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
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In relation to the Performance Factor (PF), Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The prior art as previously cited teaches a device wherein the printed visual signal may extend up to 100% of the length (and width) of the article. When combined with teachings for altering the thickness of an absorbent article, the combined device would necessarily fall within the claimed relationships required for a PF of 1-8. When combining the teachings of up to 100% coverage with the ability to alter the thickness of a device, the resultant combination will necessarily teach a device which possesses a PF in the claimed range. As absorbent articles have a wide range of lengths and thicknesses based on their intended use, there exists an incredibly wide range of devices which fall within the claimed ranges to result in a PF of 1-8.
Regarding the table previously presented in the Response to Arguments, this information was not presented as a rejection. This table merely served as an attempt to indicate the incredible breadth of the device as claimed, where given a selected length, the majority of devices falling within the claimed range would inherently produce the claimed PF.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180098896 A1 (Hardie et al.) in view of US 20080294140 A1 (Ecker et al.) and US 20160331598 A1 (Morrison et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Hardie teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) (Figs. 1-5) having a longitudinal centerline (80) and a lateral centerline (90) generally perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline (Fig. 1), first and second side edges (22 and 24) and first and second end edges (26 and 28) disposed at a first end and a second end of the absorbent article (Fig. 1), respectively, the absorbent article further comprising:
a topsheet (203);
a backsheet (207);
an absorbent system (205) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet [0023], the absorbent system comprising a secondary topsheet [0023] and first and second absorbent core structures (60 and 70) that are longitudinally offset, whereby a forward portion of the first absorbent core structure extends forwardly of a forward end of the second absorbent core structure, and a rearward portion of the second absorbent core structure extends rearwardly of a rearward end of the first absorbent core structure [0025] (Fig. 3);
Hardie fails to teach a printed visual signal visible from a wearer-facing surface of the disposable absorbent article, wherein the printed visual signal is printed on at least one of the secondary topsheet, the first absorbent core, and the second absorbent core; wherein the article has a caliper of less than 9 mm; and wherein a length of the visual signal is between 80 percent to 98 percent of a length of the absorbent article, and wherein the disposable article has a Performance Factor of 1 to 8.
Ecker teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) wherein the article has a caliper of less than 9 mm [0069], namely less than 5 mm and further teaching the thickness is limited by technical feasibility wherein articles may have thicknesses as low at 0.4 mm.
While Hardie teaches the thickness of individual components, the reference fails to teach the overall caliper of the device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed caliper of Hardie with those disclosed by Ecker as they are considered to be industry standards and would therefore be obvious teachings which are readily incorporated MPEP 2143.
Morrison teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) wherein a printed visual signal (at least 22) visible from a wearer-facing surface of the disposable absorbent article [0017], wherein the printed visual signal is printed on at least one of the secondary topsheet, the first absorbent core, and the second absorbent core [0017].
Morrison further teaches the visual signal frames between 80% and 100% of the central usage area and may extend any given distance from said area to an edge and is therefore considered to teach a length of the visual signal is between 80 percent to 98 percent of a length of the absorbent article [0017].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hardie to incorporate the visual signal of Morrison to highlight functional areas of the product, thereby improving user perception of the device [Morrison 0004].
As Morrison teaches the visual signal may extend outward towards the perimeter in increments up to 100% it would be reasonable to arrive at a Performance Factor of 1 to 8 when incorporating the varying thicknesses taught by Ecker. The combined device is therefore considered to teach a difference between the length of the disposable absorbent article and the length of the visual signal yields a Performance Factor of 1 to 8.
Regarding claim 2, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Hardie further teaches at least one of the layers of the absorbent system is comprised by at least one of the first end edge (26) or the second end edge (28) as these are the end edges of the chassis (20) which is formed by the topsheet (203), backsheet (207), and absorbent core (205).
Regarding claim 4, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Hardie further teaches the secondary topsheet is comprised by at least one of the first end edge (26) and/or the second end edge (28) as the secondary topsheet may span the entire area of the article [0030].
Regarding claim 5, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Hardie further teaches an example device having a length of 270 mm [0236].
The combined device of claim 1 may have a visual signal from 80% - 98% of the length of the device which would result in a visual signal length of 216 mm to 265 mm which overlaps the required visual signal has a length of between 140 mm to 230 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combined device of claim 1 teaches the visual signal length may extend between 80 percent and 98 percent of the absorbent length and is therefore considered to teach the visual signal length is at least 84 percent of the absorbent article length as 84 percent is within the previously taught range.
Regarding claim 8, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 4.
The combined device of claim 4 teaches the visual signal length may extend between 80 percent and 98 percent of the absorbent length and is therefore considered to teach the visual signal length is at least 84 percent of the absorbent article length as 84 percent is within the previously taught range.
Regarding claim 9, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 8.
Hardie further teaches a pair of longitudinal pleats (230A and 230B), at least one of the pleats being disposed adjacent the first side edge (22) and the other of the pair of longitudinal pleats being disposed adjacent the second side edge (24) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Given the constraints of claim 1, a visual signal length of 220 mm would result in a device length of 224 mm to 275 mm and a visual signal length of 400 mm would result in a device length of 408 mm to 500 mm, thereby providing an overall device length range of 224 mm to 500 mm. Hardie teaches various examples where the device length is 270 mm [0236], 348 mm [0240], and 400 mm [0248], all of which are within the required range. The combined device of claim 1 is therefore considered to teach the visual signal has a length of between 220 mm to 400 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 10.
