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
As directed by the amendment filed on 3 June 2025: claim(s) 1, 14, and 29 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-3, 6-16, 20-21, and 27-31 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 27, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 20120022485 A1) in view of Sue et al. (US 20080228158 A1) and Hancock-Cooke et al. (US 20090062763 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 7, 27, and 29-31, Roe’485 discloses an absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising:
an absorbent insert ("absorbent insert 50"; [0115]; FIG. 3) comprising a topsheet 51, a backsheet 52, and an absorbent core 71 disposed between the topsheet and backsheet ([0115]; FIG. 5A);
the backsheet 52 comprising a nonwoven joined to a film ("laminate of nonwoven web and substantially liquid impermeable film"; [0126]-[0127]) and a backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength measured in N/cm in an engagement region (NOTE: peel strength measured in N/cm is an inherent physical property for any laminated structure);
an outer cover ("outer cover 20"; [0066]; FIGs. 2B & 3);
a fastening system ("fastener component pairs 57, 32 and 56, 33"; [0066]) configured to joining the absorbent insert 50 to the outer cover 20 ([0066]; FIGs. 2B & 3);
wherein: in an engaged configuration, the article comprises an insert-outer cover peel strength measured in N/cm in the engagement region ([0241]);
wherein the fastening system comprises adhesive ("A fastener component may have the form of a patch or strip, of material bearing adhesive, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or a cohesive material on a garment-facing surface, or otherwise be formed of adhesive, pressure-sensitive adhesive or cohesive material"; [0182]).
Roe’485 fails to specify the fastening system comprises a styrene block copolymer-based adhesive. However, Sue teaches a disposable absorbent article (see Abstract) comprises a styrene block copolymer-based adhesive (“styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer adhesives” & “styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer adhesives”; [0051]-[0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roe’485’s device to incorporate the claimed features to minimize odor and cost ([0051]-[0053]).
Roe’485 fails to specify the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is greater than the insert-outer cover peel strength; the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is at least 20% greater than the insert-outer cover peel strength; an insert-outer cover peel strength is at least 0.02 N/cm; the adhesive exhibits a surface polarity that is a percentage of total surface energy of greater than 0.5% or between 0.5% to 10%, according to the Surface Energy Method; the styrene block copolymer-based adhesive exhibits a tan delta--1 value of between 0.10 to 0.40 when measured over a frequency range of between 0.01Hz and 1 Hz at 37 degrees C in accordance with the Frequency Sweep - Oscillatory Rheometry Test Method and a tan delta--2 value of 2.0 or less over a frequency range of between 50 and 100 Hz at 37 degrees C, when measured in accordance with the Frequency Sweep - Oscillatory Rheometry Test Method. However, Roe‘485 teaches that the relative peel strength and the resistance to disengagement by shear forces may be optimized to “be as easy to remove as possible while still satisfying structural performance requirements” and “to have suitable resistance to disengagement by shear forces between the outer cover and the insert” ([0237]-[0239]). The peel strength, yield stress, and surface polarity are interpreted as result-effective variables, subject to experimentation and testing. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. The peel strength, yield stress, and surface polarity achieve structural integrity through routine experimentation. For example, a higher backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength allows higher resistance to delamination while an optimized insert-outer cover peel strength allows for ease of insert removal from the outer cover without unintended insert delamination.
Roe’485 fails to specify the adhesive exhibits a yield stress of from 25 kPa to 85 kPa, or 25 kPa to 95 kPa, or 25 kPa or greater, when measured at 37 degrees C. However, Hancock-Cooke teaches “various garments that include at least one adhesive member” ([0005]) wherein the adhesive exhibits a yield stress of from 25 kPa to 85 kPa, or 25 kPa to 95 kPa, or 25 kPa or greater, when measured at 37 degrees C ([0091]; 1 kPa ≈ 10.2 gram/cm2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roe’485’s device to incorporate the claimed features to provide sufficient cohesive strength while avoiding residue upon removal ([0084]).
Regarding the Extensional Test Method for Yield Stress, the Surface Energy Method, and the Frequency Sweep - Oscillatory Rheometry Test Method, 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 [in accordance with the Extensional Test Method for Yield Stress/according to the Surface Energy Method/in accordance with the Frequency Sweep - Oscillatory Rheometry Test Method] to read on the claim language.
Further, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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.” See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the device of Roe’485/Sue/Hancock-Cooke to arrive at the claimed properties, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the absorbent insert may be easily removed from the outer cover without causing damage to the outer cover or the insert ([0074] of Roe’485). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A,B). In re Boesch and Slaney, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 3, 8, and 10-13, Roe’485 discloses
the nonwoven is joined to the film by adhesive ([0129]);
the absorbent insert is disposable ("disposable absorbent insert 50"; [0065]);
the absorbent core is substantially free of cellulosic material ("absorbent core constructions that minimize or eliminate the need for and inclusion of airfelt or other forms of cellulose fiber"; [0135]);
the engagement region is at least partially disposed within 5 mm of a first lateral end of the absorbent insert as measured in the longitudinal direction ([0158]);
the engagement region is at least partially coterminous with the first lateral end of the absorbent insert ([0154]);
and the nonwoven and film are joined by a second bonding ([0129]), and wherein the fastening system comprises a first bonding ("affixed to a cloth substrate by various mechanisms, including adhesive bonding, mechanical bonding, ultrasonic bonding, sewing, stitching, serging, edging, and the like"; [0175]), wherein the first bonding differs from the second bonding by at least one of the group consisting of: bonding material, continuous or discontinuous bonding, bond patterns, bond area, bond frequency ("attachment mechanism may include a continuous line or layer of adhesive, a patterned layer of adhesive, or an array of separate lines, spirals, or spots of adhesive"; [0129]).
Regarding Claim 6, Roe’485 fails to specify the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is at least 0.85 N/cm. However, Sue teaches a disposable absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising a backsheet film adhesively joined to a nonwoven wherein the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is at least 0.85 N/cm ("backsheet film adhesively joined to a nonwoven backsheet outer cover … such that an adhesive bond having a Peel Force of … greater than about 0.9 N/cm"; [0063]). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Roe’485’s device to incorporate the claimed features to preserve the integrity of the absorbent article during use ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 31, Roe’485 discloses release paper is disposed flush against the engagement region ("covered by release paper"; [0182]).
Claim(s) 9, 14-16, 20-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. ‘485/Sue/Hancock-Cooke et al. in view of Roe (US 20120022491 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Roe’485/Sue fails to specify the absorbent insert comprises an absorbent capacity of at least 200 g. However, Roe’491 teaches a disposable absorbent insert (see Abstract) wherein the absorbent insert comprises an absorbent capacity of at least 200 g ([0097]-[0098]). Roe’491 selects a suitable range for an absorbent capacity in an absorbent article. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Roe/Sue’s device to incorporate the claimed features to suitably configure “for overnight usage of disposable inserts by infant or toddler wearers” ([0097]).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 21, and 28, Roe’485 discloses an absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising:
an outer cover ("outer cover 20"; [0066]; FIGs. 2B & 3);
an absorbent insert ("absorbent insert 50"; [0115]; FIG. 3) comprising a topsheet 51, a backsheet 52, and an absorbent core 71 disposed between the topsheet and backsheet ([0115]; FIG. 5A);
wherein the absorbent core 71 comprises a substrate ("sublayer"; [0141]-[0142]), the backsheet 52 is joined to the substrate in an engagement region ("sublayer disposed between topsheet 51 and backsheet 52"; [0141]), and the absorbent insert comprises a backsheet-to-core substrate peel strength measured in N/cm (NOTE: peel strength measured in N/cm is an inherent physical property for any laminated structure); and
a fastening system ("fastener component pairs 57, 32 and 56, 33"; [0066]) configured to joining the absorbent insert 50 to the outer cover20 ([0066]; FIGs. 2B & 3);
wherein: in an engaged configuration, the fastening system comprises an insert-outer cover peel strength measured in N/cm in the engagement region ([0241]).
Roe’485/Sue fails to specify the absorbent insert comprises an absorbent capacity of at least 200 g. However, Roe’491 teaches a disposable absorbent insert (see Abstract) wherein the absorbent insert comprises an absorbent capacity of at least 200 g ([0097]-[0098]). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Roe/Sue’s device to incorporate the claimed features to suitably configure “for overnight usage of disposable inserts by infant or toddler wearers” ([0097]);
wherein the fastening system comprises adhesive ("A fastener component may have the form of a patch or strip, of material bearing adhesive, pressure-sensitive adhesive, or a cohesive material on a garment-facing surface, or otherwise be formed of adhesive, pressure-sensitive adhesive or cohesive material"; [0182]).
Roe’485 fails to specify the fastening system comprises a styrene block copolymer-based adhesive. However, Sue teaches a disposable absorbent article (see Abstract) comprises a styrene block copolymer-based adhesive (“styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer adhesives” & “styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer adhesives”; [0051]-[0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roe’485’s device to incorporate the claimed features to minimize odor and cost ([0051]-[0052]).
Roe’485/Sue fails to specify the backsheet-to-core peel strength is greater than the insert-outer cover peel strength; the adhesive has a surface energy value of greater than 26 mJ/m2; the backsheet film-to-core peel strength is at least 20% greater than the insert-outer cover; an insert-outer cover peel strength is at least 0.02 N/cm; and the adhesive has a surface energy value of 26 mJ/m2 to 75 mJ/m2. However, Roe‘485 teaches that the relative peel strength and the resistance to disengagement by shear forces may be optimized to “be as easy to remove as possible while still satisfying structural performance requirements” and “to have suitable resistance to disengagement by shear forces between the outer cover and the insert” ([0237]-[0239]). The peel strength, yield stress, and surface energy value are interpreted as result-effective variables, subject to experimentation and testing. A result-effective variable is a parameter which achieves a recognized result. These results are obtained by the determination of optimum or workable ranges of said variable through routine experimentation. The peel strength, yield stress, and surface energy value achieves structural integrity through routine experimentation. For example, a higher backsheet-to-nonwoven peel strength allows higher resistance to delamination while an optimized insert-outer cover peel strength allows for ease of insert removal from the outer cover without unintended insert delamination.
Roe’485/Sue fails to specify the adhesive exhibits a yield stress of 25 kPa or greater, when measured at 37 degrees C, wherein the adhesive does not leave residue on the outer cover during removal. However, Hancock-Cooke teaches “various garments that include at least one adhesive member” ([0005]) wherein the adhesive exhibits a yield stress of 25 kPa or greater, when measured at 37 degrees C ([0091]; 1 kPa ≈ 10.2 gram/cm2), wherein the adhesive does not leave residue on the outer cover during removal ([0084]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Roe’485’s device to incorporate the claimed features to provide sufficient cohesive strength while avoiding residue upon removal ([0084]).
Regarding the Surface Energy Test Method and the Extensional Test Method for Yield Stress, 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 [in accordance with the Surface Energy Test Method/in accordance with the Extensional Test Method for Yield Stress] to read on the claim language.
Further, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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.” See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the device of Roe’485/Sue to arrive at the claimed properties, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the absorbent insert may be easily removed from the outer cover without causing damage to the outer cover or the insert ([0074]). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A,B). In re Boesch and Slaney, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claims 16, Roe’485 discloses the substrate comprises a nonwoven ("Suitable materials for use as the sublayer may include large cell open foams, macro-porous compression resistant nonwoven highlofts"; [0142]).
Regarding Claim 20, Roe’485 fails to specify the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is at least 0.85 N/cm. However, Sue teaches a disposable absorbent article (see Abstract) comprising a backsheet film adhesively joined to a nonwoven wherein the backsheet film-to-nonwoven peel strength is at least 0.85 N/cm ("backsheet film adhesively joined to a nonwoven backsheet outer cover … such that an adhesive bond having a Peel Force of … greater than about 0.9 N/cm"; [0063]). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Roe’s device to incorporate the claimed features to preserve the integrity of the absorbent article during use ([0050]).
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 Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached on (571) 270-5879. 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.
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781