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 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 16, and 21.
As to claim 1, Applicant has amended the claim to recite “wherein the three-dimensional substrate comprises land areas between adjacent protrusion, where in the land areas are substantially flat and do not fully surround each individual protrusion”. Applicant argues Otsubo, Morimoto, Yuan, and Roe, individually, or in any combinations as currently cited, fail to teach at least this feature of amended claim 1. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the new limitation is addressed in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Applicant further argues independent claim 1, as currently amended, includes the feature that “the second layer comprises a basis weight that is at least 5 g/m2 less than the basis weight of the first layer”. This limitation was addressed in the last office action, but Applicant disagreed with the reasoning noting that the teachings of Otsubo teach that the first outer sheet may be from about 15 to 40 g/m2 and the first inner sheet may be from about 20 to about 50 g/m2 which actually suggests that the basis weight of the first inner sheet should be greater than that of the first outer sheet, as both the lower and upper ranges of the basis weight of the first inner sheet are greater than both the lower and upper ranges of the basis weight of the first outer sheet. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Otsubo does teach a range for the basis weight of the first outer sheet lower than the first inner sheet, however, values in the ranges overlap. The examiner maintains that the values can be used to provide a second layer having a basis weight that is at least 5 g/m2 less than the basis weight of the first layer as claimed. Applicant argues the size of the sheets and the fact that the first outer layer may include multiple layers does not suggest that the basis weight of the first outer layer is greater than the range taught in paragraph 0041 even if multiple layers are present. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Otsubo teaches the first outer layer may comprise a plurality of layers (para. 0041). A laminate (plurality of layers) first outer layer would have a higher basis weight than a single layer second layer.
Applicant argues Otsubo fails to teach the feature of independent claim 1 that “the voids have a height in the range from about 0.1mm to about 6.0 mm and a width in the range from about 0.5mm to about 15 mm. Applicant argues that the Office acknowledges that “Otsubo teaches the protuberances 65 have a height dimension in a range of about 2 to 3 mm, but does not teach the height of the voids 72”. Applicant disagrees with the interpretation that the voids 72 in the non-bonded regions would have a height between the lower range of the protuberance 65 height, of 2mm and greater as the voids extend above the second inner sheet 32 (Otsubo Fig. 10). Applicant argues a protuberance height measured to the top of an outer fibrous layer is not the same as the height of a void between first and second layers. Applicant argues the void height depends on the internal spacing between the first and second layers, layer thicknesses, and fiber bulk. Applicant argues that although the voids wound inherently have some height, the height of the voids could be less than 0.1 mm, thereby falling outside the claimed range. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The published application for the present invention is US 2021/0251823. Paragraph 0038 of the published application teaches “the ‘protrusions’ may have a Z-directional height in the range from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm…, measured from the land areas 8 to the top of the protrusion”. There is no teaching of the void height for the voids 14 (Figs. 1 and 2) in that range. Additionally, Otsubo teaches the first inner sheet 32 has a height dimension h1 of in a range of about 0.5 to 1.0 mm, the protuberances 65 of the first outer sheet 30 have a height dimension (measured from the inner sheet 32 to tops of the respective protuberance 65) in a range of about 2.0 to about 3mm (para. 0055, Fig. 10). Applicant argues the voids 72 could have a height less than 0.1 mm. However, this is unlikely since the height h1 of the sheet 32 is at about 0.5 mm and the height of the voids 72 is higher than the sheet 32 as seen in Fig. 10. The examiner maintains the one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the height of the voids to provide a bulky quilt-like pattern on the outer appearance of the diaper (para. 0053) and provide the laminated sheet 37 an airy and flexible texture as taught in Otsubo (para. 0057).
Applicant has amended claim 16 to include features that “the second layer is longer than the first layer, wherein the protrusions are present on only a portion of the absorbent article, and wherein the protrusions cover at least a portion of the absorbent core”. Applicant argues Otsubo, Morimoto, Matsui, Yuan, and Roe, individually, or any combination, as currently cited, fail to teach at least these features of amended independent claim 16. This new limitation is discussed in the rejection of claim 16 below.
