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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on September 15, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Claim Interpretation
The term “tear” is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:
to separate parts of or pull apart by force; to separate on being pulled
The term “break” is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as:
to separate into parts with suddenness or violence
Claim Objections
Claims 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-27 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 24, line 8 of the claim refers to front portions. Line 11 of the claim refers to the chassis front portion while lines 12 and 13 also refer to a front portion. The inconsistent claim language renders the claim unclear. It is not clear if the claim intends to recite more than one front portion and/or if the chassis front portion and the front portion of lines 12 and 13 are one of more than one front portion or the same front portion. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the first side panel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by LaVon et al. (US 2011/0178486).
With reference to claim 1, LaVon et al. (hereinafter “LaVon”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a chassis comprising an outer layer, an absorbent layer, and an inner layer [0054], the chassis further comprising:
a first chassis portion comprising an attachment portion (54a, 56a),
a second chassis portion comprising first receiving portion (54a,56a) and second receiving portion (54b,56b) comprising cohesive material [0037], and
a crotch portion (37) extending between the first and second chassis portions [0055]; and
a rear portion (38) connected with chassis at the attachment portion (see figure 10), the rear portion comprising a first side portion attached to a first side of the second chassis portion to form a first leg opening and a second side portion attached to a second side of the second chassis portion to form a second leg opening (figures 3-8);
wherein the first side portion is connected with the second side portion in an initial condition (figures 10 and 18), is adapted to separate from the second chassis portion by tearing the first side portion (see [0087] and figure 11) and is adapted to reconnect with the second chassis portion by overlapping the first side portion with the cohesive material of the first receiving portion (figure 10);
wherein the second side portion is adapted to separate from the second chassis portion and is adapted to reconnect with the second chassis portion by overlapping the second side portion with material of the second receiving portion as set forth in at least (figures 10-11)
wherein the first side portion is separable from the second chassis portion by tearing the material of the first side portion (59) as set forth in [0087].
Regarding claims 4-5, LaVon discloses an absorbent article wherein the whole article may be extensible as set forth in [0057].
With respect to claim 6, LaVon discloses an absorbent article wherein the chassis has a substantially rectangular outer perimeter as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 7, LaVon discloses an absorbent article wherein the chassis is an hourglass shape as set forth in [0057].
As to claim 22, LaVon discloses an absorbent article wherein the first side portion comprises a side panel as set forth in [0073-0074].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon et al. (US 2011/0178486) and further in view of Mills (US 2007/0049896).
With respect to claims 19 and 20, LaVon teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between LaVon and claims 19 and 20 is the provision that the first and second receiving portion each comprise a sizing indicator.
With respect the inclusion of a sizing indicator, Mills teaches an analogous absorbent article that includes first and second receiving portions/first side portion (30a,30b) with sizing indicators (34a,34b) as shown in figure 1a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of LaVon with the sizing indicators as taught by Mills in order to provide an article with a better fit which is likely to reduce leakage as taught by Mills in [0006].
It is noted that LaVon also seeks to provide absorbent articles with body coverage of differing size [0057] and the inclusion of a sizing indicator as taught by Mills would allow for a visual element to assist in locating/using the correct size for better fit.
With reference to claim 10, LaVon teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Mills teaches sizing indicators which include visual indicia as set forth in [0027] and in [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of LaVon with the sizing indicators as taught by Mills in order to provide an article with a better fit which is likely to reduce leakage as taught by Mills in [0006].
With reference to claim 11, LaVon teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Mills teaches complementary sizing indicators as shown as at least figure 1a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of LaVon with the sizing indicators as taught by Mills in order to provide an article with a better fit which is likely to reduce leakage as taught by Mills in [0006].
Regarding claim 12, LaVon teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Mills teaches a first securement sizing indicator (34a) which is substantially symmetrical to a second side panel sizing indicator (34b,35b) as shown as at least figure 1a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of LaVon with the sizing indicators as taught by Mills in order to provide an article with a better fit which is likely to reduce leakage as taught by Mills in [0006].
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon et al. (US 2011/0178486) in view of Mills (US 2007/0049896) and in further view of Tally et al. (US 2019/0374397).
