DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Note: This office action is in response to communication filed on 12/16/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending in the application.
Applicant withdrawn claims 6-7 in the reply filed on 04/15/2024.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 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 Schneider (US PGPUB 20200085637) discloses the newly added/argued limitations.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant’s argument(s) is/are found persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, “the third plurality of apertured protuberances are formed by applying a vacuum to the top surface, and the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures are formed by applying a vacuum to the bottom surface” should read -- the [[third apertured protuberances are formed by applying a vacuum to the top surface, and the [[first apertures and the [[second apertures are formed by applying a vacuum to the bottom surface --.
Claim 12, “the third plurality of apertured protuberances are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the bottom surface, and the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the top surface” should read -- the [[third apertured protuberances are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the bottom surface, and the [[first apertures and the [[second apertures are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the top surface --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US PGPUB 20200085637) in view of Cree (US PGPUB 20040161586) and Maschino (US PGPUB 20180256414).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses a formed film (a patterned apertured substrate 300: ¶0044, 0102; and Fig. 5), comprising:
a plurality of ridges extending generally in a machine direction (Fig. 17), the plurality of ridges forming a repeating pattern of peaks and valleys (see annotated Fig. 17 below) and comprising a first ridge, a second ridge, and a third ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below), wherein the first ridge is disposed between the second ridge and the third ridge (the first ridge is disposed between the second ridge and the third ridge: see annotated Fig. 17 below), wherein a peak of the first ridge coincides with a valley of the second ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below), wherein a valley of the first ridge coincides with a peak of the third ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below), and wherein a peak of the second ridge coincides with the peak of the third ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below) to form a continuous network of tunnels beneath the plurality of wavy ridges (Fig. 17);
a plurality of first gathering pockets in between the first ridge and the second ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below), the first gathering pockets having a first apertured bottom surface offset from top surfaces of the plurality of ridges in a z-direction (heart shapes 310 comprising apertures: ¶0103 and Fig. 17);
a plurality of second gathering pockets in between the first ridge and the third ridge (see annotated Fig. 17 below), the second gathering pockets having a second apertured bottom surface offset from the top surfaces of the plurality of ridges in the z-direction (heart shapes 310 comprising apertures: ¶0103 and Fig. 17),
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 (Fig. 17: diamond shape pockets having a length greater than a width);
a plurality of first apertures disposed in the first apertured bottom (heart shapes 310 comprising apertures: ¶0103 and Fig. 17);
a plurality of second apertures disposed in the second apertured bottom (heart shapes 310 comprising apertures: ¶0103 and Fig. 17).
Schneider does not disclose the plurality of first apertures is arranged in a first pattern with a 15 to 45 mesh and the plurality of second apertures is arranged in a second pattern with a 15 to 45 mesh.
In the same field of endeavor, a film for use in absorbent articles, Cree discloses a film material 10 comprising apertures (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 apertures 16 arranged uniformly across the surface of the film (¶0020 and Fig. 2) and are arranged in a 30 to 100 mesh pattern (¶0020: the taught mesh pattern range overlaps the claimed mesh pattern range) for the benefit(s) 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 Schneider in view Cree by having the first and second apertures arranged in first and second patterns with a mesh count as claimed, 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).
Schneider/Cree does not disclose a plurality of third apertured protuberances disposed in the first apertured bottom, in the second apertured bottom, and on the plurality of wavy ridges; and the plurality of third apertured protuberances are arranged in a third pattern with a 40 to 120 mesh; and the third pattern differs from the first pattern and the second pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent web/film, Maschino discloses a formed film layer comprising a plurality of apertured protuberances (Abstract and ¶0022). Maschino further discloses the plurality of apertured protuberances having a mesh count of at least 35 (¶0055; thus, the taught mesh count range overlaps the claimed mesh count range). In addition, Maschino discloses formed film aperture patterns are well known in the formed film art and the apertured protuberances having mesh count of 30 or less may lose sensation of softness and may not respond well to activation to improve tactile properties (¶0051 and 0054).
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 Schneider/Cree in view of Maschino by incorporating a plurality of third apertured protuberances in the first apertured bottom, in the second apertured bottom, and on the plurality of wavy ridges and having the third apertured protuberances arranged in a third pattern with a mesh count as claimed, in order to improve softness and tactile properties of the formed film, as suggested in ¶0051 and 0054 of Maschino and 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)). Thus, the third pattern of Schneider/Cree/Maschino differs from the first pattern and the second pattern because the first/second patterns and the third pattern have different mesh counts.
Schneider/Cree/Maschino discloses the claimed invention, except for wavy ridges.
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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino by making the plurality of ridges into a plurality of wavy ridges, motivated by the desires to provide another manufacturing choice for the design of ridges. In the instant case, the formed film of Schneider/Cree/Maschino would not perform differently with the claimed design/pattern. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would try to make the plurality of ridges into a plurality of wavy ridges 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 plurality of wavy ridges within Applicant’s published application (The wavy ridges are not disclosed in Applicant’s specification as having any unique advantages).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
1066
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Schneider/Cree/Maschino discloses the claimed invention except for the square or 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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino by changing the shape of the first apertured bottom and the second apertured bottom to square or teardrop shape, motivated by the desires to provide another manufacturing choice for the design of 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 (¶0029) and each aperture is generally shaped as a teardrop (¶0040).
Regarding claim 4, Schneider/Cree/Maschino does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances are arranged in an 80 mesh pattern.
Maschino further discloses the plurality of apertured protuberances having a mesh count of at least 35 (¶0055; thus, the taught mesh count range overlaps the claimed mesh count range). In addition, Maschino discloses formed film aperture patterns are well known in the formed film art and the apertured protuberances having mesh count of 30 or less may lose sensation of softness and may not respond well to activation to improve tactile properties (¶0051 and 0054).
