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 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Uda is silent as to the distances and does not disclose the drawings are to scale, it is noted that the drawings can still be used as prior art for what they reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2125(I)). While Uda does not disclose exact dimensions for the distances shown in the drawings, one of ordinary skill in the art can infer the desired relative dimensions shown by Uda. It is further noted that the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 relies on modification motivated by design choice to arrive at the specific pattern (and therefore spacings) of the claimed pairs of compressed points.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed pattern is not merely a design choice and that the configuration of claim 1 functions differently than figure 1 of Uda, it is noted that paragraph [0051] of the present specification discloses that the pairs of compressed points being offset in the transverse direction more effectively contains exudates and reduces spread. The spacing of the pairs of compressed points is not described in the present specification as critical. Since Uda discloses compressed points that are offset in the transverse direction, the advantages of the claimed pattern should also be present in Uda, and modification of the spacing of the pairs of compressed points to arrive at the claimed pattern would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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, 5-7, 9-12, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. US 7686790 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Rasmussen) in view of Uda et al. US 20170128283 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Uda).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen discloses an absorbent body ("absorbent feminine care article
(20)" in line 1 of the abstract and FIG. 1) comprising: a) a longitudinal direction and a transverse
direction ("longitudinal direction (22)" and "lateral direction (24) in FIG. 1 and in lines 1-2 of the
abstract); b) a first absorbent layer (cover (26), considered absorbent because in lines 51-52 of column 4
Rasmussen discloses "the cover can be liquid-permeable"); and c) a second absorbent layer ("absorbent structure (30)" of FIG. 1A and line 7 of the abstract).
Rasmussen does not disclose d) a first pair of compressed points separated in the longitudinal direction from a second pair of compressed points by a first distance, the first pair of compressed points and the second pair of compressed points where a longitudinally extending line drawn through the first and second pairs of compressed points will not intersect any intervening compressed points because no compressed points are disposed longitudinally between the first and second pairs of compressed points, or e) a third pair of compressed points separated in the transverse direction from the first pair of compressed points by a second distance; wherein each compressed point in the first pair of compressed points is separated from each other by a third distance which is smaller than the first distance, and wherein 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 of compressed points at different locations within each pair of compressed points.
In the analogous art of absorbent articles (abstract), Uda teaches an absorbent body (abstract and paragraph 24) having d) a first pair of compressed points separated in the longitudinal direction from a second pair of compressed points by a first distance (see D1 in the annotated fig. 1 below), and e) a third pair of compressed points separated in the transverse direction from the first pair of compressed points by a second distance (see D2 in the annotated fig. 1 below); wherein each compressed point in the first pair of compressed points is separated from each other by a third distance which is smaller than the first distance (see D3 in the annotated fig. 1 below), and wherein 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 of compressed points at different locations within each pair of compressed points (see how pair 1 is offset from pair 3 in the annotated fig. 1 below).
Examiner contends Uda also teaches the first pair of compressed points and the second pair of compressed points being longitudinally adjacent with an intervening compressed point, as the pairs are next to each other in the annotated figure below, separated by a single compressed point rather than another pair of points, however, examiner also notes such a change in the patterning of the embossed points is merely a design choice. 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent article of Rasmussen to include the pattern of compressed points of Uda so as to obtain an absorbent body exhibiting softness and strength through the use of a repeated pattern (paragraph 6 of Uda).
Regarding claim 2, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. In a separate embodiment, Uda also discloses wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance (see paragraph 26, wherein Uda teaches the compressed sections can be in “parallel arrangements (as on the 4 or 6 side of a die)”; this is considered as disclosing wherein the second distance is the same as the first distance as the 4 side of a die is known to have points arranged equidistant from each other in a square arrangement; further, in paragraph 26, Uda teaches the arrangement of compressed points “is not restricted so long as it is a repeated pattern”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen in view of Uda to have the 4-sided die pattern of compressed points as taught in paragraph 26 of Uda as the pattern is still a repeated pattern and therefore would still exhibit the expected softness and strength (paragraph 6 of Uda).
Regarding claim 3, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. Uda further teaches wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see the annotated fig. 1 above where points are in 60-degree zigzag arrangements (as taught in paragraph 26) and pairs are selected as indicated in the annotated fig. 1 of Uda above). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 will also include wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance, as the compressed point arrangement and selected pairs were already specified in the combination.
