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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: newly presented claims 25-26 require specific first and second end points which would have been subject to an election of species requirement if originally presented.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Interpretation
The term “between” is defined as:
in or into the space that separates two places, people, or objects
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 2, 6 and 29 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.
With reference to claim 2, lines 13-14 require in a first projection on a transverse direction that the third central elongate attachment zone is located between the first and second elongate attachment zone, while lines 15-16 require that the first and second elongate attachment zone do not overlap with the third central elongate attachment zone.
The scope of the claim is unclear because it is not clear how the third central elongate attachment zone is both located between the first and second elongate attachment zone in a transverse direction while also not overlapping the first and second elongate attachment zone.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
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, 4-5, 8-12, 14-15 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 2015/0065973) and further in view of Luceri (US 5,807,365).
With reference to claims 1 and 27, Roe et al. (hereinafter ‘973) discloses an absorbent article comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24), a liquid impervious backsheet (25), and an absorbent core (28) comprising an absorbent material [0041] between a top core wrap sheet and a back core wrap sheet [0072], and an acquisition layer (71), said absorbent core being positioned in between said liquid pervious topsheet and said liquid impervious backsheet (figure 2), said acquisition layer being situated between the liquid pervious topsheet and the absorbent core (figure 2), said absorbent core having a first and second longitudinal edge and a front transverse edge intended to be positioned at a front side of a person and a rear transverse edge intended to be positioned at a rear side of a person (figure 6), said absorbent core having a front portion and a rear portion on either side of a transverse crotch line [(90) as shown in figure 4],
wherein the absorbent core is provided with a plurality of attachment zones where the top core wrap sheet is attached to the back core wrap sheet [0072] and where substantially no absorbent material is present (see figures, especially figure 7), said plurality of attachment zones comprising at least
a first (49) and a second (49’’) elongate attachment zone extending next each other, at least in the front portion of the absorbent core in a front transverse edge direction of the front transverse edge creating a channel to function as claimed [0042,0118], and
a third (45) and a fourth (45’) elongate attachment zone (49, 49’) extending next to each other, at least in the rear portion of the absorbent core, in the rear transverse edge direction of the rear transverse edge and creating a channel to function as claimed [0042,0118] as shown in figure 37.
‘973 also discloses the acquisition layer (71) covering the attachment zones as shown in at least figure 33 and discloses that the channels may be permanent as set forth in [0086]. It is also noted that ‘973 discloses that the channels of the liquid management system (LMS) may be positioned within the absorbent article such they overlap the channels of the absorbent core. In this instance, the reference reasonably suggests that the channels of the core may also be represented by the channels of the LMS.
The difference between ‘973 and claims 1 and 27 is the explicit recitation that when measured in a transverse direction, a first maximum distance between the first and the second elongate attachment zone is at least 10% bigger, or 20% bigger (cl. 27) than a second maximum distance between the third and the fourth elongate attachment zone, that the first elongate attachment zone is connected to the third elongate attachment zone and that the second elongate attachment zone is connected to the fourth elongate attachment zone.
‘973 discloses that the channels may be present in the front waist region and/or in the rear waist region [0078]. Additionally, ‘973 discloses that channels may be symmetrically arranged or otherwise arranged relative to the longitudinal axis [0079], and each symmetrical pair of channels, such as first pair (45,45’) and second pair (49,49’) may have a spacing distance between 5mm, 10mm or 15mm [0083]. Lastly, the reference acknowledges that the area of the channels in the front may be more than the area of the channels in the back as set forth in [0159].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the maximum distance between first, second, third and/or fourth attachment zones in order to produce the desired product in view of the teachings of ‘973 which set forth that the channels may have a different width in front of a lateral axis or lateral separation element of the absorbent article than behind the lateral axis or lateral separation element [0120] in order to provide the article with better conformation of the absorbent article to the wearer’s anatomy, leading to increased freedom-of movement and reduced gapping as taught by ‘973 in [0118].
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have alternatively been motivated to position the channels of the core in a location identical to those disclosed as being in the LMS because ‘973 discloses that the channels of the liquid management system (LMS) may be positioned within the absorbent article such they overlap the channels of the absorbent core.
With respect to the connections between attachment zones, Luceri discloses an analogous absorbent article including a first elongate attachment zone connected to a third elongate attachment zone through a first semi-permanent or permanent attachment zone and wherein a second elongate attachment zone is connected to a fourth elongate attachment zone through a second semi-permanent or permanent attachment zone as shown in annotated figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is again noted that ‘973 recognizes that channels may be symmetrically arranged or otherwise arranged relative to the longitudinal axis [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the attachment zones of ‘973 in view of the teachings of ‘973 and as taught by Luceri in order to form barriers in patterns which cause fluid to be compartmentalized on the pad to prevent or hinder fluid flow toward the pad edges as taught by Luceri in col. 3, lines 5-12.
As to claim 4, ‘973 discloses an absorbent article wherein the first and the second elongate attachment zone each have a front end adjacent to the absorbent material and a rear end adjacent to the absorbent material or on the transverse crotch line; and
wherein the third and the fourth elongate attachment zone each have a rear end adjacent to absorbent material and a front end adjacent to the absorbent material or on the transverse crotch line as shown in figures 1, 6 and 37.
With respect to claim 5, ‘973 discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘973 and claim 5 is the explicit recitation that the first and the second attachment zone extend over a length which is less than the length of the third and fourth attachment zone.
‘973 discloses in paragraph [0087] that the longitudinal lengths of the channels may be the same or different.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal lengths of the channels as taught by Roe as desired in view of the teachings of Roe to produce the desired product with the channel benefits in desired locations.