Applicant has amended claim 21 to include the feature that “the first layer and the second layer are intermittently bonded to form the land areas, and wherein the land areas completely surround the protrusions”. Applicant argues Otsubo, Morimoto, Yuan, and Roe, individually, or in any combination, as currently cited, fail to teach at least this feature of amended independent claim 21. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the new limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 21 below.
Applicant further argues independent claim 21 includes that feature that “the aperture side walls extend at least 0.1 mm beyond a first surface of the first layer”. Applicant argues the Office acknowledges that “Otsubo/Roe does not teach the first layer and the second layer form aperture walls, wherein the aperture side walls extend at least 0.1 mm beyond a first surface of the first layer.” Applicant notes that the reference to Yuan teaching conically-shaped protrusions and recesses does not explicitly address the claimed feature regarding the aperture side walls. The examiner addressed this limitation in the previous action. Nonetheless the limitation is addressed below in the rejection of claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the Z-directional height of the protrusions in the range from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm, does not reasonably provide enablement for the void height of the protrusions to range from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. In In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(a) the breadth of the claims;
(b) the nature of the invention;
(c) the state of the prior art;
(d) the level of one of ordinary skill;
(e) the level of predictability in the art;
(f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(g) the existence of working examples; and
(h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses the height of the protrusions of the three-dimensional substrate. The specification discloses sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for protrusions having a height ranging from about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm. However, the specification does not provide direction on how to provide void spaces with a height of about 0.1 mm to about 6.0 mm as claimed. At the time of filing, the state of the art was such that the protrusions 9 imparts a three-dimensional shape to the first layer of the substrate Thus, the disclosed Z-directional height is measured from the land areas 8 to the top of the protrusion 9 (para. 0038 of the published application US 2021/0251823) and does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 1 to provide the height of the void space. Additionally, in the Remarks filed 06/16/2026, Applicant indicated “a protuberance height measured to the top of an outer fibrous layer is not the same as the height of a void between first and second layers. The void height depends on the internal spacing between the first and second layers, layer thicknesses, and fiber bulk. Although the voids would inherently have some height, the height of the voids could be less than 0.1 mm, thereby falling outside the claimed range”, page 3 of Remarks. Therefore, by Applicant’s own admission the height of the protuberances does not necessarily correspond with the void height.
Based on the amount of direction provided by the inventor (Wands Factor F) and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (Wands Factor D), one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised on how to make the invention as no embodiments with a void height in the range of from about 0.1mm to about 6.0 mm is taught in the specification.
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 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0165774 in view of Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0136919.
As to claims 1 and 2, Otsubo teaches an absorbent article 10 having a wearer-facing surface and a garment- facing surface opposite to the wearer facing surface, the absorbent article 10 comprising:
a liquid pervious topsheet 53,
a liquid impermeable backsheet 57 (paragraph 0033; Figure 4),
an absorbent core 55 comprising an absorbent material (paragraph 0033), the absorbent core 55 being disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (Figure 4; paragraph 0033), and
an outer cover 37,38 (Figure 2) forming at least part of the garment-facing surface (paragraph 0058) , the outer cover 37 comprising a three-dimensional substrate (Figures 5, 7, and 10; paragraph 0024),
wherein the three-dimensional substrate comprises a first layer 30, 31 (Otsubo para. 0026) a second layer 32, 33 and a plurality of protrusions 64 (paragraph 0039) where the first layer 30,31 is unbonded to the second layer 32, 33 and a plurality of voids 72 (Figure 10; paragraph 0057) between the first layer 30,31 and the second layer 32,33 where the first layer 30,31 is unbonded to the second layer 32,33 (Figure 10 shows first and second layers 30,32), and
wherein the outer cover 30,32 is joined to the backsheet 57, via connection with intermediate sheet 34 (Figure 4; paragraph 0032) such that the first layer forms 30, 31 at least part of the garment-facing surface (Figure 4)
wherein the first layer 30 comprises a basis weight of from about 10 g/m2 to about 50 g/m2 (Otsubo para. 0041) and the second layer 32 comprises a basis weight of from about 5 g/m2 to about 50 g/m2 (Otsubo para. 0042). Otsubo does not specifically teach the second layer comprises a basis weight that is at least 5 g/m2 less than the basis weight of the first layer. Otsubo teaches a weight range of the first layer of about 15 to 40 g/m2 and a weight range of the second layer of about 20 to about 50 g/m2 (Otsubo para. 0041-0042). The basis weight values can be manipulated as needed to form a second layer that has a basis weight that is at least 5 g/m2 less than the basis weight of the first layer. Otsubo provides motivation for a lower basis weight second layer where Otsubo teaches the second (inner) sheets 32, 33 are smaller in size as compared to first (outer) sheets 30,31 (Fig. 3) and the outer sheet 30,31 may consists of two or more layers (Otsubo para. 0031). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the second layers 32,33 have a lower basis weight as compared to the first layers 30, 31.
