DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Note: This office action is in response to communication filed on 10/30/2024.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2024 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are pending in the application.
Applicant withdrawn claims 6-7 in the reply filed on 04/15/2024.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 10/30/2024 have been fully considered, but are moot because the independent claim has been amended and the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new reference Cree (US PGPUB 20040161586) discloses the newly added/argued limitations.
Applicant argues that Splendiani does not disclose “the first and second apertures arranged in a 15 to 45 mesh pattern” because Splendiani does not disclose the mesh for the first and second apertures. This argument is not found persuasive. Splendiani discloses/suggests that the porous or fibrillated structure 59 of the film 50 has a mesh pattern between 40 and 120 mesh (¶0068). Thus, Splendiani further discloses/suggests that the first and second openings 57 of the porous or fibrillated structure 59 has a mesh pattern between 40 and 120 mesh (the taught mesh pattern range overlaps with the claimed mesh pattern range). In addition, a mesh pattern is interpreted as a result-effective variable. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. The mesh pattern affects the appearance and physical strength of the film though routine experimentation. The film also requires physical strength, which is impacted by the density of perforations/apertures/openings. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed film of Splendiani by having the first and second apertures arranged in a 15-45 mesh pattern, motivated by the desires to provide sufficiently small apertures to allow the fluid to pass through the film while not adversely affecting the strength of the film, as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art (See MPEP § 2144.05 (I)), and as it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A & B)).
Applicant argues that Carillo does not cure the deficiencies identifies in Spendiani, but does not provide an argument to explain why Carillo does not teach the claimed limitation. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
With respect to the claim objection(s), applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first apertured bottom surface”, “a second apertured bottom surface”, and “the plurality of wave ridges, the first apertured bottom, and the second apertured bottom, further comprise a plurality of third apertured protuberances” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1 and 8, the limitation “machine direction” has been interpreted below as a longitudinal direction of the absorbent article and the limitation “cross section” has been interpreted below as a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the absorbent article.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Splendiani (US PGPUB 20170312143 – of record) in view of Cree (US PGPUB 20040161586).
Regarding claim 1, Splendiani discloses a formed film (a formed film 50: ¶0073 and Fig. 5A) comprising:
a plurality of wavy ridges (ridges 54: ¶0073 and Figs. 5A-B) extending generally in a machine direction (see annotated Fig. 5B below), the plurality of wavy ridges forming a repeating pattern of peaks and valleys (Fig. 5A) and comprising a first wavy ridge, a second wavy ridge, and a third wavy ridge (see annotated Fig. 5B below), wherein a valley of the first wavy ridge coincides with a peak of the third wavy ridge (see annotated Fig. 5B below) to form a continuous network of tunnels beneath the plurality of wavy ridges (a continuous network of tunnels is defined beneath 1st, 2nd, and 3rd wavey ridges: Figs. 5A-B); and
a plurality of first gathering pockets in between the first wavy ridge and the second wavy ridge (see annotated Fig. 5B below), the first gathering pockets having a first apertured bottom surface (a first set of a plurality of openings 57; wherein the first set of plurality of openings 57 is in porous or fibrillated structure 59 of the film 50: ¶0073 and Fig. 5A) offset from top surfaces of the plurality of wavy ridges in a z-direction (¶0073 and Figs. 5A-B);
a plurality of second gathering pockets in between the first wavy ridge and the third wavy ridge (see annotated Fig. 5B below), the second gathering pockets having a second apertured bottom surface (a second set of plurality of openings 57; wherein the second set of plurality of openings 57 is in porous or fibrillated structure 59 of the film 50: ¶0073 and Fig. 5A) offset from the top surfaces of the plurality of wavy ridges in the z-direction (¶0073 and Figs. 5A-B),
each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets having a length in the machine direction greater than a width in a cross direction, orthogonal to the machine direction (each of the first gathering pockets and each of the second gathering pockets having a length in the machine direction greater than a width in a cross direction: see annotated Fig. 5B below).
Wherein the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom comprise first and second apertures (the first set and second set of plurality of openings 57 comprises first and second openings 57: ¶0073 and see annotated Fig. 5B below).
Splendiani does not disclose a peak of the first wavy ridge coincides with a valley of the second wavy ridge; however, Splendiani discloses a pattern wherein a valley of the first wavy ridge coincides with a peak of the third wavy ridge (Fig. 5A and see annotated Fig. 5B below) and other patterns for the plurality of ridges (Figs. 6A, 8, 9A, and 14). Thus, Splendiani discloses/suggests using different patterns on the valley of wavy ridge and the peak of wavy ridge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the pattern/design of a peak of the first wavy ridge and a valley of the second wavy ridge of Splendiani such that a peak of the first wavy ridge coincides with a valley of the second wavy ridge, in order to providing various designs/patterns for the formed film, as suggested in ¶0109 of Splendiani. In the instant case, the formed film of Splendiani would not perform differently with the claimed design/pattern. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would try to arrange a peak of the first wavy ridge coincides with a valley of the second wavy ridge because of aesthetic or convenient purpose. “A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In addition, there was no evidence of the criticality of having a peak of the first wavy ridge coincides with a valley of the second wavy ridge within Applicant’s specification (The pattern on the valley of wavy ridge and the peak of wavy ridge is not disclosed in Applicant’s specification as having any unique advantages).
Splendiani does not disclose the first and second apertures (the first and second openings 57: ¶0073 and see annotated Fig. 5B below) arranged in a 15-45 mesh pattern; however, Splendiani discloses/suggests that the porous or fibrillated structure 59 of the film 50 has a mesh pattern between 40 and 120 mesh (¶0068). Thus, Splendiani further discloses/suggests that the first and second openings 57 of the porous or fibrillated structure 59 has a mesh pattern between 40 and 120 mesh (the taught mesh pattern range overlaps with the claimed mesh pattern range). In addition, a mesh pattern is interpreted as a result-effective variable. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. The mesh pattern affects the appearance and physical strength of the film though routine experimentation. The film also requires physical strength, which is impacted by the density of perforations/apertures/openings.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed film of Splendiani by having the first and second apertures arranged in a 15-45 mesh pattern, motivated by the desires to provide sufficiently small apertures to allow the fluid to pass through the film while not adversely affecting the strength of the film, as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art (See MPEP § 2144.05 (I)), and as it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A & B)).
Splendiani further discloses the plurality of wavy ridges (ridges 54: ¶0073 and Figs. 5A-B) comprise a plurality of third apertured protuberances (the ridges 54 are defined as raised areas in the formed film 50 and comprising a plurality of micro-apertures: ¶0010, 0068, 0072-0073, claim 2, and Figs. 5A-B; thus, Splendiani discloses the claimed third apertured protuberances) and are arranged in a 40-120 mesh pattern (¶0068), but does not disclose the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom comprise a plurality of third apertured protuberances arranged in a 40-120 mesh pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, a film for use in absorbent articles, Cree discloses a film material 10 comprising apertured protuberances (a micro-texture 16 comprises micro-apertures, micro-ridges, micro-dots, or other micro-textures known in the art: ¶0020 and Fig. 2). Cree further discloses the apertured protuberances 16 arranged uniformly across the surface of the film (¶0020 and Fig. 2) and are arranged in a 30 to 100 mesh pattern (the taught mesh pattern range overlaps the claimed mesh pattern range) for the benefit of increasing an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties (¶0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed film of Splendiani in view Cree by incorporating a plurality of third apertured protuberances in the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom and arranging the third apertured protuberances in a 40-120 mesh pattern, in order to increase an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties, as suggested in ¶0020 of Cree and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Splendiani in the embodiment of Figs. 5A-B does not disclose the first and second apertures have a generally square shape; however, Spendiani in the embodiment of Fig. 9 discloses/suggests the first and second apertures have a generally square shape (the porous or fibrillated structure 98 comprising a plurality of apertures 99 having a generally square shape: ¶0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom of Splendiani in the embodiment of Figs. 5A-B and Cree in view of Splendiani in the embodiment of Fig. 9 by changing the shape of the first and second apertures to a square shape, motivated by the desires to provide another manufacturing choice for the design of the first and second apertures and as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the shape claimed, indicating simply that each aperture has a generally square shape (¶0040).
Regarding claim 3, Splendiani/Cree discloses the claimed invention except for the teardrop shape of the first and second apertures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second apertures of Splendiani/Cree by changing the shape of the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom to a teardrop shape, motivated by the desires to provide another manufacturing choice for the design of the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom and as it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the shape claimed, indicating simply that each opening is generally shaped as a teardrop (¶0040).
Regarding claim 4, Splendiani further discloses the plurality of third apertured protuberances of the plurality of wavy ridges (raised area comprising micro-apertures) are arranged in an 80 mesh pattern (¶0010, 0072-0073, claims 2, and 4), but does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances of the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom are arranged in an 80 mesh pattern.
Cree further discloses the apertured protuberances 16 arranged uniformly across the surface of the film (¶0020 and Fig. 2) and are arranged in a 30 to 100 mesh pattern (the taught mesh pattern range overlaps the claimed mesh pattern range) for the benefit of increasing an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties (¶0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed film of Splendiani in view Cree by arranging the third apertured protuberances in a 80 mesh pattern, in order to increase an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties, as suggested in ¶0020 of Cree and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Splendiani further discloses the plurality of third apertured protuberances of the plurality of wavy ridges (raised area comprising micro-apertures) are arranged in a 100 mesh pattern (¶0010, 0072-0073, claims 2, and 5), but does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances of the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom are arranged in an 100 mesh pattern.
Cree further discloses the apertured protuberances 16 arranged uniformly across the surface of the film (¶0020 and Fig. 2) and are arranged in a 30 to 100 mesh pattern (the taught mesh pattern range overlaps the claimed mesh pattern range) for the benefit of increasing an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties (¶0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed film of Splendiani in view Cree by arranging the third apertured protuberances in a 100 mesh pattern, in order to increase an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties, as suggested in ¶0020 of Cree and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Splendiani (US PGPUB 20170312143 – of record) in view of Cree (US PGPUB 20040161586), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carrillo (US PGPUB 20210388547).
Regarding claim 8, Splendiani/Cree does not disclose a ratio of the length of each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets in the machine direction to the width of each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets in the cross direction is in a range of about 2 to about 5.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, Carrillo discloses a non- woven material 10 having a forming surface 50 (¶0041, 0123, and Figs. 8A-B). Carrillo further discloses the forming surface 50 comprising gathering pockets formed by a plurality of projections 56 (¶0124 and Figs. 8A-B). Carrillo further teaches each of the projections 56 having a length 73 and a width 75 and a ratio of the length 73 to the width 75 of the projection 56 is from 1.3 and 3.25 (¶0137 and Fig. 8B; thus, the taught ratio range overlaps the claimed ratio range) for the benefits of assisting in providing desired tensile strength properties and/or desired necking properties for processability of the materials, while still allowing for a highly-open material and thus achieving beneficial fluid-handling properties (¶0100).
Absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the length and width of each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets of Splendiani/Cree in view Carrillo by having the ratio of the length of each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets in the machine direction to the width of each of the plurality of first gathering pockets and each of the plurality of second gathering pockets in the cross direction as claimed, in order to assist in providing desired tensile strength properties and/or desired necking properties for processability of the materials, while still allowing for a highly-open material and thus achieving beneficial fluid-handling properties, as suggested in ¶0100 of Carrillo and as it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges overlap with ranges disclosed by the prior art (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781