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
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-18 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 4, 6 and 7 have been cancelled.
Claim 17 and 18 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant points to Innoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach a first article sub-length measured from the front waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width and a second article sub-length measured from the back waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width wherein the first article sub-length is less than the second article sub-length, wherein the first article sub-length is less than 45% of the article length and the second article sub- length is greater than 55% of the article length, as addressed in the previous office action.
Since applicant has still not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 10, paragraphs 0002 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
If the applicant submits an affidavit explaining why these dimensions are critical, the rejection would be overcome.
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, 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20150202094 A1) in view of Lee (WO 2017105521 A1) in view of Eriksson (US 20180200121 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Inoue teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a. a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction (Fig. 3, 7);
b. a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis (Fig. 3, 7);
c. a front region (11)( (Fig. 3, 7) (paragraph [0023]) comprising a front waist edge, a first longitudinal direction side edge (annotated figure), a second longitudinal direction side edge (annotated figure) transversely opposed to the first longitudinal direction side edge, a front region elastomeric panel comprising a first elastic material (23) (paragraph [0024][0026])positioned between a first nonwoven material and a second nonwoven material (22) (paragraph [0024][0026]);
d. a back region (12) (paragraph [0023]) comprising a back waist edge, a third longitudinal direction side edge, a fourth longitudinal direction side edge transversely opposed to the third longitudinal direction side edge, a back region elastomeric panel comprising a second elastic material (33)(paragraph [0025-0026]positioned between a third nonwoven material and a fourth nonwoven material (32)(paragraph [0025-0026]);
PNG
media_image1.png
664
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
e. a first side seam (15) (paragraph [0023] formed by bonding the first longitudinal direction side edge of the front region to the third longitudinal direction side edge of the back region and a second side seam (15)(paragraph [0023]) formed by bonding the second longitudinal direction side edge of the front region to the fourth longitudinal direction side edge of the back region;
f. a crotch region (13) (paragraph [0023]) located between the front region and the back region and interconnecting the front region and the back region (fig. 3 and 7);
g. an article length measured from the front waist edge to the back waist edge (fig. 3 and 7); and
h. an absorbent core (41) (paragraph [0027]) wherein a first portion of the absorbent core is located in the crotch region (13), a second portion of the absorbent core is located in a portion of the front region (11) wherein the second portion of the absorbent core is in an overlapping configuration with a portion of the first elastic material and defining a front overlap region (paragraph [0031-0036](30, 41) and defining a front overlap region having a front overlap width dimension (Annotated figure 3).
wherein the first elastic material located in the front overlap region is elastomeric in the transverse direction, and a third portion of the absorbent core is located in a portion of the back region wherein the third portion of the absorbent core is in an overlapping configuration with a portion of the second elastic material and defining a back overlap region (30, 41)(paragraph [0031-0036]) having a rear portion overlap width dimension (Annotated figure 3), wherein a first portion of the second elastic material located in the back overlap region is non-elastomeric in the transverse direction and defines a first non-elastomeric region (34) having a first length dimension and a first width dimension, the first width dimension being the same as the rear portion overlap width dimension (figure 3) and a second portion of the second elastic material located in the back overlap region is non-elastomeric (34)(paragraph [0036])(Figs. 3 and 7) in the transverse direction and defines a second non-elastomeric region having a second length dimension and a second width dimension wherein the second width dimension of the second non-elastomeric region is less than the first width dimension of the first non-elastomeric region and 50% or less than the rear portion overlap width dimension (figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
704
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Inoue fails to disclose the second width dimension of the second non-elastomeric region is less than the first width dimension of the first non-elastomeric region.
Lee further teaches such design for the nonelastomeric region in the back overlap region (Figs. 1A, 1C, 5-7) for accommodating the shape of the absorbent core (Figs. 1A, 1 C, 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second elastomeric region of Inoue so that the second width dimension of the second non-elastomeric region is less than the first width dimension of the first non-elastomeric region similar to Lee so that the pattern may accommodate the shape of the absorbent core.
Inoue fails to disclose wherein the first non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region is positioned closer to the front waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region and the first non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region is positioned closer to the back waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region.
Eriksson teaches an absorbent article wherein the first non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region is positioned closer to the front waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region and the first non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region is positioned closer to the back waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region (figure 10 and 20)(paragraph [01220-0128]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify absorbent of Inoue so the first non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region is positioned closer to the front waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the front overlap region and the first non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region is positioned closer to the back waist edge than the second non-elastomeric region of the back overlap region, similar to Erikkson, so that the absorbent better fits the anatomy of the wearer.
Innoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach a first article sub-length measured from the front waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width and a second article sub-length measured from the back waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width wherein the first article sub-length is less than the second article sub-length, wherein the first article sub-length is less than 45% of the article length and the second article sub- length is greater than 55% of the article length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the first article sub-length is less than 45% of the article length and the second article sub-length is greater than 55% of the article length in order to fit the particular patient since this claimed dimension of the of the sub-length can change based on the physical attributes of the patient. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 10, paragraphs 0002 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 2, Inoue in view of Lee teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue further teaches wherein the first elastic material and the second elastic material is a plurality of elastomeric strands (paragraph [0035]) (figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 4. Inoue further teaches wherein the absorbent core further comprises an absorbent core midpoint which is positioned between the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis (Figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 8. Inoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach wherein the absorbent core midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the absorbent core midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the midpoint location is non-critical, Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 2 paragraph 0003 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 10, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 8. Inoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach wherein the absorbent core midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the absorbent core midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the midpoint location is non-critical, Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 2 paragraph 0003 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 11, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue further teaches wherein the back region further comprises a leg elastic (53)(fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 5. Inoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach a first longitudinally extending elastic material located in the crotch region of the absorbent article and separated from the absorbent core in the transverse direction at the location of each of the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis by a spatial distance of at least 1.5% of the front region width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention so that a first longitudinally extending elastic material located in the crotch region of the absorbent article and separated from the absorbent core in the transverse direction at the location of each of the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis by a spatial distance of at least 1.5% of the front region width in order to fit the particular procedure being done. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3 paragraph 0005 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 13, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 12. Inoue and Lee fail to explicitly teach a first longitudinally extending elastic material located in the crotch region of the absorbent article and separated from the absorbent core in the transverse direction at the location of each of the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis by a spatial distance of at least 1.5% of the front region width. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention so that a first longitudinally extending elastic material located in the crotch region of the absorbent article and separated from the absorbent core in the transverse direction at the location of each of the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis by a spatial distance of at least 1.5% of the front region width in order to fit the particular procedure being done. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3 paragraph 0005 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 15, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue further teaches wherein the first non-elastomeric region is adjacent to the second non-elastomeric region (figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue further teaches wherein the second non-elastomeric region is symmetrically positioned along the transverse direction of the back overlap region (figs.3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue fails to teach wherein the first width dimension is equal to or greater than a maximum width dimension of the absorbent core in the rear overlap region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the first width dimension is equal to or greater than a maximum width dimension of the absorbent core in the rear overlap region in order to fit the particular patient since this claimed dimension of the of the sub-length can change based on the physical attributes of the patient. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 10, paragraphs 0002 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 18, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue further teaches wherein the second non-elastomeric region is disposed symmetrically between side edges of the first non-elastomeric region (annotated figure 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20150202094 A1) in view of Lee (WO 2017105521 A1) in view of Eriksson (US 20180200121 A1) in view of Gilgenbach (US 20100163161 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Inoue, Lee and Eriksson fail to teach wherein the first elastic material and the second elastic material is a polymeric film sheet. Gilgenbach teaches an absorbent article wherein the first elastic material and the second elastic material is a polymeric film sheet (paragraph [0002] and [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elastomeric region of Inoue so that the first elastic material and the second elastic material is a polymeric film sheet similar to Gilgenbach so that the pattern is not easily removed, and more permanent (as motivated by Gilbenbach, paragraph [0060]) .
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20150202094 A1) in view of Lee (WO 2017105521 A1) in view of Eriksson (US 20180200121 A1) in view of Wilkes (US 20110160692 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Inoue in view of Lee and Eriksson teaches the absorbent article of claim 4. Inoue and Lee fail to teach a front region width in the transverse direction from the first longitudinal direction side edge to the second longitudinal direction side edge wherein the absorbent article narrowest width is less than 25% of the front region width. Wilkes teaches . In addition or in the alternative, the front width 64 and/or the back width 65 of the leg elastic covering panel 60 are/is at least 50 percent greater, or more particularly at least 100 percent greater, than the liquid impermeable layer width 53. In certain embodiments, such as that representatively illustrated in FIG. 5, the leg elastic covering panel defines a generally hourglass shape (paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a front region width in the transverse direction from the first longitudinal direction side edge to the second longitudinal direction side edge wherein the absorbent article narrowest width is less than 25% of the front region width shown in Wilkes in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the absorbent width. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3, paragraph 2 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
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.
The case is reopened and a new non-final replaced the pervious office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781