With reference to claim 9, LaVon modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Mills teaches that the sizing indicators may include any type of indicia suitable for indicating that an ill-fit has been achieved [0029].
The difference between LaVon modified and claim 9 is the specific recitation that each sizing indicator comprises a perforation.
Tally et al. (hereinafter “Tally) teaches an analogous absorbent article including perforated strips that are selectively removable to provide the garment with the desired size as set forth in [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the teachings of LaVon modified to provide perforations as a sizing indicia since it has been held that the substitution of one type of indicator for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art and perforations, as taught by Tally, are considered as useful indicia to account for various diapering situations as taught by Tally in [0044].
With reference to claim 21, LaVon modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 19.
Additionally, Mills teaches that the sizing indicators may include any type of indicia suitable for indicating that an ill-fit has been achieved [0029].
The difference between LaVon modified and claim 21 is the specific recitation that the first side portion/side panel is torn at the sizing indicator.
Tally teaches an analogous absorbent article including perforated strips that are selectively removable (i.e., torn) to provide the garment with the desired size as set forth in [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the teachings of LaVon modified to provide perforations as a sizing indicia, and subsequently tear/remove the perforations as described since it has been held that the substitution of one type of indicator for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art and perforations, as taught by Tally, are considered as useful indicia to account for various diapering situations as taught by Tally in [0044].
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon et al. (US 2011/0178486).
With reference to 23, LaVon teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 22.
The difference between LaVon and claim 23 is the explicit recitation that tearing the material of the first side portion comprises tearing the side panel.
LaVon discloses that the article may include side panels (189) that include the first and second fastening components disposed thereon as set forth in [0079].
LaVon also discloses that the separation zone (i.e., the zone in which the first side portion separates from the second chassis portion), may be located on the pant in any manner that provides the desired functionality and ease of application and refastening including disposed adjacent to or be included in the area encompassed by the fastening components as set forth in [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tear the side panel of LaVon as claimed because LaVon anticipates the side panel to include the separation zone as previously discussed.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the separation zone within the side panel as desired because LaVon sets forth that the separation zone may be located on the pant in any manner that provides the desired functionality and ease of application and refastening as set forth in [0084].
With reference to claims 24 and 25, LaVon discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a chassis comprising an outer layer, an absorbent layer, and an inner layer [0054],
a front portion comprising first receiving portion (54a,56a) comprising cohesive material [0037], and
a rear portion (38), and
a crotch portion (37) extending between the front and rear portions [0055];
side panels (189) disclosed as including a discrete separate element that may include nonwoven material layer(s) and may be affixed to the chassis [0073] wherein the side panels form leg opening as shown in figure 1 in an unfolded state and in a fastened state as shown in figure 3. LaVon also discloses that the side panels may be attached/connected to the chassis in the front waist region and in the back waist region [0073]. This is considered as an initial condition. Further, LaVon discloses separating or opening the pant via tearing as set forth in [0083] and [0087].
The difference between LaVon and claim 24 is the explicit recitation that the side panel is adapted to separate from the front portion by tearing the sheet of material and is adapted to reconnect with the first portion. .
LaVon discloses that the article may include side panels (189) that include the first and second fastening components disposed thereon as set forth in [0079]. The side panels have also already been disclosed as a separate piece of material as set forth in [0073].
LaVon also discloses that the separation zone (i.e., the zone in which the first side portion separates from the second chassis portion), may be located on the pant in any manner that provides the desired functionality and ease of application and refastening including disposed adjacent to or be included in the area encompassed by the fastening components as set forth in [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to tear the side panel of LaVon as claimed because LaVon anticipates the side panel to include the separation zone as previously discussed.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the separation zone within the side panel as desired because LaVon sets forth that the separation zone may be located on the pant in any manner that provides the desired functionality and ease of application and refastening as set forth in [0084].
Likewise, the side panels (which include the cohesive fasteners as discussed in [0037, 0079 and 0084]) are adapted to reconnect with corresponding, receiving (cl. 25) cohesive fasteners [0037] found in the first portion as shown in figures 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-7, 9-12 and 19-27 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
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 extension fee 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 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 on 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