With respect to claim 8, ‘973 discloses an absorbent article wherein the first attachment zone (49) and the second attachment zone (49’) are arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal center axis of the absorbent core extending between the first and second transverse edge as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claims 9-11, see the rejection of claim 1.
With reference to claim 12, ‘973 discloses an absorbent article wherein seen in a projection on a longitudinal direction, the first and second attachment zone do not overlap with the third and fourth attachment zone as shown in figure 37.
As to claim 14, ‘973 discloses an absorbent article wherein the absorbent material comprises cellulosic fluff pulp and/or superabsorbent particles as set forth in [0050].
Regarding claim 28, see figure 37 of ‘973.
With reference to claim 15, ‘973 also discloses permanent channels as set forth in [0086].
Claims 2, 6 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. (2012/0316526).
With reference to claim 2, Rosati et al. (hereinafter “Rosati”) discloses an absorbent article comprising a liquid pervious topsheet, a liquid impervious backsheet, and an absorbent core [0144-0146] comprising an absorbent material (50) between a top core wrap sheet (16’) and a back core wrap sheet (16), said absorbent core being positioned in between said liquid pervious topsheet and said liquid impervious backsheet [0144-0146],
said absorbent core having a first and second longitudinal edge and a front and rear transverse edge intended to be positioned as claimed (figure 3A), wherein the absorbent core is provided with a plurality of attachment zones (26) where the top core wrap sheet is attached to the back core wrap sheet (figure 7), wherein substantially no absorbent material is present in the plurality of attachment zones [0048],
said plurality of attachment zones comprising at least a first and a second elongate attachment zone extending next to each other from a crotch region in a direction of the front transverse edge (26) as shown in at least figure 4B.
PNG
media_image2.png
762
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rosati also discloses, as best understood, a third central elongate attachment zone extending from the crotch region in a direction of the rear transverse edge, wherein seen in a first projection on a transverse direction of the third attachment zone, is located between the first and the second elongate attachment zone and wherein seen in a second projection on a longitudinal direction, the first and the second elongate attachment zone do not overlap with the third elongate attachment zone as shown in annotated figure 4B above.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the channels to prevent any overlap because Rosati anticipates that the channels will not overlap or coincide as set forth in [0092].
With respect to claim 6, Rosati discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
The difference between Rosati and claim 6 is the explicit recitation that the first and the second attachment zone extend over a length which is less than the length of the third attachment zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the length of the elongate attachment zones of Rosati as desired since it has been held that mere changes in size and/or shape of elements previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art especially in view of the teachings of Rosati which disclose that each channel may varying lengths as set forth in [0058].
As to claim 29, Rosati discloses first and second attachment zones that are substantially parallel and extend in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core as shown in figure 4A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the elements of claim 1 are not taught and/or obvious over the cited reference.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1 mapping the elements as claimed to the ‘973 and the Luceri references.
Applicant argues that in [0072] of ‘973, the reference discusses four peripheral seals of the core wrap.
The argument is not persuasive. While four seals may be envisioned, at least figures 2, 5 and 7 clearly depict the upper and lower core wraps attached in channels within the core with substantially no absorbent material present therebetween. The channels also hold and distribute urine, feces or other body exudates within the absorbent article, leading to reduced leakage and skin contact as taught by ‘973 in [0118].
With respect to applicant’s argument that the LMS does not disclose channels formed in the core, ‘973 discloses that the LMS may comprise a wrap that is similar to the core wrap as set forth in [0136]. It is also noted that ‘973 discloses that the channels of the liquid management system (LMS) may be positioned within the absorbent article such they overlap the channels of the absorbent core. In this instance, the reference reasonably suggests that the channels of the core may also be represented by the channels of the LMS.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to position the channels of the core in a location identical to those disclosed as being in the LMS because ‘973 discloses that the channels of the liquid management system (LMS) may be positioned within the absorbent article such they overlap the channels of the absorbent core and also in view of the fact that ‘973 discloses that the channels of the core may have any arrangement relative to the longitudinal axis as set forth in [0079].
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., connecting the attachment zones to promote liquid distribution from front to back) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
‘973 discloses that one or more structural separators may be incorporated into absorbent articles having a variety of channel configurations [0152] and that the structural separator may even be positioned parallel to a channel to aid in controlling urine flow to that channel as set forth in [0151].
Regarding the spacing of the channels, ‘973 provides various passages that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the spacing between any of the disclosed channels including the front and/or rear channels. [0083] speaks to the spacing between channels. The spacing is not a comprehensive teaching among all of the disclosed channels. One set of channels may be spaced by 5mm while another set of channels may be spaced by 10 mm. Lastly, the reference acknowledges that the area of the channels in the front (as a whole which would include the spacing between the channels) may be more than the area of the channels in the back as set forth in [0159].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the maximum distance between first, second, third and/or fourth attachment zones in order to produce the desired product in view of the teachings of ‘973 which set forth that the channels may have a different width in front of a lateral axis or lateral separation element of the absorbent article than behind the lateral axis or lateral separation element [0120] in order to provide the article with better conformation of the absorbent article to the wearer’s anatomy, leading to increased freedom-of movement and reduced gapping as taught by ‘973 in [0118].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the distance between attachment zones in Luceri is not persuasive because Luceri is not relied upon for that teaching.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., capturing high amounts of urine) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves where ‘973 provides an article with attachment zones and barriers Luceri provides the same and further teaches connecting the attachment zones/barriers in patterns to direct fluid flow similar to the teachings of ‘973 in [0151].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umemoto et al. (US 2017/0027765) disclosing an absorbent article with various channel patterns. 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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781