Otsubo teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Otsubo does not teach the three-dimensional substrate comprises a plurality of apertures in the first layer and the second layer, wherein the apertures comprise a size of from about 0.2 mm2 to about 4 mm2, and wherein the smallest distance between the apertures comprises at least 0.3 mm. Roe teaches a patterned apertured web laminate useful for an outer cover in a disposable absorbent article (Roe paras. 0004, 0150, 0198, 0211). Roe teaches the patterned apertured web has apertures comprising a size of 0.3 mm2 to about 15 mm2 (Roe para. 0006). Roe further teaches the patterned apertured web comprises a plurality of land areas in the pattern apertured web, at least some of the land areas surrounding at least some of the apertures. Roe teaches the distance between apertures ranges from about 1mm to about 10 mm (Roe para. 0250). Roe teaches the aperture pattern or patterns in a patterned apertured web used as an outer cover may also provide enhanced breathability in certain regions (e.g. waist, hips) or reduced breathability in areas over an absorbent core, for example. Roe teaches the aperture patterns may also provide enhanced textures and/or signals in certain regions of the outer cover to provide intuitive instruction on how to properly apply the absorbent article (Roe para. 0222). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the outer cover of Otsubo with the patterned apertured web of Roe for the benefits taught in Roe.
Otsubo teaches the voids 72 in the non-bonded regions are defined between the bonding regions 70 (Otsubo para. 0057). Otsubo teaches the distance between bonding lines 70 is correspond with the bond points, which are spaced apart in a range of 1.0 to about 2.5 mm (Otsubo para. 0053), which provides a width of the voids in the range of 1.0 to about 2.5 mm, which has values in the claimed range or from about 0.5 to about 15 mm.
Otsubo teaches the protuberances 65 have a height dimension in a range of about 2 to 3 mm, but does not teach the height of the voids 72. Since the crimped fibers 63 protrude outward in the thickness direction of the first outer sheet 30 to form voids 72 in the non-bonded regions the voids 72 would have a height between the lower range of the protuberance 65 height, 2mm and greater than 0 as the voids extend above the second inner sheet 32 (Otsubo Fig. 10). One having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed would be able to determine through routine experimentation, the height of the voids in order to provide the laminated sheet 37 an airy and flexible texture as taught in Otsubo (para. 0057).
Otsubo teaches the three-dimensional substrate comprises land areas between adjacent protrusions 65, wherein the land areas are substantially flat and do not fully surround each individual protrusion – where Otsubo teaches the adhesive 35 is applied to define a plurality of bonding lines 70, each substantially flat bonding line (land area) (Figs. 7 and 9) comprising a continuous repeated pattern formed by alternating longitudinally and transversely extending line portions (Figs. 7 and 9; para. 0050). Otsubo teaches the pattern of adhesive is not limited to the series of omega, but the hot melt adhesive may be applied in any other well known patterns such as spiral, dot, wave, or grid patterns. Otsubo further teaches the bonding lines 70 may be formed of the first adhesive 35 to assure that the inner surface of the first inner sheet is substantially over its entire area coated with hot melt adhesive in a substantially uniform pattern of two or more arrays of continuous “omega’’s. In this way, the non-thermocompressed regions 64 in the outer surface of the first outer sheet 3 can be formed with the protuberances 65 distributed as evenly as possible (para. 0053). The bond lines 70 (land areas) do not completely surround the protuberances 65, but provide a foundation for the protuberances to be evenly distributed on the laminated sheet 37.
As to claim 3, Otsubo/Roe teach the plurality of apertures extend through the first layer and the second layer (Roe para. 0121).
As to claim 4, the three-dimensional substrate has a basis weight in the range of from about 15gsm to about 80gsm – Otsubo teaches the first layer 30 has a basis weight of about 14 to 40 gsm (Otsubo paragraph 0041) and the second layer 32 has a basis weight of about 20-50 gsm (Otsubo paragraph 0042). The combination of those layers would provide a basis weight with values in the claimed range.
As to claim 5, the first layer 30 and the second layer 32 are bonded to each other by an adhesive 70 (Otsubo Figures 7 and 10; paragraphs 0050-0052).
As to claim 6, the first layer 30 comprises a nonwoven (Otsubo paragraph 0041).
As to claim 7, Otsubo/Roe teaches the three-dimensional substrate comprises natural fibers – where Roe teaches cellulosic materials for the patterned apertured webs (Roe para. 0133).
As to claim 11, Otsubo teaches the backsheet 57 (liquid-barrier sheet) is made of plastic material (Otsubo paragraph 0033), but does not specifically teach a film layer. Roe teaches the backsheet comprises a film layer (Roe paras. 0158, 0209). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the plastic material of Otsubo with the film layer taught in Roe since both are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of providing an impermeable barrier to fluids.
As to claim 12, Otsubo teaches the backsheet 57 comprises a colored graphic - where Otsubo teaches externally visible graphics on films 43, 44 and a fixing sheet 45 – which are attached to backsheet 47 (Otsubo Figure 4; paragraph 0028).
As to claim 13, Otsubo teaches the absorbent core 55 comprises an absorbent material selected from the group consisting of airfelt, superabsorbent polymers and a combination thereof (paragraph 0033).
As to claim 14, Otsubo/Roe teach the absorbent core comprises at least 80% of superabsorbent polymers by weight of the absorbent material (Roe paras. 0195, 0201).
As to claim 15, Otsubo/Roe teach the absorbent core comprises a channels 626,626’,627,627’ (Roe Figures 1- 4; paragraphs 0197,0202-0204). Roe teaches the patterned apertured web in the outer cover may coordinate with or compliment the core channels in such a way that the channels are highlighted to a caregiver or wearer, most likely to alert a caregiver the article needs changing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the absorbent of Otsubo with channels for the benefits taught in Roe.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0165774 in view of Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0136919 and further in view of Morimoto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0374399 and further in view of Matsui et al. EP 1067228.
As to claim 16, Otsubo teaches an absorbent article 10 having a wearer-facing surface and a garment- facing surface opposite to the wearer facing surface, the absorbent article 10 comprising:
a liquid pervious topsheet 53,
a liquid impermeable backsheet 57 (paragraph 0033; Figure 4),
an absorbent core 55 comprising an absorbent material (paragraph 0033), the absorbent core 55 being disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (Figure 4; paragraph 0033), and
an outer cover 37,38 (Figure 2) forming at least part of the garment-facing surface (paragraph 0058) , the outer cover 37 comprising a three-dimensional substrate (Figures 5, 7, and 10; paragraphs 0024 ),
wherein the three-dimensional substrate comprises a first layer 30, 31 a second layer 32, 33 and a plurality of protrusions 64 (paragraph 0039) where the first layer 30,31 is unbonded to the second layer 32, 33 and a plurality of voids 72 (Figure 10; paragraph 0057) between the first layer 30,31 and the second layer 32,33 where the first layer 30,31 is unbonded to the second layer 32,33 (Figure 10 shows first and second layers 30,32), and
wherein the outer cover 30,32 is joined to the backsheet 57, via connection with intermediate sheet 34 (Figure 4; paragraph 0032) such that the first layer forms 30, 31 at least part of the garment-facing surface (Figure 4).
Otsubo teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Otsubo does not specifically teach the absorbent article has a Qmax-wet of about 1300W/m2 or less, as measured according to Qmax Test. Otsubo does teach the claimed absorbent article having a topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core, outer cover, and three-dimensional substrate having protrusions and voids the same construction as the present invention and comprising the claimed materials. Specifically, Otsubo teaches voids 72 in the three-dimensional material used for the outer cover.
Morimoto teaches an outer cover laminate having inner 94 and outer 92 sheets (Morimoto paragraph 0039). Morimoto teaches the inner sheet 94 may have a Qmax of less than about 1650 W/m2 or less than about 1585 W/m2, or less than about 1520 W/m2. Morimoto further teaches Qmax indicates the energy transmitted during compression. Without being bound by theory, the less Qmax, the warmer the tactile perception of the elastic belt region, thus associated with fluffy or softer touch (Morimoto paragraph 0050). Morimoto also teaches the materials for the inner and outer sheets of the laminate are selected to provide characteristics such as breathability, softness, cushiony feel, loftiness, and combinations thereof (Morimoto paragraph 0052). Otsubo teaches a three-dimensional substrate outer cover with protrusions and voids, and is considered a high-loft nonwoven. Otsubo teaches the laminated sheet 37 is capable of achieving “an airy and flexible texture” experienced by the wearer and helper (Otsubo paragraphs 0057-0058). Otsubo is also concerned with providing a garment-like hand where the diaper of Example 1 has characteristic properties of softness, flexibility, smoothness, and bulkiness (Otsubo paragraph 0103; Table 3). Based on the teachings of Morimoto, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the outer cover of Otsubo with a low Qmax value for the benefit of providing the outer cover with a fluffy or softer touch. One having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed would be able to determine through routine experimentation the Qmax value needed for the outer cover to provide a desired texture and hand.
Otsubo/Morimoto do not teach the three-dimensional substrate comprises a plurality of apertures in at least one of the first layer and the second layer. Roe teaches a patterned apertured web laminate useful for an outer cover in a disposable absorbent article (Roe paras. 0004, 0150, 0198, 0211). Roe teaches the patterned apertured web comprises a plurality of land areas in the pattern apertured web, at least some of the land areas surrounding at least some of the apertures. Roe teaches the aperture pattern or patterns in a patterned apertured web used as an outer cover may also provide enhanced breathability in certain regions (e.g. waist, hips) or reduced breathability in areas over an absorbent core, for example. Roe teaches the aperture patterns may also provide enhanced textures and/or signals in certain regions of the outer cover to provide intuitive instruction on how to properly apply the absorbent article (Roe para. 0222). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the outer cover of Otsubo with the patterned apertured web of Roe for the benefits taught in Roe.
Otsubo teaches the protuberances 65 have a height dimension in a range of about 2 to 3 mm, but does not teach the height of the voids 72. Since the crimped fibers 63 protrude outward in the thickness direction of the first outer sheet 30 to form voids 72 in the non-bonded regions the voids 72 would have a height between the lower range of the protuberance 65 height, 2mm and greater than 0 as the voids extend above the second inner sheet 32 (Otsubo Fig. 10). One having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed would be able to determine through routine experimentation, the height of the voids in order to provide the laminated sheet 37 an airy and flexible texture as taught in Otsubo (para. 0057).
Otsubo/Morimoto/Roe does not teach the three-dimensional substrate comprises a Compression Recovery Rate no less than about 0.35. Matsui et al. EP 1067228, from the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, teaches a compression recovery sheet for an absorbent article. The compression recovery sheet of Matsui comprises the same material as the three-dimensional substrate of Otsubo – i.e. elastomeric components (Otsubo para. 0042; Matsui para. 0014-0021); crimped fibers (Otsubo para. 000,0045-0046; Matsui para. 0022); and conjugate fibers (Otsubo para. 0046; Matsui para. 0017). Both Otsubo and Matsui are concerned with providing a bulky fabric (Otsubo paragraph 0103, Table 3; Matsui paras. 0001, 0021). The compression recovery sheet of Matsui has a Compression Recovery Rate of 60% (.60) or more (Matsui para. 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide Otsubo/Morimoto/Roe with a Compression Recovery Rate as taught in Matsui. Since the prior art is from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of providing bulk and texture to the absorbent article thereby giving a user a feeling of assurance while worn (Matsui para. 0002).
Otsubo teaches the second layer is longer than the first layer – where Otsubo teaches the first and second inner sheets 32, 33 are not limited to extend only in the front and rear waist region but may be arranged to extend further into the crotch region 15 (para. 0036),
wherein the protrusions are present on only a portion of the absorbent article, and wherein the protrusions cover at least a portion of the absorbent core – where Otsubo teaches protrusions 65 in the laminate sheets 37, 38 (formed from the first and second outer sheets and first and second inner sheets, respectively), cover the front and rear waist regions and a portion of the absorbent core (Figs. 2-4; paras. 0026-0027, 0036, 0040, and 0053-0054).
As to claim 17, Otsubo/Morimoto/Roe/Matsui teach the plurality of apertures extend through the first layer and the second layer (Roe para. 0121).
As to claim 18, Otsubo/Morimoto/Roe/Matsui teaches the chassis 11 includes graphic display films 43, 44 fixed to the outer laminate and a fixing sheet 43 attached to the backsheet 57 (Otsubo Figure 4; paragraph 0028).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0165774 in view of Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0136919 and further in view of Yuan et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0125595.
As to claim 21, Otsubo teaches an absorbent article 10 having a wearer-facing surface and a garment- facing surface opposite to the wearer facing surface, the absorbent article 10 comprising:
a liquid pervious topsheet 53,
a liquid impermeable backsheet 57 (paragraph 0033; Figure 4),
an absorbent core 55 comprising an absorbent material (paragraph 0033), the absorbent core 55 being disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (Figure 4; paragraph 0033), and
an outer cover 37,38 (Figure 2) forming at least part of the garment-facing surface (paragraph 0058) , the outer cover 37 comprising a three-dimensional substrate (Figures 5, 7, and 10; paragraph 0024),
wherein the three-dimensional substrate comprises a first layer 30, 31 (Otsubo para. 0026) a second layer 32, 33 and a plurality of protrusions 64 (paragraph 0039) where the first layer 30,31 is unbonded to the second layer 32, 33;
wherein the outer cover 30,32 is joined to the backsheet 57, via connection with intermediate sheet 34 (Figure 4; paragraph 0032) such that the first layer forms 30, 31 at least part of the garment-facing surface (Figure 4)
Otsubo teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Otsubo does not teach the three-dimensional substrate comprises a plurality of apertures in at least one of the first layer and the second layer. Roe teaches a patterned apertured web laminate useful for an outer cover in a disposable absorbent article (Roe paras. 0004, 0150, 0198, 0211). Roe teaches the aperture pattern or patterns in a patterned apertured web used as an outer cover may also provide enhanced breathability in certain regions (e.g. waist, hips) or reduced breathability in areas over an absorbent core, for example. Roe teaches the aperture patterns may also provide enhanced textures and/or signals in certain regions of the outer cover to provide intuitive instruction on how to properly apply the absorbent article (Roe para. 0222). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the outer cover of Otsubo with the patterned apertured web of Roe for the benefits taught in Roe.