Hardie teaches various examples where the device length is 270 mm [0236], 348 mm [0240], and 400 mm [0248], all of which are within the required range. The combined device of claim 1 is therefore considered to teach the absorbent article has a length between 230 mm to 430 mm.
Regarding claim 14, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 10.
Hardie further teaches a pair of longitudinal cuffs (230A and 230B), at least one of the cuffs being disposed adjacent the first side edge (22) and the other of the pair of longitudinal pleats being disposed adjacent the second side edge (24) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Hardie further teaches the disposable absorbent article (20) comprises an incontinence pad [0017].
Regarding claim 17, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 9.
Hardie further teaches the disposable absorbent article (20) comprises an incontinence pad [0017].
Regarding claim 18, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 14.
Hardie further teaches the disposable absorbent article (20) comprises an incontinence pad [0017].
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardie in view of Ecker and Morrison and further in view of US 20180325747 A1 (Bremer et al.).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hardie teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) (Figs. 1-5) having a longitudinal centerline (80) and a lateral centerline (90) generally perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline (Fig. 1), first and second side edges (22 and 24) and first and second end edges (26 and 28) disposed at a first end and a second end of the absorbent article (Fig. 1), respectively, the absorbent article further comprising:
a topsheet (203);
a backsheet (207);
an absorbent system (205) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet [0023], the absorbent system comprising a secondary topsheet [0023] and an absorbent core structure (60 and 70);
Hardie fails to teach a first end seal at the first end edge, wherein the first end seal includes a first portion of the topsheet, the backsheet, and the secondary topsheet;
a printed visual signal visible from a wearer-facing surface of the disposable absorbent article, wherein the printed visual signal is printed on the secondary topsheet, wherein a difference between a length of the disposable absorbent article and a length of the visual signal is less than 35 mm; wherein the length of the visual signal is from 80 percent to 98 percent of the length of the disposable article, and wherein the disposable absorbent article has a Performance Factor of 1 to 8.
Ecker teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) wherein the article has a caliper of less than 9 mm [0069], namely less than 5 mm and further teaching the thickness is limited by technical feasibility wherein articles may have thicknesses as low at 0.4 mm.
While Hardie teaches the thickness of individual components, the reference fails to teach the overall caliper of the device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed caliper of Hardie with those disclosed by Ecker as they are considered to be industry standards and would therefore be obvious teachings which are readily incorporated MPEP 2143.
Morrison teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) wherein a printed visual signal (at least 22) visible from a wearer-facing surface of the disposable absorbent article [0017], wherein the printed visual signal is printed on the secondary topsheet [0017].
Morrison further teaches the visual signal frames between 80% and 100% of the central usage area and may extend any given distance from said area to an edge and is therefore considered to teach a length of the visual signal is between 80 percent to 98 percent of a length of the absorbent article [0017].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hardie to incorporate the visual signal of Morrison to highlight functional areas of the product, thereby improving user perception of the device [Morrison 0004].
As Morrison teaches the visual signal may extend outward towards the perimeter in increments up to 100% it would be reasonable to arrive at a Performance Factor of 1 to 8 when incorporating the varying thicknesses taught by Ecker. The combined device is therefore considered to teach a difference between the length of the disposable absorbent article and the length of the visual signal yields a Performance Factor of 1 to 8.
Hardie teaches various examples where the device length is 270 mm [0236], 348 mm [0240], and 400 mm [0248]. Utilizing the previous teachings of Hardie in view of Ecker and Morrison regarding the area covered by the visual signal of the combined device, a visual signal length extending 98 percent of the absorbent article would result in a difference between article lengths and visual signal lengths of 5.4 mm, 7 mm, and 8 mm respectively. The combined device is therefore considered to teach a difference between a length of the disposable absorbent article and a length of the visual signal is less than 35 mm.
Bremer teaches a disposable absorbent article (1) wherein the topsheet (10), secondary topsheet (11), and the backsheet (13) are bonded together to form a sealed region (15) [0051, 0057] as well as through bonding points (16 and 17) [0067]. Since the sealed region (15) extends around the perimeter of the device, it is considered to create a first end seal at the first end edge and a second end seal at the second end edge.
Hardie and Morrison discuss the bonding of individual layers together, but fail to disclose the overall sealing or bonding method of the device while Ecker merely discloses bonding of layers in a general context. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hardie in view of Ecker and Morrison to incorporate the sealed region and bonding points of Bremer to ensure close contact between layers, thereby enabling satisfactory fluid transfer performance [Bremer 0058].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardie in view of Ecker and Morrison and further in view of US 20150133884 A1 (Hao et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Hardie, Ecker and Morrison teach the disposable absorbent article of claim 5.
Hardie teaches the absorbent article having a length of approximately 270 mm. While “approximately 270 mm” is similar to the required range “160 mm +/-0.1mm to 260 mm +/- 0.1mm”, Hardie fails to explicitly teach the absorbent article has an overall length of between 160 mm to 260 mm.
Hao teaches a disposable absorbent article (10) having an overall length of 80 mm to 450 mm, wherein the desired length will vary by the type of article and size of the user [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device length of Hardie with the overall length of 80 mm to 450 mm of Hao to allow for customizing the length of the article based on usage [Hao 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to have selected an overall length of 160 mm to 260 mm from the overlapping range of 80 mm to 450 mm disclosed by Hao because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP § 2144.05.I.
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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571) 272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HANS KALIHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781