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, see p. 7, filed 04FEB2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04FEB2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of new grounds of rejection prompted by Applicant’s amendment to claims. The amended structure includes a grasp tab on the front ears which is not taught by Magee as previously cited. The amended claims similarly include further structure not previously taught by Magee, to include channels in the absorbent core, a cover material, and requirements related to the bio-based content of the article. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20070032773 A1 (Magee et al.) in view of US 20100312207 A1 (Rezai et al.) and US 20200375816 A1 (McCormick et al.).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04FEB2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of new grounds of rejection prompted by Applicant’s amendment to claims. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20070032773 A1 (Magee et al.) in view of US 20070032773 A1 (Magee et al.) in view of US 20140121628 A1 (Dobrin et al.) and US 20130310797 A1 (Zink et al.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070032773 A1 (Magee et al.) in view of US 20100312207 A1 (Rezai et al.) and US 20200375816 A1 (McCormick et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Magee teaches an absorbent article (20) (Fig. 19) comprising:
a front waist region (10);
a back waist region (12);
a chassis (the main body of the device as shown in Fig. 1 and described in [0061]) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (24) [0061];
a liquid impermeable backsheet (26) [0061]; and
an absorbent core (28) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet [0061];
the absorbent core comprising an absorbent material [0063];
wherein the chassis further comprises a first chassis side region and a laterally opposing second chassis side region (14 indicating the side edges representing said first and second regions) (Fig. 19);
a pair of back ears (30) in the back waist region, wherein the pair of back ears comprise a back ear pattern (hooks forming a pattern [0093], or in the alternative, indicia 70 extending along the back ears [0078]); and
a pair of front ears (40) in the front waist region, wherein the pair of front ears extend laterally outward from the first chassis side region and the second chassis side region (as seen in Fig. 19);
wherein the front ears comprise a pattern (loops forming a pattern [0093], or in the alternative, indicia 70 extending along the front ears [0078]), and wherein the pattern of the front ears comprises three-dimensional features (loops) or visually distinguishable zones (indicia 70 forming zones related device fit [0078]); and
wherein the pattern of the front ears coordinates visually or texturally with the back ear pattern such that the pattern of the front ears has a same shape and a same design as the back ear pattern (as the pattern is maintained on the fabric which makes up the front and back ears, or hook and loop coordinating texturally); and
wherein the front ears and back ears are discrete components attached to the chassis (the front and back ears being separate members attached to the chassis [0066 and 0067]); and
wherein at least a portion of the back ears comprise elastic material [0066].
Magee fails to teach the front ears comprise a grasp tab region, wherein the pattern does not cover the grasp tab region, wherein the absorbent core comprises channels, wherein the absorbent article comprises a cover material, wherein the cover material comprises a basis weight of from about 15 gsm to about 50 gsm; and wherein the absorbent article comprises a bio-based content value from about 10% to about 100%.
Rezai teaches ears (265) (Fig. 3) for an absorbent article (Abstract) wherein a grasp tab (270) affixed to the ear by a support member (280) in order to allow the user to grasp or manipulate the tab [0049].
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 grasp tab of Magee with the support member and grasp tab of Rezai in order to improve the ability of the user of grasp and manipulate the ear [Rezai 0049].
As the support member of the combined device is a separate element formed from another material such as a film [0059], the pattern would not be present on the grasp tab portion of the front ear and is therefore considered to fulfill the requirements of Claim 1 of a grasp tab wherein the pattern does not cover the grasp tab region.
McCormick teaches an absorbent article (100) (Fig. 1A) comprising a cover material [0062]; wherein the cover material comprises a basis weight of from about 15 gsm to about 50 gsm (a first layer being 5-15 gsm and a second being 10-25 gsm [0062]), in order to provide an improved outer surface for a caregiver [McCormick 0062]. McCormick further teaches the use of a bio-based content value from about 10% to about 100%, teaching a plurality of components having content values in the claimed range in order to accommodate users which prefer environmentally friendly products [0010, 0011].
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 article of Magee in view of Rezai with the outer cover of McCormick to provide an improved surface for the caregiver, thereby improving the interaction with the device while holding the wearer [McCormick 0060]. It would be similarly obvious to incorporate the bio-based content of McCormick to accommodate users which prefer environmentally friendly products [McCormick 0010].
Regarding Claim 2, Magee further teaches the pattern comprises the three- dimensional features comprising two or more projections (hook and loop comprising a plurality of projections [0065]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined device as suggested by the prior art teaches the pattern of the front ears comprises three-dimensional features (loops), as set forth in Claim 1 (see rejections above).
Regarding Claims 10-12, 14, and 15, the combined device as suggested by the prior art teaches visually distinguishable zones (indicia 70 forming zones related device fit [0078]), as previously cited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having first color and second regions having a second, different color ([0069] teaching variation of color along the length of the pattern forming the zone) and wherein the first and second regions have a same opacity ([0077] teaching specific situations when opacity would be varied, the default opacity being considered to be the same unless otherwise taught).
Regarding Claim 11, Magee [0052] teaches differing textures which is considered to fulfill the requirement of the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first height and second regions having a second, different height in light of the instant specification’s teachings of differing heights as seen in instant Fig. 18.
Regarding Claim 12, Magee further teaches the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first size and second regions having a second, different size ([0069] teaching the patterns being a series of images or shapes, this allowing for these shapes to be interpreted individually or as groups to comprise a plurality of regions having different sizes).
Regarding Claim 14, Magee further teaches the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first color and second regions having a second, different color ([0069] teaching variation of color along the length of the pattern forming the zone).
Regarding Claim 15, Magee is considered to teach the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first color intensity and second regions having a second, different intensity by teaching variation of a color from light to dark [0069] (this being considered to address color intensity, as hue is specifically addressed).
Regarding Claim 17, Magee further teaches the pattern of the front ears is free of printing as hook and loop are not printed, as well as teaching the indicia (70) may be texture [0052].
Regarding Claim 18, Magee further teaches the absorbent article (20) is a taped diaper, the front (40) and back (30) ears being considered to create a “taped diaper”.
Regarding Claim 19, Magee further teaches the back ears (30) comprise ultrasonic bonds [0066].
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick, and further in view of US 20190003080 A1 (Ashraf et al.).
Regarding Claim 3 and 6, Magee fails to teach the pattern comprises the three-dimensional features comprising a discontinuous planar area and a continuous projection area surrounding the discontinuous planar area, and wherein the three-dimensional features form the visually distinguishable zones.
Ashraf teaches an absorbent article (220) (Fig. 28) comprising a pattern [0078], wherein the pattern comprises the three- dimensional features comprising two or more projections (the surfaces at the upper surface 18 projecting from the lower surface 16) (Figs. 3-4), wherein the three-dimensional features comprises a discontinuous planar area (such as 21 shown in Figs. 3-4) and a continuous projection area (20) surrounding the discontinuous planar area, and wherein the three-dimensional features form the visually distinguishable zones (where each row of the design may be considered a visually distinguishable zone in Fig. 3).
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 pattern of Magee to incorporate the three-dimensional patterning of Ashraf as a simple substitution of one means for forming indicia for another, ensuring the functional characteristics are well communicated, as desired by both Magee [0094] and Ashraf [0213].
Regarding Claim 13, Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick fails to teach the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first basis weight and second regions having a second, different basis weight.
Ashraf teaches the visually distinguishable zones (at least 80, 82, and 84) comprise first regions having a first basis weight and second regions having a second, different basis weight [0083] for beneficial aesthetic and functional properties related to fluid acquisition, distribution and/or absorption.
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 visually distinguishable zones of Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick with the differing basis weights taught by Ashraf for beneficial aesthetic and functional properties [Ashraf 0083].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick, and further in view of US 20070142806 A1 (Roe et al.).
Regarding Claim 16, Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick fails to teach the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first sheen and second regions having a second different sheen.
Roe teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1) wherein the visually distinguishable zones (at least 80, 82, and 84) comprise regions having a first sheen and second regions having a second, different sheen [0069], in order to provide visual differences.
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 visually distinguishable zones of Magee in view of Rezai and McCormick with the varying sheen taught by Roe to enhance visual differences between region, Roe teaching that the visual differences between regions being influenced by a plurality of factors, including sheen [Roe 0069].
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070032773 A1 (Magee et al.) in view of US 20140121628 A1 (Dobrin et al.) and US 20130310797 A1 (Zink et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Magee teaches an absorbent article (20) (Fig. 19) comprising:
a front waist region (10);
a back waist region (12);
a liquid permeable topsheet (24) [0061];
a liquid impermeable backsheet (26) [0061]; and
an absorbent core (28) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet [0061];
the absorbent core comprising an absorbent material [0063];
a pair of back ears (30) in the back waist region, wherein the back ears comprise ultrasonic bonds [0066]; and
a pair of front ears (40) in the front waist region, wherein the front ears comprise a nonwoven material [0067];
a landing zone (60) in the front waist region, wherein the landing zone comprises a landing zone pattern ([0078] describing the different indicia which form the landing zone pattern);
wherein the front ears comprise an embossed pattern covering an entire area of the front ears ([0070] describing methods such a corrugating which result in an embossed structure), and wherein the pattern on the front ears comprises three-dimensional features or visually distinguishable zones [0052];
wherein the pattern on the front ears coordinate visually and texturally with the landing zone pattern such that the pattern of the front ears has a same shape and a same design as the landing zone pattern ([0078] describing the use of various indicia on both the front and rear ears which are aligned to ensure proper fit, [0092] describing the use of guidance indicia, [0009] describing the composite indicia formed);
wherein the front ears and back ears are discrete components attached to the chassis (the front and back ears being separate members attached to the chassis [0066 and 0067]); and
wherein at least a portion of the front ears and back ears comprise elastic material [0066].
and wherein the pattern on the front ears is different from a pattern of the liquid permeable topsheet (as seen in Fig. 19);
wherein the front ears comprise a non-white color or tint [0052].
Magee fails to teach the pattern on the front ears comprises raised regions and non-raised regions comprising a wavy line pattern; and wherein the front ears comprise a lower modulus in a first direction compared to a second direction, wherein the first direction is parallel to a central lateral axis and the second direction is parallel to a central longitudinal axis.
Zink teaches an absorbent article (100T) (Fig. 1) wherein the front ears comprise elastic strands [0059, 0079]. As elastic strands will stretch along the strand differently than a direction perpendicular to the length of the strand, this is considered to fulfill the claim requirement of wherein the front ears comprise a lower modulus in a first direction compared to a second direction, wherein the first direction is parallel to a central lateral axis and the second direction is parallel to a central longitudinal axis, in order to improve the fit of the article [Zink 0062]. Zink further teaches a wavy line pattern (formed of two texture zones) [0110] which is considered to teach raised regions and non-raised regions comprising a wavy line pattern to improve appearance and fit [Zink 0003].
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 front ears of Magee with the elastic front ears of Zink to enhance the fit of the article [Zink 0062], as well as incorporating the wavy line pattern of Zink to improve fit and appearance [Zink 0003].
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Magee further teaches the visually distinguishable zones comprise first regions having a first color and second regions having a second, different color ([0069] describing variation of color along the length of the indicia), wherein the first and second regions have a same opacity (opacity being varied at the longitudinal sides [0077]).
Regarding Claim 23, Magee teaches the use of a hook and loop system [0065], which would entail the front and back ears possessing different halves of the system. The back ears may additionally comprise an elastic material [0066]. Magee further teaches that both the front and back ears may either be integral with the chassis, or comprise separate members, the ears being constructed in any suitable configuration [0067]. Magee is therefore considered to teach the front ears and back ears comprise different materials.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magee in view of Dobrin and Zink, and further in view of US 20190125597 A1 (Sauer et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Magee fails to teach the ears comprise an apertured elastic film
Sauer teaches an absorbent article (20) (Fig. 1A) wherein both front and back ears comprise an apertured elastic film (the combination of apertured films and elastomeric films [0051]).
With regard to claim 24, the prior art fails to suggest the use of the claimed materials in the device. However, Sauer discloses an absorbent article that may use an apertured elastic film in the construction of ears. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the film as disclosed by Sauer in the ears of the absorbent article as suggested by the prior art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP § 2144.07.
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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 8 June 2026
Prosecution Insights