzysik does not explicitly disclose wherein the boundary of the zone ends at least 1 mm from transversal edges of the topsheet layer, and wherein the boundary of the zone ends at least 1 mm from lonqitudinal edges of the topsheet layer.
Krzysik discloses that the composition may be applied in multiple stripes of composition, from 1 to 20 stripes extending along the longitudinal direction of the diaper, the stripes only extending a portion of the length, and the stripes defining a width of about 0.2 to about 1 centimeters (see col. 29, lines 48-55, 0.2-1 cm being 2-10 mm). Krzysik also discloses the composition covering at least about 5 percent and more desirably at least about 25% of the topsheet (see col. 29, lines 60-63). Krzysik further discloses in the illustrated embodiments, absorbent body 24 has a cross-directional width of about 7.5 centimeters at the narrowest portion of intermediate section 16 (see col. 16, lines 39-44, 7.5 cm being 75 mm), and therefore the smallest width is at least 75 mm as topsheet 22 extends beyond absorbent body 24 on all sides (see Fig. 1).
Vega discloses an absorbent article with a zone 7 of stripes of skin care composition extending along a longitudinal direction, the stripes only extending a portion of the length of a topsheet with sections between, above, below, and to the sides of the stripes having no skin care composition (see Fig. 2; col. 31, lines 19-30). Vega further discloses the space between the longitudinal stripes of composition being from about 0.15 to about 0.5 inches (see col. 31, lines 29-30, 0.15-0.5 inches being 3.81-12.7 mm) as well as the stripes with composition being a width of 0.1 to 0.5 inches (see col. 31, lines 24-27, 0.1-0.5 being 2.54-12.7 mm), therefor significantly overlapping with the width of composition disclosed by Krzysik. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the space of no skin care composition be above and below the stripes in addition to the sides and between the stripes as well as to use the spacing disclosed by Vega between the stripes, as Krzysik, like Vega, also teaches longitudinal stripes that only extend a portion along the length of the absorbent article with spaces of no skin care composition between the stripes, and such a modification would predictably result in dimensions that would work as spaces between longitudinal stripes of composition, such spaces shown as desirable by Krzysik, as well as skin care composition that would contact the skin and provide benefits of the composition to the skin. Taking into consideration that there would be 3 stripes and 2 spaces between the stripes, this would lead to a range of 6-30 mm for the stripes of composition (3 stripes x 2 mm = 6 mm and 3 stripes x 10 mm = 30 mm) combined with 7.62-25.4 mm for the stripes of no composition (2 stripes x 3.81 mm = 7.62 and 2 stripes x 12.7 mm = 25.4), which leads to a combined width range of 13-55.4 mm for the zone of skin beneficial agent. Considering Krzysik discloses the area of stripes/no stripes being longitudinally centered and the smallest width of the waste of the absorbent being 75 mm, this would leave a range of 9.8-31 mm ((75 mm-55.4 mm))/2 = 9.8 mm and (75 mm - 13 mm)/2 = 31 mm) on each longitudinal side of the boundary of the zone of the zone, which is much greater than 1 mm. Consequently, Krzysik and Vega disclose the boundary of the zone ends at least 1 mm from longitudinal edges of the topsheet layer, as the topsheet layer extends beyond the absorbent.
Additionally, Krzysik discloses that the composition should cover a sufficient amount of the bodyfacing surface 11 of the bodyside liner 22 to ensure adequate transfer to the skin and reduced abrasion between the bodyside liner 22 and the wearer's skin (see col. 29, lines 56-63). As the length of the zone of composition relates to the amount of composition covering the bodyside liner/topsheet 22, the length would be a result effective variable in that changing the length would affect the transfer of the composition to the skin and reduced abrasion between the bodyside liner/topsheet and skin. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device by making the length be such that the boundary of zone ends at least 1 mm from transversal edges of the topsheet layer, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component, the length of the zone, disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent article by making the boundary of the zone end at least 1 mm from transversal edges of the topsheet layer since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Neither Krzysik nor Vega disclose the topsheet layer has an ink composition printed on the second surface, wherein the ink composition does not comprise the skin beneficial agent, the second surface of the topsheet layer being garment facing and wherein contact between all ink printed on the absorbent article and skin is minimized.
Gust discloses an absorbent article (see par. 19) comprising at least a topsheet layer 30 and backsheet layer 80, the topsheet layer and the backsheet layer each having a first and a second surface (see Fig. 1), the first surface 30A of topsheet 30 is skin facing and the second surface is garment facing (see par. 28), an ink composition (see par. 28) printed on the second surface (see par. 28, “absorbent articles comprise a topsheet which has been printed (e.g., with a flexographic printer) on its second (garment-facing) surface”), and wherein contact between all ink printed on the absorbent article and skin is minimized (see par. 28, ink added to a surface other than body-facing surface of article to minimize change of wearer irritation from the ink). Gust further discloses the incorporation of ink to provide a visual signal (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the absorbent further include an ink composition printed on the second surface of the topsheet and wherein contact between all ink printed on the absorbent article and skin is minimized, as disclosed by Gust, in order to provide a visual signal to the user about the absorbent article. Furthermore, the ink composition does not comprise the skin beneficial agent as not only is it a different composition than that of Krzysik and Vega on the topsheet layer, which has no link, but also as Gust discloses the ink composition (see par. 28, various types of ink that can be used).