Otsubo/Roe teach protrusions 65 (Otsubo Figs. 10 and 11; para. 0049) having a height dimension (measured from the inner sheet 32 (and land areas 20, Figs. 10,11) to the tops of the respective protuberances 65) in a range of about 2.0 to about 3.0 mm (Otsubo para. 0055); and
Otsubo/Roe does not teach the first layer and the second layer form aperture walls, wherein the aperture side walls extend at least 0.1 mm beyond a first surface of the first layer. Yuan teaches a three-dimensional substrate 400 that can be used as a topsheet or outer cover material (Yuan para. 0128). Yuan teaches the substrate 400 comprises protrusions 416 and recesses 414 that may define an aperture 422 (Yuan para. 0144) in at least one of the first layer and the second layer (Yuan Fig. 25/ paras. 0128, 0144-0145) to permit some fluid or vapor transfer (Yuan para. 0128). Yuan further teaches the majority of the recesses has a z-directional height in the range of about 500 um to about 4000 um (0.5 to 4 mm)(Yuan paras. 0008 and 0156). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the three-dimensional substrate of Otsubo/Roe with the recess height taught in Yuan since Yuan is from the same field of endeavor and solves the same problem of providing a three-dimensional substrate outer cover for an absorbent article.
Yuan teaches a first roll 504 and second roll may create the apertures 422 and the recesses 414 in the substrate 400. The first roll 504 and second roll 506 may have different size, shape, height, area, width and/or dimension of the protrusions and recesses. Yuan teaches the roll may comprise a plurality of conically-shaped and/or dome-shaped protrusions and recesses – both of which provide a tapered shape as broadly as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a tapered shaped aperture since Yuan teaches various shapes and dimensions are possible. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the article of Otsubo/Roe/Yuan a tapered shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component, which DiPalma teaches is acceptable. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Otsubo teaches the three-dimensional substrate comprises land areas 20 between adjacent protrusions 65, wherein the first layer 30 and the second layer 32 are intermittently bonded to form the land areas 20, and wherein the land areas 20 completely surround the protrusions 65 (Figs 5, 7, and 8; paras. 0048-0049, 0054).
As to claim 22, Otsubo/Roe/Yuan teach the protrusions 416 comprise a width of from about 0.5 mm to about 15 mm – where Yuan teaches the protrusions (projections) 416 may have a widest cross-sectional diameter, taken in a direction parallel to the lateral axis of the absorbent article, in the range of about 1, to about 15mm and a widest cross-sectional diameter, taken in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the absorbent article, in the range of about 1 mm to about 15 mm (paras. 0165-0166). These ranges coincide with the claimed range.
As to claim 23, Otsubo/Roe/Yuan teach the apertures comprise a size of from about 0.2mm2 to about 4 mm2 where Roe teaches the patterned apertured web has apertures comprising a size of 0.3 mm2 to about 15 mm2 (Roe para. 0006), which has values in the claimed range. Additionally, Yuan teaches the apertures in the three-dimensional substrate may have an effect aperture area in the range of about 0.4 mm2 to about 10 mm2 (Yuan para. 0159), which meets the range limitation.
As to claim 24, Otsubo/Roe/Yuan teaches the smallest distance between the apertures comprises at least 0.3mm – where Roe teaches the patterned apertured web comprises a plurality of land areas in the pattern apertured web, at least some of the land areas surrounding at least some of the apertures. Roe teaches the distance between apertures ranges from about 1mm to about 10 mm (Roe para. 0250). Roe teaches the aperture pattern or patterns in a patterned apertured web used as an outer cover may also provide enhanced breathability in certain regions (e.g. waist, hips) or reduced breathability in areas over an absorbent core, for example. Roe teaches the aperture patterns may also provide enhanced textures and/or signals in certain regions of the outer cover to provide intuitive instruction on how to properly apply the absorbent article (Roe para. 0222).
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 JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights