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 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that varying individual values within a set of values does not necessitate a median value that is different from a mean value, it is noted that the example given by Applicant is very simplistic and not applicable to the complex pattern disclosed by Lee. It is further noted that the present specification does not disclose any advantage to the median being different than the mean, nor does it even disclose whether the median should be larger or smaller than the mean, or by how much. Therefore, there is no criticality to the limitation that the median value is different than the mean value.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2014/0324009) in view of Desai et al. (2003/0021951).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a hydroentangled patterned apertured web, as disclosed in paragraph [0058], comprising a plurality of land areas 20 in the patterned apertured web and a plurality of apertures 32, 42 surrounded by the land areas, as shown in figure 6A. The plurality of apertures comprise a first set 30 of apertures 32 defining a first shape and a second set 40 of apertures 42 defining a second shape that is different than the firs shape, as shown in figure 6A. Land area 20 separates the first shape from the second shape, as shown in the non-shaded portions of figure 6A. The patterned apertured web comprises spunbond polypropylene fibers, as disclosed in paragraph [0058]. The patterned apertured web comprises a portion of a topsheet of an absorbent article, as shown in figure 3.
With respect to the web having a plurality of Interaperture Distances according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test and having a distribution having a median and a mean, it is noted that any distribution of apertures will inherently have distances between them that can be measured and a median and mean calculated. Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the median differing from the mean. Lee shows in figure 6A that the interaperture distances vary within the pattern of apertures, and discloses in paragraph [0070] that the spacing between apertures within an array can be varied in any direction. 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 for the interaperture distances of Lee to have a median that is different than the mean to achieve the predictable result of distances between apertures that are varied to produce the pattern desired by Lee.
Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the web having an Effective Open Area in the range of about 8-35% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0083] that the web has an open area in the range of 2-20%, and in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 web of Lee with an Effective Open Area in the range of about 8-35% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 2, the first shape 30 is positioned within the second shape 40, as shown in figure 6A of Lee.
With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the web having an Effective Open Area in the range of about 10-30%, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0083] that the web has an open area in the range of 2-20%. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 web of Lee with an Effective Open Area in the range of about 10-30% since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 4, Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-8 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 at least some of the apertures of Lee with an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-8 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 5, Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-5 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 at least some of the apertures of Lee with an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-5 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 6, the first shape 30 of Lee defines a concavity, as shown in figure 6A.
With respect to claim 7, Lee discloses in paragraph [0089] that the first set (i.e. array) of apertures can have an organic, curving shape, but does not explicitly disclose the first shape is a heart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first shape of Lee a heart since choosing an organic, curving shape of a heart would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 8, Lee discloses in paragraph [0089] that the second set (i.e. array) of apertures can have a second shape of a diamond.
With respect to claim 9, Lee discloses a diaper, as disclosed in paragraph [0003], comprising the web of claim 1, a backsheet 204, and an absorbent core 206, as shown in figure 2. Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a pair of leg cuffs. Leg cuffs are well-known in the absorbent article art to prevent leakage. 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 diaper of Lee with leg cuffs to achieve the predictable result of preventing leakage around the legs of the wearer.
With respect to claim 10, indicia to indicate the orientation of a diaper is not a new or nonobvious functional relationship with the diaper, and therefore does not distinguish the claimed pattern of apertures over the prior art.
With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses a hydroentangled patterned apertured web, as disclosed in paragraph [0058], comprising a plurality of land areas 20 in the patterned apertured web and a plurality of apertures 32, 42 surrounded by the land areas, as shown in figure 6A. The plurality of apertures are non-homogeneous in a repeat until such that at least two apertures 32 and 42 have a different size and shape, as shown in figures 6B and 6C. The plurality of apertures comprise a first set 30 of apertures 32 defining a first shape and a second set 40 of apertures 42 defining a second shape that surrounds the first shape, as shown in figure 6A. Land area 20 separates the first shape from the second shape, as shown in the non-shaded portions of figure 6A.
With respect to the web having a plurality of Interaperture Distances according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test and having a distribution having a median and a mean, it is noted that any distribution of apertures will inherently have distances between them that can be measured and a median and mean calculated. Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the median differing from the mean. Lee shows in figure 6A that the interaperture distances vary within the pattern of apertures, and discloses in paragraph [0070] that the spacing between apertures within an array can be varied in any direction. 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 for the interaperture distances of Lee to have a median that is different than the mean to achieve the predictable result of distances between apertures that are varied to produce the pattern desired by Lee.
Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the web having an Effective Open Area in the range of about 10-30% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0083] that the web has an open area in the range of 2-20%, and in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 web of Lee with an Effective Open Area in the range of about 10-30% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-8 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 at least some of the apertures of Lee with an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-8 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 13, Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-5 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 at least some of the apertures of Lee with an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 1-5 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 14, the first shape 30 of Lee defines a concavity, as shown in figure 6A.
With respect to claim 15, Lee discloses in paragraph [0089] that the first set (i.e. array) of apertures can have an organic, curving shape, but does not explicitly disclose the first shape is a heart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first shape of Lee a heart since choosing an organic, curving shape of a heart would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses in paragraph [0089] that the second set (i.e. array) of apertures can have a second shape of a diamond.
With respect to claim 17, Lee discloses a hydroentangled patterned apertured web, as disclosed in paragraph [0058], comprising a plurality of land areas 20 in the patterned apertured web and a plurality of apertures 32, 42 surrounded by the land areas, as shown in figure 6A. The plurality of apertures comprise a first set 30 of apertures 32 defining a first shape and a second set 40 of apertures 42 defining a second shape that surrounds the first shape, as shown in figure 6A. Land area 20 separates the first shape from the second shape, as shown in the non-shaded portions of figure 6A. The patterned web comprises spunbond fibers, as disclosed in paragraph [0058].
With respect to the web having a plurality of Interaperture Distances according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test and having a distribution having a median and a mean, it is noted that any distribution of apertures will inherently have distances between them that can be measured and a median and mean calculated. Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the median differing from the mean. Lee shows in figure 6A that the interaperture distances vary within the pattern of apertures, and discloses in paragraph [0070] that the spacing between apertures within an array can be varied in any direction. 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 for the interaperture distances of Lee to have a median that is different than the mean to achieve the predictable result of distances between apertures that are varied to produce the pattern desired by Lee.
Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first shape defining a heart shape. Lee discloses in paragraph [0089] that the second set (i.e. array) of apertures can have a second shape of a diamond. Lee further discloses in paragraph [0089] that the first set (i.e. array) of apertures can have an organic, curving shape, but does not explicitly disclose the first shape is a heart. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first shape of Lee a heart since choosing an organic, curving shape of a heart would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the web having an Effective Open Area in the range of about 8-35% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, according to the Aperture/Feret Angle Test. Lee discloses in paragraph [0083] that the web has an open area in the range of 2-20%, and in paragraph [0086] that at least some apertures have an aperture area. Desai teaches in paragraph [0007] that the open area and aperture area (i.e. hole size) of an apertured web are result-effective variables because the parameters affect the ability of the web to effectively accept viscous body exudates. 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 web of Lee with an Effective Open Area in the range of about 8-35% and at least some apertures having an Effective Aperture Area in the range of about 0.3-14 mm2, since Desai teaches that these are result-effective variables and therefore when the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 18, the spunbond fibers comprise polypropylene, as disclosed in paragraph [0058].
With respect to claim 19, Lee discloses in paragraph [0055] that the web can comprise two layers, and further discloses in paragraph [0058] the use of subjacent spunbond layers.
With respect to claim 20, Lee discloses a diaper, as disclosed in paragraph [0003], comprising the web of claim 1, a backsheet 204, and an absorbent core 206, as shown in figure 2. Lee discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a pair of leg cuffs. Leg cuffs are well-known in the absorbent article art to prevent leakage. 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 diaper of Lee with leg cuffs to achieve the predictable result of preventing leakage around the legs of the wearer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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