In the interest of compact prosecution, if applicant disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add both a skin composition comprising a skin beneficial agent and a printed ink composition, Noel specifically points out that such a combination is well known. Specifically, Noel explains that various visual signals, indicia, or other markings can be printed on an absorbent article (see par. 26) and that absorbent article can also include a skin beneficial agent (see par. 27), and therefore this is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to have both on the same article to give benefits of both.
Regarding claim 2, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Krzysik further discloses the skin beneficial agent is enclosed in microcapsules (see col. 25, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 5, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Gust further discloses the topsheet layer comprises a zone of ink composition (see par. 28).
Regarding claim 9, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not specifically teach the zone has a boundary enclosing an area of at least 1 mm2.
As explained above, these prior art disclose a width range of 13-55.4 mm for the zone of skin beneficial agent. For an area of 1 mm2, a 13 mm width would need a length of 0.077 mm and a 55.4 mm width would need a length of 0.018 mm. Practically speaking, such a small area requiring three stripes is extremely small and would be difficult to even apply. But as this is common sense and not specifically spelt out by the prior art, a routine optimization rejection will be provided below.
Krzysik discloses that the composition should cover a sufficient amount of the bodyfacing surface 11 of the bodyside liner 22 to ensure adequate transfer to the skin and reduced abrasion between the bodyside liner 22 and the wearer's skin (see col. 29, lines 56-63). As the length of the zone of composition relates to the amount of composition covering the bodyside liner/topsheet 22, the length would be a result effective variable in that changing the length would affect the transfer of the composition to the skin and reduced abrasion between the bodyside liner/topsheet and skin. As the length of the zone directly relates to the surface area covered by the zone, the area is also considered a result effective variable. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device by making the zone have a boundary enclosing an area of at least 1 mm2, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component, the length of the zone, disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent article by making the zone have a boundary enclosing an area of at least 1 mm2 since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Krzysik discloses a pattern of the sink beneficial agent (see Fig. 3) that is different than that of printed ink disclosed by Gust (see Fig. 1, deposits that reach second surface 30B of liquid-permeable topsheet when ink was applied during printing process show a different pattern).
Regarding claim 13, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Krzysik discloses a pattern of the skin beneficial agent (see Fig. 3) that is different than that of printed ink disclosed by Gust (see Fig. 1, deposits that reach second surface 30B of liquid-permeable topsheet when ink was applied during printing process show a different pattern). As a result, the skin beneficial agent and the ink would be printed in different patterns and the application pattern of the skin beneficial agent on the first surface and the application pattern of the ink on the second surface would not be synchronized in relation to each other.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik in view of Vega and further in view of Gust and further in view of Noel as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Stasny et al. (US 9,744,258).
Regarding claim 6, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 5 but do not specifically disclose the zone of skin beneficial agent has a non-linear boundary in at least the transversal direction of the article.
Stasny discloses an absorbent article with a patterns such as stripes 625 of skin care composition in between spaces 635 without skin care composition along the length of diapers (see Fig. 6). Stasny also discloses any patterns can be used to pattern the skin care composition (see col. 9, lines 19-21), including a matrix of dots (see col. 10, lines 25-26) and ovals (see Fig. 3, col. 11, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known element, the stripes, with another, the ovals configuration as disclosed by Stasny, Stasny showing that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and the results of the substitution in providing for a composition pattern on an absorbent article allowing for treatment of the skin via that composition being predictable. Consequently, interpreting the boundary as being the edges of the ovals, the boundary would be non-linear in the transversal direction.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krzysik in view of Vega and further in view of Gust and further in view of Noel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greco et al. (US 2012/0232510).
Regarding claim 12, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not specifically disclose the skin beneficial agent and the ink are printed in the same pattern.
Gust discloses the ink can communicate various functions of an absorbent article (see par. 33) including by color (see par. 28). Greco discloses an absorbent article with a composition, that composition being visually located via a different colored portion than the remainder of the absorbent article (see par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent article to have the ink communicate the skin beneficial agent composition, Greco disclosing the use of color as a signal to communicate the location of a composition within an absorbent article, and this predictably resulting in the communication of a function of the absorbent article, shown as desirable by Gust. Consequently, if the ink would be used to identify the location of the skin beneficial agent, it would be in the same pattern as the skin beneficial agent.
Regarding claim 14, Krzysik, Vega, Gust, and Noel disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not specifically disclose an application pattern of the skin beneficial agent on the first surface and an application pattern of the ink on the second surface are synchronized in relation to each other.
Gust discloses the ink can communicate various functions of an absorbent article (see par. 33) including by color (see par. 28). Greco discloses an absorbent article with a composition, that composition being visually located via a different colored portion than the remainder of the absorbent article (see par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent article to have the ink communicate the skin beneficial agent composition, Greco disclosing the use of color as a signal to communicate the location of a composition within an absorbent article, and this predictably resulting in the communication of a function of the absorbent article, shown as desirable by Gust. Consequently, if the ink would be used to identify the location of the skin beneficial agent, it would be in the same pattern as the skin beneficial agent and, consequently, synchronized in relation to each other.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is (303)297-4665. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, REBECCA E EISENBERG can be reached at (571) 270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights