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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 2, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: claim 9 has been amended to recite that permanent attachment zones are configured to remain attached after submersion in water for at least 30 minutes. This language is not supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the originally filed specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “submersion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-14, 16-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claim 9 to recite that permanent attachment zones are configured to remain attached after submersion in water for at least 30 minutes.
This limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification. Wetting, which is supported by the originally filed specification, and submersion are not interchangeable terms. While “wetting” can involve moistening a surface, “submersion” involves the act of placing an object completely under the surface of a liquid.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/158226 and further in view of Coulter et al. (US 2007/0253920).
With reference to claims 1-3, WO 2019/158226 (hereinafter “Weber”) discloses an diaper (figure 9) suitable as swim wear (page 19, 4th paragraph) wherein the diaper includes a liquid pervious topsheet, a liquid impervious backsheet, and an absorbent core positioned in between said topsheet and said backsheet (page 7, last paragraph), said absorbent core having a first and second longitudinal edge and a front and rear transverse edge (figures 22A-22H); wherein the absorbent core comprises a top core wrap sheet and a back core wrap sheet (page 30, 3rd paragraph) and fluff pulp in between the top and back core wrap sheet as set forth on page 8, last paragraph. Weber provides the article with a transverse crotch line (xw) that may be used to define both front and rear parts as claimed.
Weber also provides the article with reinforcement zones (i.e., channels) as shown throughout the figures of Weber. In the reinforcement zones, the top core wrap sheet is attached to the back core wrap sheet as disclosed on page 26, last paragraph.
The difference between Weber and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent core is substantially free of superabsorbent polymers and that the absorbent core comprises a first and second zone extending in the front part of the absorbent core and said third and fourth zone extending in the rear part.
With respect to the absorbent core being substantially free of superabsorbent polymers, Coulter et al. (hereinafter “Coulter”) teaches an analogous absorbent article that teaches the knowledge in the art that swim diapers contain little or no superabsorbent as set forth in [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the swim pant of Weber with little or no superabsorbent as taught by Coulter so that the diaper will not swell with water when partaking in wet activities as taught by Coulter in [0026].
With respect to the designation of first, second, third and fourth zones, it is noted that a recitation of a zone without any specifically measurable parameters does not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from interpreting the diaper of Weber, having an identical product, from designating zones as desired.
It is further noted that Weber does provide one or more reinforcement zones are arranged such that for any area that covers the entire length of the article as shown in the figures and would therefore provide a reinforcement zone in the areas as claimed.
With reference to claims 2-3, Weber modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Weber modified and claims 2-3 is the provision that the zones have specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the zones as desired since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 5, Weber discloses a swim diaper wherein the one or more reinforcement zones extend from a crotch region in the direction of the front and/or rear transverse edge as shown in figures 22A-22H.
With reference to claims 6-8 and 10, Weber modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Weber discloses an elongate reinforcement zone extending along the length of the article into areas that may be considered as second and/or third zones (cl. 8, 10) as well as one or more reinforcement zones comprising a discontinuous attachment at a plurality of locations at a distance of each other as set forth in figures 22A-22H.
The difference between Weber modified and claims 6 and 7 is the provision that the reinforcement zones have specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the reinforcement zones as desired since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 9, Weber modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Weber and claim 9 is the explicit recitation that the reinforcement zones are permanent attachment zones.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably presume and/or to modify the attachment zones of Weber modified to include permanent attachment zones because Weber discloses the use of mechanical bonding, including ultrasonic bonding and/or thermal bonding to create the reinforcement zones as set forth on page 27, fourth paragraph.
Mechanical and/or ultrasonic bonding are known in the art to produce permanent bonds as demonstrate by Weber on page 51, first paragraph.
The instant specification indicates that the attachment between the top and bottom core wrap is achieved by pressure bonding or sonic bonding. See page 8, lines 20-23.
With reference to claims 11-12, see figures 22A-22H of Weber.
As to claims 13 and 15, see the rejection of claims 1, 6-8 and 10.
Regarding claim 14, Weber discloses a swim diaper wherein the first elongate reinforcement zone is connected to the second elongate reinforcement zone through at least one connecting reinforcement zone as shown in figure 22H.
As to claims 16 and 17, see figures 4 and 22A-22H of Weber.
As to claim 18, see figures 22A and 22E-H of Weber where upper cross of the reinforcement zone may be considered as a first crossing point and the lower transverse cross or segment may be considered as the second crossing point.
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1, 6-8 and 10. Additionally, Weber discloses that the attachment between the top core wrap sheet and the back core wrap sheet includes sonic bonding as set forth on page 26, last paragraph to page 27, fourth paragraph.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claims 1, 6-8 and 10. Additionally, Weber discloses one or more reinforcement zones comprising at least a transverse reinforcement zone extending in the transverse direction of the absorbent core as shown in at least figure 22H.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/158226 in view of Coulter et al. (US 2007/0253920) and further in view of Everhart et al. (US 2003/0114071).
With respect to claim 4, Weber modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Coulter teaches the knowledge in the art that swim absorbent article that teaches the knowledge in the art that swim diapers contain little or no superabsorbent so that the diaper will not swell with water when partaking in wet activities as taught by Coulter in [0026].
Weber modified fails to explicitly recite a specific fluff pulp amount.
Everhart et al. (hereinafter “Everhart”) teaches an analogous absorbent article having a fluff pulp present in the claimed amounts as set forth in [0111] and in [0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Weber modified with the specific amount of fluff pulp as taught by Everhart in order to provide a layer that is able to quickly absorbent several times in weight in water as taught by Everhart in [0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wherein the one or more reinforcement zones are arranged such that for any area in the second and/or third zone having a width of 50% of a width of the absorbent core and a length of 40% of a length of the absorbent core, at least one reinforcement zone is at least partially located in said area) are recited as conditional limitations, and are therefore, not required to be present if the conditions are not met.
Initially, it is noted that the original position continues to meet the limitations as claimed. Weber does provide one or more reinforcement zones are arranged such that for any area that covers the entire length of the article as shown in the figures and would therefore provide a reinforcement zone in the areas as claimed.
Alternatively, the language as recited does not require the reinforcement zone in all instances. If the references themselves do not specify a second and/or third zone having a width of 50% of a width of the absorbent core and a length of 40% of a length of the absorbent core, then the reinforcement zones are not required.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the channels being equivalent to reinforcement zones is not persuasive.
Weber specifically recites on page 26, last paragraph that the channels function to attach the upper and lower layers of the distinct sheets of the core wrap.
Similarly, page 2, lines 19-20 of the instant define the reinforcement zones as zones where the top core wrap sheet is attached to the back core wrap sheet.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights