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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-24 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (9,192,527).
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses an absorbent body 30, as shown in figure 1(a) comprising a longitudinal direction y and a transverse direction x. The absorbent body 30 comprises a first absorbent layer 32 and a second absorbent layer 34, as shown in figure 1(b). A first pair of compressed point are positioned along a first longitudinal line, and a second pair of compressed points are positioned along the first longitudinal line and separated in the longitudinal direction from the first pair by a first distance, the second pair of compressed points is a distinct pair of points and there are no intervening compressed points in the first distance along the first longitudinal line, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) below. A third pair of compressed points are positioned along a second longitudinal line that is parallel to and adjacent the first longitudinal line and separated by a second distance, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) below. Each compressed point in the first pair of compressed points is separated by a third distance, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) below. The first pair of compressed points is offset from the third pair of compressed points such that a line drawn through both pairs of compressed points in the transverse direction will intersect each pair at different locations within each pair, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the third distance being smaller than the first distance and the second distance. Kato shows in figure 1(a) the desire for the first distance to be smaller than the first and second distances, and discloses in column 6, lines 55-59, that the spacing is greater between the first pair of compressed points 70 and the second pair of compressed points 60. 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 make the third distance of Kato smaller than the first and second distances so that the spacing between the first pair of compressed points is smaller than that of the second pair, as taught by Kato.
With respect to claim 2, Kato remains silent as to the second distance being the same as the first distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be spaced such that the second distance is the same as the first distance since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 3, Kato remains silent as to the second distance being greater than the first distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be spaced such that the second distance is greater than the first distance since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 9, the first pair of compressed points has a leading edge and a trailing edge separated by a fourth distance, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) above.
With respect to claim 10, Kato remains silent as to the fourth distance being the same as the first distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be spaced such that the fourth distance is the same as the first distance since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 11, Kato remains silent as to the first distance being greater than the fourth distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be spaced such that the first distance is greater than the fourth distance since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 12, the proportion of the area of compressed points with respect to the area of the absorbent body is less than 12%, as disclosed in column 6, lines 33-38.
With respect to claim 14, each compressed point extends into the first absorbent layer 32 and the second absorbent layer 34, as shown in figure 1(b).
With respect to claim 15, Kato discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1(a) comprising a topsheet layer 10, a backsheet layer 20, and the absorbent body 30.
With respect to claim 17, the first and second pairs of compressed points are aligned in the longitudinal direction, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) above.
With respect to claim 18, a fourth pair of compressed points are aligned with the third pair of compressed points in the longitudinal direction by a greater distance than between the compressed points of the fourth pair of compressed points, wherein the second pair of compressed points is offset from the fourth pair of compressed points such that a line drawn through both pairs of compressed points in the transverse direction will intersect each pair at different locations with each pair of compressed points, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) above.
With respect to claim 19, the first, second, and third pairs of compressed points are part of a pattern of longitudinally aligned pairs of compressed points, as shown in figure 1(a).
With respect to claim 20, Kato discloses wherein the first pair of compressed points, the second pair of compressed points, and the third pair of compressed points are part of a plurality of compressed points forming a pattern, the pattern comprising longitudinally extending and laterally spaced lines of aligned pairs of compressed points, the pairs of compressed points within each line are spaced closer together than a distance between adjacent pairs of compressed points within a given line, as shown in the annotated figure 1(a) above, wherein the pairs in squares are considered pairs of interest. Interpreting only the selected pairs as “pairs” within the pattern, the compressed points of Kato fit wherein the pairs of compressed points within each line are spaced closer together than a distance between adjacent pairs of compressed points within a given line. Alternatively, adjusting the distance between two points within a pair of points to be smaller than the distance between neighboring pairs of points should different pairs be selected or considered adjacent to the first denoted pair of points would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the absorbent article would still have retained a repeated pattern, and therefore would still exhibit the expected softness and strength (paragraph 6 of Uda). Since applicant has not given any criticality to why
the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see paragraph 5 of the specification, wherein “In various embodiments, each compressed point of the first pair of compressed points is separated from each other by a third distance which is smaller than the first distance”), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
With respect to claim 21, Kato discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a laterally extending line drawn between the first and third pairs of compressed points do not intersect any other distinct pair of compressed points. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be longitudinally adjacent without any intervening compressed points since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
With respect to claim 22, Kato remains silent as to the second distance being equal to or greater than the first distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pairs of points to be spaced such that the second distance is equal to or greater than the first distance since the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 5, 13, 16, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (9,192,527) in view of Lee et al. (2014/0324009).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Kato discloses the first absorbent layer 32 is through-air bonded and the second absorbent layer 34 is a cellulosic fluff based material, as disclosed in column 3, lines 8-10. Kato discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent body comprising a third layer that is a tissue layer. Lee discloses an absorbent body comprising a first layer 206 and a second layer 206A, as shown in figure 3. Lee teaches providing the absorbent body with a third layer in the form of a tissue layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0051], to contain the material forming the absorbent layers. 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 provide the absorbent body of Kato with a third layer that is a tissue layer, as taught by Lee, to contain the material of the absorbent layers.
With respect to claim 16, Kato discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a fluid intake layer between the absorbent body and the topsheet layer. Lee discloses an absorbent article comprising a topsheet layer 22, an absorbent body 206, and a fluid intake layer 203 therebetween. Lee teaches that the fluid intake layer is able to absorb large gushes of fluid, as disclosed in paragraph [0043]. 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 provide the article of Kato with a fluid intake layer, as taught by Lee, to allow large gushes of fluid to be more readily accepted.
With respect to claim 23, Kato, as modified by Lee to comprise a third layer as tissue wrap around the first and second absorbent layers, therefore also discloses the first, second, and third pairs of compressed points extending into the first, second, and third layers of the absorbent body because the third layer will extend over the top of the first and second layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Kato, teaches away from the first, second, and third compressed points being separated from each other by the third distance wherein the third distance between each compressed point is 1 mm. Kato discloses in column 6, lines 4-10, that if the distance between each compressed point is less than 3 mm, cushioning of the article may be weakened and the article will become too hard. Kato therefore does not disclose nor fairly suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents and Publications 9,132,045 and 5,380,296 disclose absorbent articles with patterns of compressed points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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 at 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
