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 23 September 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 38, 45, and 47-49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cook et al. (6,465,379) and Kurata et al. (6,531,642).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 38, 45, and 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (6,723,430; hereinafter “Kurata ‘430”) in view of Cook et al. (6,465,379) and Kurata et al. (6,531,642; hereinafter “Kurata ‘642”).
With respect to claim 38, Kurata ‘430 discloses a water-dispersible sanitary pad, as shown in figure 1 and described in column 1, lines 60-65, including a water-dispersible top layer 10, a water-dispersible absorbent layer 11 comprising two layers 20 and 22 of cellulosic fibers and a layer 21 of superabsorbent polymers between the to layers 20 and 22, and a water-dispersible leakproof layer 12, as shown in figure 3. The two layers 20 and 22 comprise wood pulp or rayon, as disclosed in column 5, lines 3-15, which are cellulosic fibers. The layer of super absorbent polymer comprises a cellulose- or alginate-based material, as disclosed in column 5, lines 28-39.
Kurata ‘430 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the layer of super absorbent polymer being a granular or powder super absorbent polymer material, and a water-dispersible bottom layer comprising a cellulosic nonwoven fabric wherein the leakproof layer is sandwiched between the bottom layer and the absorbent layer.
Cook teaches that super absorbent polymer material in particulate (i.e. granular) form provide an advantage over film super absorbent polymer material when coated with a fibrous layer by reducing gel blocking and liquid pooling, as disclosed in column 1, line 57, to column 2, line 5. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the super absorbent polymer of Kurata ‘430 a granular super absorbent polymer material, as taught by Cook, to reduce gel blocking in the absorbent layer.
Kurata ‘642 discloses a sanitary pad comprising a water-dispersible bottom layer 12 wherein a leakproof layer 13 is sandwiched between the bottom layer 12 and the absorbent layer 11, as shown in figure 2. The bottom layer 12 comprises a spunlaced nonwoven fabric, as disclosed in column 6, lines 45-48, and column 9, lines 14-15. The use of cellulose to form nonwoven fabrics for use in sanitary pads is well-known in the art. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the pad of Kurata ‘430 with a water dispersible bottom layer of the cellulosic spunlace nonwoven fabric wherein the leakproof layer is sandwiched between the bottom layer and absorbent layer, as taught by Kurata ‘642, to achieve the predictable result of a soft outer surface to make the pad feel more comfortable to the user.
With respect to claim 45, the absorbent layer 11 of Kurata ‘430 is smaller than the leakproof layer 12 and the top layer 10 such that the edges of the leakproof layer and top layer extend pas the absorbent layer, as shown in figure 2, and the edges of the leakproof layer and top layer are bonded to form a bonded perimeter 1e, as shown in figure 1 and described in column 3, lines 55-61.
With respect to claim 47, the superabsorbent polymer 21 of Kurata ‘430 is bonded to an adjacent layer 20, as disclosed in column 5, lines 28-31.
With respect to claim 48, the superabsorbent polymer 21 of Kurata ‘430 is bonded to a portion 20 of the absorbent layer 11, as disclosed in column 5, lines 28-31.
With respect to claim 49, the superabsorbent polymer 21 of Kurata ‘430 is bonded via heat sealing or thermal pressure, as disclosed in column 5, lines 40-44, and therefore in the absence of an additional adhesive. It is further noted that the limitation “additional adhesive” can be broadly interpreted to include an adhesive in addition to an existing adhesive. Therefore, the limitation disclosed by Kurata ‘430 in column 5, lines 45-47, wherein the polymer is bonded with an adhesive, also anticipates the claim as presently written.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781