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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/28/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended, claims 4 and 6-7 have been cancelled and new claim 14 has been added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5, and 8-14 are presently pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 20150202094 A1) in view of Stabelfedt et al. (US 20100168705 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Inoue teaches an absorbent article (¶ 23-27, 31-36, 41; figs. 3 and 7) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
910
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated (A) Figure 3 of Inoue
PNG
media_image2.png
451
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Inoue
a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction (figs. 3 and 7);
a longitudinal axis and a transverse axis (figs. 3 and 7);
a front region ('front waist region 11', figs.3,7, ¶ 23) comprising a front waist edge, a first longitudinal direction side edge, a second longitudinal direction side edge transversely opposed to the first longitudinal direction side edge, a front region elastomeric panel comprising a first elastic material ('elastics 23', figs.3 and 6-7, ¶ 24 and 26) positioned between a first nonwoven material and a second nonwoven material ('front waist sheet 22', figs. 3 and 6-7, ¶ 24 and 26);
a back region ('rear waist region 12', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 23) 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 ('elastics 33', figs. 3 and 6-7, ¶ 25-26) positioned between a third nonwoven material and a fourth nonwoven material ('rear waist sheet 32', figs. 3 and 6-7, ¶ 25-26);
a first side seam (first of 'pair of series of seams 15', figs. 1-3 and 7, ¶ 23) 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 (second of 'pair of series of seams 15', figs. 1-3 and 7, ¶ 23) formed by bonding the second longitudinal direction side edge of the front region to the fourth longitudinal direction side edge of the back region;
a crotch region ('crotch region 13', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 23) located between the front region and the back region and interconnecting the front region and the back region, the crotch region 13 comprising first leg side edge 51 and a transversely opposed, second leg side edge 51 of the absorbent article 1;
an article length measured from the front waist edge to the back waist edge (figs. 3 and 7);
an absorbent assembly (41, 42, and 44) formed of a topsheet 42, a backsheet 44, and an absorbent core ('absorbent structure 41', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 27) wherein a first portion of the absorbent core is located in the crotch region 13 (¶ 23), a second portion of the absorbent core 41 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 ('front waist panel 20', 'absorbent structure 41', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 31 and 36) wherein the first elastic material located in the front overlap region is elastomeric ('elastics 23', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 35) in the transverse direction, and a third portion of the absorbent core is located in a portion of the back region 12 (figs. 3 and 7) 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 ('rear waist panel 30', 'absorbent structure 41', figs. 3 and 7, ¶ 31 and 36) wherein the second elastomeric material located in the back overlap region is non-elastomeric ('inelastic region 34', figs. 3, 7, ¶ 36; NOTE: the claim as currently drafted includes either a partially or fully non-elastomeric second elastic material within the overlapping configuration) in the transverse direction and wherein side edges (depicted in annotated figure 3) of the absorbent assembly (41, 42, and 44) form portions of the first leg side edge 51 and the second leg side edge 51;
an absorbent article narrowest width in the transverse direction positioned in the crotch region 13 and between the transverse axis and the front waist edge (figs. 3 and 7), the absorbent article narrowest width being centered along a portion of the absorbent article comprising the narrowest width, the absorbent article narrowest width being formed by side edges 51 of the absorbent assembly (41, 42, and 44); and
PNG
media_image3.png
815
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated (C) Figure 3 of Inoue
a first article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3) measured from the front waist edge to the absorbent article (¶ 23-27, 31-36, 41; figs. 3 and 7) narrowest width and a second article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3) measured from the back waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width, but fails 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.
Inoue teaches a first article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3) measured from the front waist edge to the absorbent article (¶ 23-27, 31-36, 41; figs. 3 and 7) narrowest width and a second article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3) measured from the back waist edge to the absorbent article narrowest width, but fails to explicitly teach the side edges of the absorbent assembly are non-linear; 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. Inoue fails to explicitly set dimensions, however setting the first sub article length to be less than the second sub article length is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize comfort of the user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue to have the limitations of the sub-lengths as required above since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that the first article sub-length would be less than the second article sub-length does not change the function of Inoue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the first article sub-length would be less than the second article sub-length.
Inoue teaches the first article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3) and the second article sub-length (annotated (C) figure 3), but fails to explicitly teach 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.
Inoue fails to explicitly set dimensions, however having the first sub article length to be less than the second sub article length is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize comfort of the user.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue to have the limitations of teach 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 since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that the first article sub-length would be less than 45% of the article length and the second article sub-length would be greater than 55% of the article length does not change the function of Inoue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the first article sub-length can be less than 45% or 40% of the total article length and the second article sub-length can be greater than 55% or 60% of the total article length (Specs page 10, ll.21-23).Inoue fails to explicitly teach the side edges of the absorbent assembly are non-linear. Stabelfedt teaches the side edges of the absorbent assembly are non-linear (see fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the article of Inoue such that the side edges of the absorbent assembly would be non-linear as taught by Stabelfedt, in order to allow the outer edges of the article to retract inward, thus placing a force on the garment that tends to urge it upward toward the body and forming a "bucket" to better help contain fluid (¶ 75).
Regarding Claim 2, Inoue teaches the first elastic material 23 and the second elastic material 33 is a plurality of elastomeric strands (figs. 3 and 7; "As a material of the elastics 23, a plurality of thread, string or strand elastics each having a fineness...may be used", ¶ 35).
Regarding Claim 3, Inoue teaches the first elastic material 23 and the second elastic material 33, but fails to teach that they are a polymeric film sheet. Stabelfedt discloses an absorbent garment comprises an absorbent member and a laminate, and teaches a polymeric film sheet (¶ 2 and 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wearing article of Inoue such that the first elastic material and the second elastic material would be a polymeric film sheet as taught by Stabelfedt, in order to absorb fluid such as urine such that it does not cause discomfort to the wearer (¶ 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Inoue teaches a front region width (from reference number 20C extending to other 20C, depicted in figure 3) in the transverse direction from the first longitudinal direction side edge to the second longitudinal direction side edge (see annotated figure 3) (¶ 34-36 and 61, Claim 7), but fails to explicitly teach the absorbent article narrowest width would be less than 25% of the front region width, however as can be seen the narrowest region has a narrower width than the front region width. No dimensions have been explicitly disclosed in Inoue, however, it is clear that the narrowest width is a fraction of the width of the front region.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue such that the absorbent article narrowest width would be less than 25% of the front region width since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue to have the claimed dimensions of claim 5 does not change the function of Inoue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that: the absorbent article narrowest width is less than 25% of the front region width (Specs page 9, ¶ 20-30).
PNG
media_image3.png
815
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated (C) Figure 3 of Inoue
PNG
media_image4.png
800
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated (B) Figure 3 of Inoue
Regarding Claim 8, Inoue teaches the absorbent core 41 further comprises an absorbent core midpoint (see annotated (B) figure 3) which is positioned between the absorbent article narrowest width and the transverse axis (figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Inoue teaches the absorbent core midpoint (annotated (B) figure 3), the longitudinal direction, the absorbent article, and the article length (¶ 34-36 and 61, Claim 7), but fails to explicitly teach 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. Ianou fails to explicitly set dimensions, the absorbent core midpoint would be offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize absorption based on fit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue such that the absorbent core midpoint would be offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that the absorbent core midpoint would be offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance from 1% to 5% of the article length of claim 9 does not change the function of Inoue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the absorbent core midpoint would be offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width by a distance ranging from 1% to 5% of the article length (Specs page 3, ll.12-14).
Regarding Claim 10, Inoue teaches the absorbent article midpoint (annotated (B) figure 3), the longitudinal direction (annotated (A) figure 3), the transverse axis (annotated (A) figure 3), and the article length (¶ 34-36 and 61, Claim 7), but fails to explicitly teach the absorbent article midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the transverse axis by a distance from 6% to 15% of the article length. Ianou fails to explicitly set dimensions, the absorbent core midpoint would be offset in the longitudinal direction from the absorbent article narrowest width is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize absorption based on fit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue such that the absorbent article midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the transverse axis by a distance from 6% to 15% of the article length since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that the absorbent article midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the transverse axis by a distance from 6% to 15% of the article length of claim 9 does not change the function of Inoue. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the absorbent article midpoint is offset in the longitudinal direction from the transverse axis by a distance ranging from 6% to 15% of the article length (Specs page 3, ll.12-14).
Regarding Claim 11, Inoue teaches the back region 12 further comprises a leg elastic (Fig.3, 'elastics 53' overlaps to the back region 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Inoue teaches a first longitudinally extending elastic material (‘elastics 53’, fig.3, ¶ 30) 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 (¶ 34-36 and 61, Claim 7), but fails 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.
Ianou fails to explicitly set dimensions, however setting the a first longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize 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 having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue such that a first longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 of claim 12 since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that a first longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 of claim 12 does not change the function of Inoue.
Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that a first longitudinally extending elastic material 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 (Specs page 3, ll.18-23).
Regarding Claim 13, Inoue teaches a second longitudinally extending elastic material (‘elastic 54’, fig.3, ¶ 30) 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 (¶ 34-36 and 61, Claim 7), but fails to explicitly teach a second 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.
Ianou fails to explicitly set dimensions, however setting the a second longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 is a matter of routine experimentation to optimize a second 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 having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Inoue such that a second longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 of claim 13 since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, modifying Inoue such that a second longitudinally extending elastic material would be 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 of claim 13 does not change the function of Inoue.
Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that a second longitudinally extending elastic material 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 (Specs page 3, ll.18-23).
Regarding Claim 14, Inoue fails to teach the non-linear side edges of the absorbent assembly have a discrete point forming the minimum narrowest width of the absorbent article. Stabelfedt teaches the non-linear side edges of the absorbent assembly have a discrete point forming the minimum narrowest width of the absorbent article (see fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the article of Inoue such that the non-linear side edges of the absorbent assembly would have a discrete point forming the minimum narrowest width of the absorbent article as taught by Stabelfedt, in order to allow the outer edges of the article to retract inward, thus placing a force on the garment that tends to urge it upward toward the body and forming a "bucket" to better help contain fluid (¶ 75).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
On page 7 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that for claim 1, claim 1 now requires the leg side edges of the absorbent article to be non-linear. In this context, the location of the absorbent article narrowest width is critical to ensuring a proper fit of the article to a wearer. Nothing in Inoue can be seen to disclose or suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art to ensure an absorbent article has non-linear leg edges.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stabelfedt teaches the limitations described above.
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant argues that for claim 1, Inoue is directed toward a stranded elastic product (see, e.g., Inoue, paragraphs [0035]-[0036]. Conversely, Stabelfeldt appears directed toward an absorbent article formed of an elastomeric film material (see, e.g., Stabelfeldt, paragraphs [0044], [0054],[0055]… The fit properties and requirements of articles formed of these different materials are significantly different such that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to one type of absorbent article (elastomeric film chassis) when modifying another type of absorbent article (elastomeric stranded chassis) at least for purposes of fit and comfort.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that “the fit properties and requirements of articles formed of these different materials are significantly different”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel O'Connell whose telephone number is (571)272-7583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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 571-273-8300.
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.
/RACHEL O'CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights