DETAILED ACTION
33Notice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 6, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment submitted on August 6, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1 – 12, 19 and 20 have been amended and no claims have been added. Therefore, the pending claims are 1 – 20.
The 35 USC 103 rejections over Busam (7,371,919) is revised below since the previous rejection did not address using an absorbent core which is free or airfelt. However, the rejection over Busam has been modified and is set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 7 – 13, and 15 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busam (7,371,919) in view of Takken et al. (2014/0296815).
Busam teaches a patterned apertured web 40 comprising a plurality of land areas (unapertured areas around the apertures 46, 48; Figures 1 and 2) in the patterned apertured web and a plurality of apertures 46/48 defined in the patterned apertured web 40. Further, land regions surround at least some apertures of the plurality of apertures (Figure 1). Further, the apertures taught by Busam have apertured an Effective Open Area of at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20% and most preferably at least 25% (col. 7, lines 39-44). Busam teaches the patterned apertured web comprises bicomponent spunbond fibers, bicomponent carded fibers, meltblown fibers, nanofibers, and/or crimped fibers (col. 7, lines 9-15) wherein the fibers can be made from polyethylene and/or polypropylene (col. 7, lines 9-12). Additionally, the laminate web is used to produce a topsheet (col. 7, lines 2-5) for an absorbent article or diaper with a liquid impervious backsheet, an absorbent core between the topsheet and backsheet and elasticized leg cuffs.
Further, Busam teaches that the apertures can vary in size, shape, or pattern (col. 9, lines 22-25). The shapes can include circular, square, dogbone, star, etc., and the apertures can be arranged in a systematic, uniform or random pattern. While Busan teaches that the apertures can form different patterns and that the apertures can vary in size, shape or pattern (col. 9, lines 22-27 and col. 10, lines 1 – 7), Busam does not specifically teach a repeating pattern with non-homogeneous apertures, such that at least two of the apertures have a different size, a different shape, or a different Absolute Feret Angle.
Busam discloses that the absorbent core can be manufactured from a wide variety of liquid absorbent materials commonly used in disposable diapers such as woodpulp (column 5, lines 35 – 42). Other types of absorbent materials include creped cellulose wadding; meltblown polymers including coform; chemically stiffened, modified or cross-linked cellulosic fibers; tissue including tissue wraps and tissue laminates; absorbent foams; absorbent sponges; superabsorbent polymers; absorbent gelling materials; or any equivalent material or combinations of materials (column 5, lines 42 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the absorbent core disclosed by Busam can be made from products various suitable absorbent products, such as absorbent foams, absorbent sponges, superabsorbent polymers, or absorbent gelling materials, free of airfelt materials since substituting a known absorbent material, which is used in the absorbent art, for another known structure such as airfelt would have yielded predictable results.
Takken is drawn to an absorbent article. Takken teaches an aperture nonwoven topsheet having first and second set of apertures which form a pattern where smaller apertures at least partially enclose the larger apertures as seen in Figures 1, 1A, and 1B (Takken paragraph 0010). Additionally, Takken suggests that the embossed regions can have different shape configurations, including swirls and circles (paragraph 10). Additionally, Takken teaches that apertures can be adjacent to, overlapping with, or surrounding the embossed regions (paragraph 10 and 11). For example, Takken suggests that apertures can be positioned adjacent to the embossed region such that the apertures have an overall shape similar to the embossed channels, such as wavy, circular, or swirl (paragraph 13). Takken teaches the aperturing methods may promote targeted/localized and a regional absorbency/fluid capture to interiorly situated absorbent layers and/or provide a visual signal to a user as to the localized absorbency/fluid capture regions of the article (Takken paragraph 0004). Further, Takken discloses that the groups of at least 6 apertures can be overlaid with embossed regions (paragraph 37). This is considered to result in the aperture creating a concavity since the apertures are formed in concave regions of the structure. The topsheet structure having a combination of apertures and embossed regions provide for targeted absorbency and fluid capture (paragraph 14). Further, Takken discloses that the apertures overlap with the concavities in Figure 1C. Hence, the indented embossed pattern overlaps with the apertures and together forms an enclosed shape, such as the circles shown in Figure 1B. The pattern shown in Figure 1B includes different size apertures and embossed portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed to modify Busam with targeted and shaped aperture regions to improve fluid capture and create absorbency regions. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 12 are rejected.
As to claims 2 and 13, Busam/Takken teaches the patterned apertured web can comprise first and second layers with spunbond fibers (col. 7, lines 13-15; col. 9, lines 37-38).
As to claim 3, the first layer has a first basis weight (col. 7, lines 22-25), wherein the second layer has a second basis weight (col. 9, lines 44-46), and wherein the first basis weight is substantially the same as the second basis weight – where Busam teaches the first layer has a basis weight in a range of 5 gsm to 100 gsm and the second layer has a basis weight in a range of 5 gsm to about 100 gsm and the ranges substantially overlap.
As to claim 4, see the rejection of claim 3 supra. While Busam teaches overlapping ranges, the basis weights for each layer could be different within the given ranges, particularly since Busam teaches the second material is desirably a stronger material (col. 11, lines 7-11). One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the basis weight of the layers to provide a desired performance.
As to claim 7, Busam teaches a diaper 20 comprising an absorbent article or diaper with a liquid impervious backsheet, an absorbent core between the topsheet and backsheet and elasticized leg cuffs (col 4, lines 55-65).
As to claim 8 and 9, Busam/Takken show at least some apertures of the plurality of apertures form rings of circles in Figure 1B to enclose the smaller rings of circles. Further, as set forth above, Busam discloses that the apertures can form different patterns and that the apertures can vary in size, shape or pattern (col. 9, lines 22-27 and col. 10, lines 1 – 7). Further, Takken et al. discloses that set of apertures may include one or more shapes, and may be in a regular, repeating pattern, or in a non-regular, pattern (paragraph 34). Takken et al. also teaches that the first series of apertures are distinguished from the matrix of apertures in FIG. 1, by aperture shape, size, and/or spatial configuration (Paragraph 34). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the design to use different shaped designs in the topsheet to make the topsheet have desirable absorbency properties as well as be visually desirable. Further, Busam and Takken et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the shapes being hearts or diamonds and the diamonds enclose the hearts. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose known shapes to create visually appealing designs, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change of shape is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have yielded predictable results. Thus, claims 8, 9, and 15 – 17 are rejected.
As to claim 11, Busam teaches the patterned apertured web comprises at least two layers; wherein the at least two layers comprise a first layer 42 and a second layer 44; wherein the second layer has a different hydrophobicity than the first layer (col. 10, lines 13-24). Thus, claims 11 and 18 are rejected.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busam and Takken et al. as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of McCormick (2012/0316532).
The features of Busam and Takken have been set forth above. While Busam discloses that the laminate can include two layers, Busam fails to teach the patterned apertured web comprises a third layer. McCormick teaches an absorbent article having a multilayer nonwoven web topsheet where the topsheet comprises spunbond layers (paragraph 0084). McCormick teaches the multilayered topsheet may comprise a dual layer spunbond (SS) or more than two layers, such as a spunbond nonwoven with three layers (SSS) (paragraph 0084). McCormick teaches topsheets of his invention provide actual and/or perceived performance with respect to absorbency and/or softness (paragraph 0083). McCormick teaches the multiple layers help reduce the translucency to increase the acceptance of products among consumers as reinforcing the perception of absorbency and softness (paragraph 0106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute a two layer spunbonded topsheet with a three-layer spunbonded topsheet, since it is shown by McCormick that the structures are equivalent in the art. Thus, claims 5, 6, 14, and 19 are rejected.
Further, Busam discloses that the apertures have an Effective Aperture Area of at least 0.2 mm2 – at 2.0 mm2 (col 7, lines 30 – 38). Thus, claim 20 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the teachings of Busam and Takken fail to teach the claimed enclosed shape defined by a plurality of at least six apertures wherein the perimeter of the enclosed shape defined a concavity (response, pages 7 – 9). As set forth in the previous Office Action these features are broad limitations that do not exclude the prior art. First, the disclosure and claim do not defined the term “enclosed shape” except by the limitation that a plurality of apertures for an enclosed shape. Since the plurality of apertures cannot form a continuous perimeter, otherwise a single hole would form in the surface, the shape is suggested in any manner by the apertures. The claim and disclosure does not limit how the apertures are used to defined a shape. Second the, limitation that the perimeter of the enclosed shape defines a concavity is also broad and not expressly defined in the disclosure. The perimeter is not feature continuously defined by a line in the fabric surface. Instead, it is a general outline of a shape that can overlayed onto the pattern of apertures. Since it is not positive structure, but a suggested shape the apertures can be combined together in various patterns to form shapes. The disclosure has not limited how the shape is defined, or features of the apertures and how close the apertures need to be to produce the generic shape. Hence the apertures of Takken can have various shapes overlaid onto the apertures shown in the figures.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
280
369
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figure 1 of Takken, the web surface can have various sizes of apertures applied in different patterns to the web and these apertures can be considered to defined various “enclosed shapes” using a group of six or more apertures, 12 and 13, as required by the claim. Further, Figure 1B of Takken includes an example of multiple sized circles formed by a combination of apertures and embossed lines. Takken explicitly teaches that the invention includes a first series of apertures to completely surround a coordinated embossment feature, such as an embossed channel (Paragraph 42). Thus, the prior art is considered to teach using the apertures to make “enclosed shapes” as required by the claims.
Further, with regards to the claimed “concavity” it is noted that the features is not given an explicit definition in the disclosure. The disclosure states that “the aperture arrays may have perimeters that are concave, convex, or may include concavities or convexities” and the concavity feature may trap the fluid and lead the fluid into apertures (page 52, lines 17 – 29). Further, the disclosure states that shapes such as a heart, star, polygons, crescents, chevrons, can have a concavity. However, the disclosure does not provide specific details to the array structure or aperture features to disclose if the aperture array is produced in a specific manner in order to form the concavities. Therefore, the term “concavity” is given its broadest reasonable meaning which would be a indented portion. Hence, any indented portion along the perimeter or within the defined shape would meet the applicant’s limitation of the shape having a concavity. The claims and the disclosure do not define the concavity to have specific features that exclude an embossed feature or even an aperture formed by piercing down into the fabric surface and pushing the fibrous layer down below the surface of the fabric. Therefore, the embossed features, as disclosed by Takken, teach the claimed concavity. And as set forth above, Takken teaches that the apertures can completely surround the embossed features, resulting in an “enclosed shape” with a concavity defined within. Further, Takken discloses that the embossed lines and apertures can overlap and be placed adjacent to each other. Thus, various combinations of apertures and embossed regions can be combined together to create an array or apertures that form an “enclosed shape” with one or more concavity along or within the perimeter of the shape.
As set forth above, the use of absorbent core layers without airfelt materials would be obvious to those with ordinary skill in the art since it is well known to use multiple different materials as the core layer and it is within the level of skill in the art to substitute one known material for another if the materials have the same function in the final product.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the use of different shapes by the prior art is not sufficient to teach or suggest enclosed shapes, or using combination of enclosed shapes, or modifying the circles and curvilinear shapes taught by the prior art to shapes such as diamonds, hearts, etc. (response, pages 9 – 10). However, as set forth in the rejection, Takken describes controlling the flow of the exudate on the surface of the fabric by combining apertures and embossed regions to direct the exudate to the apertures and into the absorbent core below (paragraph 28). Further, Takken and Busam suggest different shapes can be used and that those shapes can have multiple overlapping patterns. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose different shapes and combinations of shapes to create various designs and patterns in the top sheet. The applicant has not shown that the specifically claimed shapes recited in claim 19 has unexpected results over the shapes of the prior art or would have advantages not disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
jlj
September 18, 2025
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789