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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino in view of Maschino by having the third apertured protuberances arranged in an 80 mesh pattern, in order to improve softness and tactile properties of the formed film, as suggested in ¶0051 and 0054 of Maschino 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, Schneider/Cree/Maschino does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances are arranged in an 100 mesh pattern.
Maschino further discloses the plurality of apertured protuberances having a mesh count of at least 35 (¶0055; thus, the taught mesh count range overlaps the claimed mesh count range). In addition, Maschino discloses formed film aperture patterns are well known in the formed film art and the apertured protuberances having mesh count of 30 or less may lose sensation of softness and may not respond well to activation to improve tactile properties (¶0051 and 0054).
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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino in view of Maschino by having the third apertured protuberances arranged in an 100 mesh pattern, in order to improve softness and tactile properties of the formed film, as suggested in ¶0051 and 0054 of Maschino 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 8, Schneider further discloses 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 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Schneider/Cree/Maschino 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.
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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino by having 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, motivated by the desires to provide another manufacturing choice for the design of ridges, and as it has been held that scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A)).
In addition, there was no evidence of the criticality of having the claimed ratio within Applicant’s published application (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 is in a range of about 2 to about 5” are not disclosed in Applicant’s specification as having any unique advantages).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider/Cree/Maschino further discloses the plurality of third apertured protuberances are micro apertured protuberances (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Schneider further discloses the film has a user-facing side (Fig. 17).
The plurality of third apertured protuberances of Schneider/Cree/Maschino are disposed on a top surface or a user-facing side of the formed film (see rejection of claim 1 above); thus, the plurality of plurality of third apertured protuberances of Schneider/Cree/Maschino are oriented upward toward a user to contact a skin of the user.
Regarding claim 11, Schneider further discloses the formed film has a top surface and a bottom surface (Fig. 17).
Schneider does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances are formed by applying a vacuum to the top surface, and the plurality of first apertures and the plurality of second apertures are formed by applying a vacuum to the bottom surface.
Maschino further discloses the apertured protuberances are formed by applying a vacuum to a bottom surface (plurality of apertured protuberances 312 are formed by applying a vacuum forming cylinder to a bottom surface of a web 300: ¶0026, 0065, Claim 22, and Fig. 3) for the benefit of providing the formed film with apertured protuberances to create a soft and lightweight formed film (¶0084).
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 Schneider/Cree/Maschino in view of Maschino by applying a vacuum to the top surface to form the plurality of third apertured protuberances, in order to provide the formed film with apertures to create a soft and lightweight formed film, as suggested in ¶0084 of Maschino.
Cree further discloses the apertures are formed by applying a vacuum to the top surface (¶0020) for the benefit of providing the formed film having apertures to increase an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties, as suggested in ¶0020 of Cree.
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 Schneider/Maschino/Cree in view of Cree by applying a vacuum to the bottom surface to form the first plurality of apertures and the second plurality of apertures, in order to provide the formed film having apertures to increase an effect on tactile response as well as fluid handling properties, as suggested in ¶0020 of Cree.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US PGPUB 20200085637) in view of Cree (US PGPUB 20040161586) and Maschino’414 (US PGPUB 20180256414), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maschino’826 (US PGPUB 20180044826).
Regarding claim 12, Schneider further discloses the formed film has a top surface and a bottom surface (Fig. 17).
Schneider does not disclose the plurality of third apertured protuberances are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the bottom surface, and the plurality of first apertures and the plurality of second apertures are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the top surface.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent web/film, Maschino’826 discloses applying a pressurized liquid jet onto an outer surface of a web to form a pattern of apertures (Abstract and ¶0016) for the benefit of making a hydroformed composite material with high loft for softness and high air permeability for coolness, and rapid fluid acquisition (¶0028 and 0088).
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 Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree in view of Maschino’826 by applying a pressurized liquid jet onto an outer surface of a web to form apertures, in order to provide the formed film with high loft for softness and high air permeability for coolness, and rapid fluid acquisition, as suggested in ¶0028 and 0088 of Maschino’826. Thus, the plurality of third apertured protuberances of Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree/Maschino’826 are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the bottom surface, and the plurality of first apertures and the plurality of second apertures of Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree/Maschino’826 are formed by applying a pressurized liquid to the top surface.
Regarding claim 13, Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree does not disclose the pressurized liquid has a pressure from about 200 psi to about 800 psi.
Maschino’826 further discloses the pressurized liquid has a pressure from about 200 psi to about 800 psi (¶0054: the taught pressure range is the same as the claimed pressure range).
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 Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree in view of Maschino’826 by applying pressurized liquid having a pressure from about 200 psi to about 800 psi, in order to make the formed film with apertures and providing the formed film with high loft for softness and high air permeability for coolness, and rapid fluid acquisition, as suggested in ¶0028 and 0088 of Maschino’826.
Regarding claim 14, Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree does not disclose the pressurized liquid has a pressure from about 400 psi to about 800 psi.
Maschino’826 further discloses the pressurized liquid has a pressure from about 400 psi to about 800 psi (¶0054: the taught pressure range is the same as the claimed pressure range).
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 Schneider/Maschino’414/Cree in view of Maschino’826 by applying pressurized liquid having a pressure from about 400 psi to about 800 psi, in order to make the formed film with apertures and providing the formed film with high loft for softness and high air permeability for coolness, and rapid fluid acquisition, as suggested in ¶0028 and 0088 of Maschino’826.
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 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
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights