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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-15, and 18-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are currently amended.
Claims 8, 12-13, and 16-17 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 06/09/2025 have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument that none of the references disclose an absorbent article having both an upper and a lower acquisition and distribution system (see page 8 of Remarks filed 06/09/2025), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/14/2025 (see pages 4-9), Bianchi teaches an absorbent article with an acquisition and distribution system interposed between the topsheet and absorbent material layer (see Fig. 2 of Bianchi), whereas Anderson teaches an absorbent article with an acquisition and distribution system interposed between the backsheet and absorbent material layer, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a combination or prior art elements would yield a predictable result of having an absorbent article that more readily acquires and distributes a wearer’s exudates. Additionally, Bianchi teaches that a further acquisition layer may be used in addition to the first acquisition layer (see para. [0128]). Therefore Bianchi foresees the addition of extra layers. If the extra layers can provide additional advantages, then one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the additional layer, since Bianchi specifically teaches that additional layers may be beneficial.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 6-7, 9-10, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/0211358 A1) in view of Mody (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0191118 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kikkawa teaches: An absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising
- a topsheet (see topsheet 2 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), a backsheet (see backsheet 3 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), and a layer of absorbent material interposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (see absorbent member 4 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), wherein the layer of absorbent material comprises superabsorbent polymer (see absorbent core 40 in para. [0025] and Fig. 2);
- an upper acquisition and distribution system with at least one layer (see upper core wrap sheet 45 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2), the upper acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the topsheet (as shown in Fig. 2, upper core wrap sheet 45 is between the topsheet 2 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4);
- a lower acquisition and distribution system (see lower core wrap sheet 46 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2) with at least one nonwoven or woven layer (see para. [0034]), the lower acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the backsheet (as shown in Fig. 2, lower core wrap sheet 46 is between the backsheet 3 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4).
Additionally, while Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper acquisition and distribution system has a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm, as required by the claim, Kikkawa teaches that the basis weight of the upper core wrap sheet 45 is in the range of 13-30 gsm (see para. [0032]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to make the upper acquisition and distribution system have a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm at least since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, Kikkawa teaches wherein a caliper of the lower acquisition and distribution system is 0.05-0.5 mm, as measured at 0.85kPa pressure according to the Caliper Measurement Method (see at least para. [0031]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to make the caliper of the lower acquisition and distribution system 0.3-4 mm at least since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05(I).
However, Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach a wetness indicator composition comprising a stabilizer, a colorant, and a matrix, that the wetness indicator is in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet, that the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s, or that the absorbent article has an acquisition time of less than 120 seconds, as required by the claim.
Mody teaches an analogous absorbent article (see at least Fig. 9) comprising a wetness indicator which can be used in diapers such as in direct contact with an inner surface of a backsheet (see para. [0004]), comprising:
a wetness indicator composition (see for example Abstract) comprising a stabilizer (see fluid regulating additive in para. [0011 and 0023]), a colorant (see pH indicator in para. [0011 and 0023]), and a matrix (see polymer layer in para. [0017-0018]); and
wherein the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s (see para. [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to incorporate the teachings of Mody by including a wetness indicator composition in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet at least because Mody teaches that wetness indicators are frequently used in connection with disposable diapers (see para. [0004]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that a visible indicia of absorbent article wetness is beneficial, as taught by Mody (see para. [0005]).
Since Kikkawa in view of Mody teach an absorbent article having each and every claimed structural limitation as in claim 1, the combined device of Kikkawa and Mody will also necessarily function in the same manner as the claimed dev ice. Specifically, the combined device of Kikkawa and Mody will have an acquisition time of less than 120 seconds at least because it has been held that “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 6, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Mody teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution system is hydrophobic (see para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Mody teaches wherein the colorant is a pH indicator (see pH indicator in para. [0011 and 0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Mody teaches wherein the nonwoven comprised by the lower acquisition and distribution system is a nonwoven web comprising an air-through bonded nonwoven made of staple fibers, a spunlace nonwoven made of staple fibers, or an air-through bonded nonwoven made of spunlaid fibers and a spunlace nonwoven made of spunlaid fibers (see para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Kikkawa teaches: An absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising
- a topsheet (see topsheet 2 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), a backsheet (see backsheet 3 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), and a layer of absorbent material interposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (see absorbent member 4 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), wherein the layer of absorbent material comprises superabsorbent polymer (see absorbent core 40 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2);
- an upper acquisition and distribution system with at least one layer (see upper core wrap sheet 45 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2), the upper acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the topsheet (as shown in Fig. 2, upper core wrap sheet 45 is between the topsheet 2 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4);
- a lower acquisition and distribution system (see lower core wrap sheet 46 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2) with at least one nonwoven or woven layer (see para. [0034]), the lower acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the backsheet as shown in Fig. 2, lower core wrap sheet 46 is between the backsheet 3 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4).
Additionally, while Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper acquisition and distribution system has a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm, as required by the claim, Kikkawa teaches that the basis weight of the upper core wrap sheet 45 is in the range of 13-30 gsm (see para. [0032]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to make the upper acquisition and distribution system have a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm at least since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, Kikkawa teaches wherein a caliper of the lower acquisition and distribution system is 0.05-0.5 mm, as measured at 0.85kPa pressure according to the Caliper Measurement Method (see at least para. [0031]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to make the caliper of the lower acquisition and distribution system 0.3-4 mm at least since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05(I).
However, Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach a wetness indicator composition comprising a stabilizer, a colorant, and a matrix, that the wetness indicator is in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet, that the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s, that the wetness indicator composition has a Color Shift of less than 2.0, or that the absorbent article has an acquisition time of less than 120 seconds, as required by the claim.
Mody teaches an analogous absorbent article (see at least Fig. 9) comprising a wetness indicator which can be used in diapers such as in direct contact with an inner surface of a backsheet (see para. [0004]), comprising:
a wetness indicator composition (see for example Abstract) comprising a stabilizer (see fluid regulating additive in para. [0011 and 0023]), a colorant (see pH indicator in para. [0011 and 0023]), and a matrix (see polymer layer in para. [0017-0018]); and
wherein the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s (see para. [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to incorporate the teachings of Mody by including a wetness indicator composition in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet at least because Mody teaches that wetness indicators are frequently used in connection with disposable diapers (see para. [0004]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that a visible indicia of absorbent article wetness is beneficial, as taught by Mody (see para. [0005]).
Since Kikkawa in view of Mody teach an absorbent article having each and every claimed structural limitation as in claim 10, the combined device of Kikkawa and Mody will also necessarily function in the same manner as the claimed dev ice. Specifically, the combined device of Kikkawa and Mody will have a Color Shift of the wetness indicator composition of less than 2.0, as measured by the Wetness Indicator Color Shift Test, and an acquisition time of less than 120 seconds at least because it has been held that “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 14, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 10. Additionally, Mody teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution system comprises a hydrophilic agent (see para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Kikkawa teaches: An absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising
- a topsheet (see topsheet 2 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), a backsheet (see backsheet 3 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), and a layer of absorbent material interposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (see absorbent member 4 in para. [0017] and Fig. 2), wherein the layer of absorbent material comprises superabsorbent polymer (see absorbent core 40 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2);
- an upper acquisition and distribution system with at least one layer (see upper core wrap sheet 45 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2), the upper acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the topsheet (as shown in Fig. 2, upper core wrap sheet 45 is between the topsheet 2 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4);
- a lower acquisition and distribution system (see lower core wrap sheet 46 in para. [0023] and Fig. 2) with at least one nonwoven or woven layer (see para. [0034]), the lower acquisition and distribution system being interposed between the layer of absorbent material and the backsheet (as shown in Fig. 2, lower core wrap sheet 46 is between the backsheet 3 and the absorbent core 40, which is part of the absorbent member 4).
Additionally, while Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach wherein the upper acquisition and distribution system has a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm, as required by the claim, Kikkawa teaches that the basis weight of the upper core wrap sheet 45 is in the range of 13-30 gsm (see para. [0032]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to make the upper acquisition and distribution system have a basis weight of 30 gsm to 400 gsm at least since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; see MPEP 2144.05(I).
However, Kikkawa fails to explicitly teach a wetness indicator composition comprising a stabilizer, a colorant, and a matrix, that the wetness indicator is in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet, that the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s, or that the absorbent article has an acquisition time of less than 120 seconds, as required by the claim.
Mody teaches an analogous absorbent article (see at least Fig. 9) comprising a wetness indicator which can be used in diapers such as in direct contact with an inner surface of a backsheet (see para. [0004]), comprising:
a wetness indicator composition (see for example Abstract) comprising a stabilizer (see fluid regulating additive in para. [0011 and 0023]), a colorant (see pH indicator in para. [0011 and 0023]), and a matrix (see polymer layer in para. [0017-0018]); and
wherein the wetness indicator composition has a Trigger Time of from 5 s to 30 s (see para. [0023]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa to incorporate the teachings of Mody by including a wetness indicator composition in direct contact with an inner surface of the backsheet at least because Mody teaches that wetness indicators are frequently used in connection with disposable diapers (see para. [0004]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that a visible indicia of absorbent article wetness is beneficial, as taught by Mody (see para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 19. Additionally, Mody teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution system comprises a hydrophilic agent (see para. [0041]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/02111358 A1) in view of Mody (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0191118 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Klofta (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2011/0137274 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, neither Kikkawa nor Mody explicitly teach wherein the wetness indicator composition has a Color Shift of from about 0.93 to about 2.0, as required by the claim.
It is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the Color Shift test for the wetness indicator composition.
Even though, it is the Examiner's position that "where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)." see MPEP 2112.01 I, prior art references teach these characterizations of determining these properties.
Klofta teaches an absorbent article that includes a backsheet, a wetness indicator composition, and an absorbent core (Abstract). Kofta further teaches an analogous testing method. Para. [0084]-[0089] describe a “Colorant Kinetics Test Method” that is analogous to the “Wetness Indicator Color Shift Test” of the present application; more specifically, para. [0088]-[0089] disclose that the color of the witness indicator is observed and recorded at various time intervals and the color change is measured using a 6-point scale.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the wetness indicator composition of the combined device of Kikkawa in view of Mody, based on the teachings of Klofta, in order to obtain a desirable Color Shift. The Court has 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." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144. Since the general structural elements of the claim are disclosed by Kikkawa in view of Mody, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the wetness indicator composition so that a color change is displayed at a desired time after a wetness event has occurred, regardless of the type of test performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/02111358 A1) in view of Mody (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0191118 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rosati (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2016/0074244 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 14. However, neither Kikkawa nor Mody explicitly teach wherein the hydrophilic agent is a surfactant coating and/or a hydrophilic melt additive, as required by the claim.
Rosati teaches an analogous absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising a tissue layer 17 that is analogous to the claimed lower acquisition and distribution system (see for example para. [0260] describing that the tissue layer 17 may help with the transfer of exudates). Additionally, Rosati teaches wherein the hydrophilic agent is a surfactant coating and/or a hydrophilic melt additive (see para. [0367]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa in view of Mody to incorporate the teaching of Rosati by having the hydrophilic agent be a surfactant coating and/or a hydrophilic melt additive at least in order to increase the hydrophilicity of the acquisition layer, as taught by Rosati (see para. [0191] of Rosati).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/02111358 A1) in view of Mody (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0191118 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bianchi (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0312149 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, neither Kikkawa nor Mody explicitly teach an upper and lower substrate layer, as required by the claim.
Bianchi teaches an analogous absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising a layer of absorbent material (28 in Fig. 2) partly or fully enclosed by and in direct contact with an upper (see substrate 16 in Fig. 10 and para. [0068]) and a lower substrate layer (see substrate 16’ in Fig. 10 and para. [0068]), and wherein the upper substrate layer is between the layer of absorbent material and the upper acquisition and distribution system (see Fig. 10 and para. [0068]), and the lower substrate layer is between the layer of absorbent material and the lower acquisition and distribution system (Id.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa in view of Mody to incorporate the teachings of Bianchi by including an upper and a lower substrate layers at least in order for the absorbent material to be better received by depositing half the absorbent substrate on each substrate before combining to form a core wrap, as taught by Bianchi (see para. [0088]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/02111358 A1) in view of Mody (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2004/0191118 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finch (U.S. Patent No. 5,810,798 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kikkawa in view of Mody teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, neither Kikkawa nor Mody explicitly teach:
wherein the absorbent article has a first zone corresponding to 800 pm starting from and including the topsheet and extending towards the backsheet, and a second zone corresponding to 800 pm starting from and including the backsheet (26) extending towards the topsheet (24);
wherein the absorbent article has a total amount of liquid of less than 80 pl in the second zone, upon being subjected to the NMR MOUSE Method, determining and adding up the amount of liquid in three defined locations.
It is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the NMR MOUSE Method to determine the total amount of liquid.
Even though, it is the Examiner's position that "where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)." see MPEP 2112.01 I, prior art references teach these characterizations of determining these properties.
Finch teaches an analogous absorbent article having an absorbent core (Abstract). Finch further teaches that the absorbent article can have a thickness of less than about 5 millimeters (see claim 17). Therefore, the absorbent article of Finch can have a first zone extending from the bodyside cover 12 towards a backside cover and a second zone extending from the backside cover towards the bodyside cover 12, the first and second zone extending within the claimed distance due to the absorbent article having a total thickness that is larger than the claimed first and second zone thicknesses.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Kikkawa in view of Mody to combine the teaching of Finch by including a first and second zone that extend a distance into the absorbent article since Finch expressly teaches a total thickness of the absorbent article that is larger than the claimed thicknesses of the first and second zones (see claim 17) as it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones in order to achieve the predictable result of being most absorbent in the area that directly takes in fluid. "[W]here 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." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144. In this instant, since the general structural elements of the claim are disclosed by Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones depending on a wearer’s needs and a volume of bodily exudates released by the wearer, regardless of the type of test performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch teach the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, none of Kikkawa, Mody, nor Finch explicitly teach explicitly teach wherein the amount of liquid at a loading point in the second zone as measured by the NMR MOUSE Method, is not more than 50 µl, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones in order to achieve the predictable result of being most absorbent in the area that directly takes in fluid. "[W]here 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." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144. In this instant, since the general structural elements of the claim are disclosed by Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones depending on a wearer’s needs and a volume of bodily exudates released by the wearer, regardless of the type of test performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch teach the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, none of Kikkawa, Mody, nor Finch explicitly teach explicitly teach wherein the absorbent article has a total amount of liquid of less than 90 pl in the first zone upon being subjected to the NMR MOUSE Method, determining and adding up the amount of liquid in three defined locations, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones in order to achieve the predictable result of being most absorbent in the area that directly takes in fluid. "[W]here 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." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144. In this instant, since the general structural elements of the claim are disclosed by Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones depending on a wearer’s needs and a volume of bodily exudates released by the wearer, regardless of the type of test performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch teach the invention as discussed above in claim 3. However, none of Kikkawa, Mody, nor Finch explicitly teach explicitly teach that the amount of liquid at the loading point in the first zone as measured by the NMR MOUSE method, is not more than 50pl, as required by the claim.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones in order to achieve the predictable result of being most absorbent in the area that directly takes in fluid. "[W]here 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." In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also MPEP 2144. In this instant, since the general structural elements of the claim are disclosed by Kikkawa in view of Mody, and further in view of Finch, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the volumetric capacity of the absorbent article’s various zones depending on a wearer’s needs and a volume of bodily exudates released by the wearer, regardless of the type of test performed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781