Regarding claim 5, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. Rasmussen further discloses the absorbent body further comprising a third absorbent layer (considered shaping layer 36 of fig. 1A; see lines 60-62 of column 4, wherein the layer is disclosed as part of the absorbent body structure 30).
Regarding claim 6, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the first pair of compressed points are oriented in the longitudinal direction (see the annotated fig. 1 of Uda above). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 will also include wherein the first pair of compressed points are oriented in the longitudinal direction, as the compressed point arrangement and selected pairs were already specified in the combination.
Regarding claim 7, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the second pair of compressed points are oriented in the longitudinal direction (see the annotated fig. 1 of Uda above). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 will also include wherein the second pair of compressed points are oriented in the longitudinal direction, as the compressed point arrangement and selected pairs were already specified in the combination.
Regarding claim 9, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the first pair of compressed points has a leading edge and a trailing edge separated by a fourth distance (see D4 in the annotated fig. 1 of Uda above, where the distance is denoted from the top of the first point to the bottom of the second point). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 will also include wherein the first pair of compressed points has a leading edge and a trailing edge separated by a fourth distance, as the compressed point arrangement and selected pairs were already specified in the combination.
Regarding claim 10, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 9. The combination does not disclose wherein the fourth distance is the same as the first distance. However, adjusting the fourth distance so as to be the same as the first distance 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 8 of applicant’s specification, wherein “In various embodiments, the fourth distance is the same as the first distance. In various embodiments, the first distance is greater than the fourth 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.
Regarding claim 11, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 9. The combination further discloses wherein the first distance is greater than the fourth distance (see D1 and D4 in the annotated fig. 1 of Uda above). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 will also include wherein the first the first distance is greater than the fourth distance, as the compressed point arrangement and selected pairs were already specified in the combination.
Regarding claim 12, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination as made with regards to claim 1 does not disclose wherein the proportion of the area of the compressed points with respect to the area of the absorbent body is less than about 12% but does teach the proportion of the area of the compressed points with respect to the area of the absorbent body is "preferably 1 to 20%, more preferably 2 to 15%, and even more preferably 3-10%" in lines 1-5 of paragraph 28 of Uda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the area of compressed sections with respect to the area of the absorbent body of Rasmussen, as modified by Uda, from between 3 and 10% to less than about 12% as the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (lines 28-31 of page 11, "In various embodiments, the proportion of the area of compressed points, 32 and 34, with respect to the area of the absorbent body 10 can be less than about 12%. In various embodiments, the proportion of the area of compressed points, 32 and 34, with respect to the area of the absorbent body 10 can be from about 5 or 7% to about 10 or 12%.") and since it has been held that "[i]n 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Uda would not operate differently with the claimed range and since the compressed points are configured to be distributed over the surface of the absorbent body. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the area of compressed points "can be less than about 12%" (lines 29-30 of page 11 of the specifications of the claimed invention). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim 1 already includes the proportion of the area of the compressed points with respect to the area of the absorbent body of Uda, as the combination was for the absorbent article of Rasmussen with the entirety of the compressed points pattern of Uda, and further, that it would have been obvious to have modified the proportion of the area of the compressed points of Uda, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. Rasmussen further discloses wherein the compressed sections extend from an uppermost surface of the absorbent body to a bottommost surface of the absorbent body (see lines 40-43 of column 14, wherein Rasmussen discloses "In the embossment regions, the corresponding material or materials of the article are operatively compressed and substantially permanently deformed along the z-directional thickness of the article"). Although Rasmussen does not specifically disclose wherein each compressed point of the first pair of compressed points, the second pair of compressed points, and the third pair of compressed points extends from an uppermost surface of the absorbent body to a bottommost surface of the absorbent body, examiner notes that, as the combination of Rasmussen in view of Uda is for Rasmussen to have the embossment pattern of Uda, this combination will include wherein each compressed point of the first pair of compressed points, the second pair of compressed points, and the third pair of compressed points extends from an uppermost surface of the absorbent body to a bottommost surface of the absorbent body.
Regarding claim 15, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses an absorbent article ("absorbent feminine care article (20)" in line 1 of the abstract and FIG. 1 of Rasmussen) comprising: a) a topsheet layer (considered cover 26 of FIG. 1A of Rasmussen); b) a backsheet layer (considered the backsheet or baffle 28 of FIG. 1A of Rasmussen); and c) the absorbent body of claim 1 (see the combination as specified regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 15. Rasmussen further discloses the article further comprising a fluid intake layer (considered the "liquid intake layer" of column 4, lines 21-23 and intake layer (32) of FIG. 1A) positioned between the absorbent body (30) and the topsheet layer (26) (see the positioning of the layers, with the intake layer (32) between the topsheet layer (26) and the absorbent body (30) in FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 17, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the first pair of compressed points and the second pair of compressed points are aligned in the longitudinal direction (see the above annotated fig. 1 of Uda, wherein pair 1 is above pair 2).
Regarding claim 18, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further discloses the absorbent body further comprising a fourth pair of compressed points, the fourth pair of compressed points being aligned with the third pair of compressed points in the longitudinal direction and spaced from the third pair of compressed points in the longitudinal direction by a distance greater than a distance between the compressed points of the fourth pair of compressed points, and 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 of compressed points at different locations within each pair of compressed points (see pair 4 in the annotated fig. 1 above, and its positioning relative to pairs 1, 2, and 3). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim includes the fourth pair of points and its characteristics as discussed above, as the combination was for the absorbent article of Rasmussen with the entirety of the compressed points pattern of Uda.
Regarding claim 19, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further 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 pattern of longitudinally extending lines of longitudinally aligned pairs of compressed points (see the annotated fig. 1 above). Examiner notes the combination as made in regards to claim includes wherein the first pair of compressed points, the second pair of compressed points, and the third pair of compressed points are part of a pattern of longitudinally extending lines of longitudinally aligned pairs of compressed points, as the combination was for the absorbent article of Rasmussen with the entirety of the compressed points pattern of Uda.
Regarding claim 20, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The combination further 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 (see the annotated figure 1 below, wherein the pairs in squares are considered pairs of interest). Interpreting only the selected pairs as “pairs” within the pattern, the compressed points of Uda 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 D3, 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
811
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the third pair of compressed bonds of Uda can be defined such that the laterally extending line drawn between the first pair of compressed bonds and the third pair of compressed bonds does not intersect any other distinct pair of compressed bonds, as shown in Figure 1 Annotated #2 of Uda below:
PNG
media_image3.png
362
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 1. The second distance is equal to the first distance, as shown in the annotated fig. 1 above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. US 7686790 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Rasmussen) in view of Uda et al. US 20170128283 Al (hereinafter referred to as Uda) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 20140324009 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lee).
Regarding claim 13, Rasmussen in view of Uda discloses the absorbent body of claim 5. Rasmussen further discloses wherein the first absorbent layer (the topsheet or cover 26 of FIG. 1A and lines 14-15 of column 5) is a through-air bonded carded web (considered the "bonded-carded-web" of lines 18-20 of column 5) and the second absorbent layer (considered "absorbent structure 30" of FIG. 1A and line 16 of column 7) is a cellulosic fluff-based material (considered the "superabsorbent material" that may be formed from organic hydrogel-forming polymeric material, which may include carboxymethyl cellulose or carboxyethyl cellulose of lines 14-29 of column 7). Rasmussen further discloses a third absorbent layer, considered the shaping layer (36).
Rasmussen does not disclose wherein the third absorbent layer is a tissue layer.
In the same art of absorbent articles, Lee teaches wherein the third absorbent layer (considered
the "core wrap" of lines 1-5 of paragraph 51) is a tissue layer (in lines 18-20, Lee teaches a suitable material for the core wrap is tissue wrap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the make the shaping layer of Rasmussen in view of Uda out of tissue as disclosed in Lee because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. Examiner notes the core wrap of Lee serves the same function as the shaping layer (36) of Rasmussen (in Lee, the purpose of the wrap is "to contain the materials forming the absorbent core (206), especially when materials such as superabsorbent particles are being used to absorb body exudates" (lines 3-6 of paragraph 51), and in Rasmussen"[the shaping layer] can provide liquid retention and product shaping" (lines 53-54 of column 11)), further indicating the core wrap of Lee would perform the same function in the absorbent body of Rasmussen in view of Uda as in the absorbent body of Lee. Here all elements of the claim are well known in the art of absorbent articles. Modifying Rasmussen in view of Uda to have a tissue core wrap, which here is being considered the third absorbent tissue layer of the claim, would not change the device's function of collecting and retaining human body exudates. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the core wrap, or third absorbent layer, out of tissue, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Lesh in, 125 USPQ 416.
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 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
Prosecution Insights