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 .
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.
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 Graef et al. (US 2005/0090789).
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.
Graef et al. (hereinafter “Graef”) teaches an analogous absorbent article having a fluff pulp present in the claimed amounts as set forth in [0152-0153].
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 Graef in order to effect efficient liquid transfer as taught by Graef in [0152-0153].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Weber does not indicate that the disclosed absorbent article would be suitable as swim wear, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection and as discussed in the fourth paragraph on page 19, Weber discloses a definition that encompasses a “pant body”. Weber goes on to describe that the “pant body” refers to articles similar to shorts and/or swim wear. The description of applicable articles throughout the disclosure includes the use of pants. See, for example, page 1, 1st paragraph, and on page 7, 4th full paragraph. Weber has established the inclusion of pants or the like and also recognizes that pants may also encompass swim wear. It is further noted that “or the like” may also reasonably suggest the inclusion of swim wear. As an example, Weber on page 1, 3rd paragraph provides a number of relevant disclosures. EP 1 349 524 B1 is disclosed by Weber on page 2, 1st full paragraph. EP 1 349 524 B1 discloses the use of personal care articles [0021] and further defines that personal care products includes swim wear as set forth in [0019].
As such, the disclosure by Weber of a pant, defining the pant body as inclusive of swim wear and also providing relevant disclosures that specifically name swimwear supports the reasonable assertion that swimwear is within the scope of the disclosure of Weber.
Applicant also claim that Weber explicitly requires the presence of a superabsorbent polymer in the absorbent core. The examiner contends that this statement is not accurate. Weber discloses it is common to combine cellulosic fluff pulp with superabsorbent polymer. See page 9, lines 2-3. While it is “common”, it is not required as stated by applicant.
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., a required density) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves. Graef applies the absorbent structure to absorbent articles and also recognizes that one of ordinary skill in the art will be able to construct a variety of different absorbent structures based on the teachings provided as set forth in [0156]. Further, while surface dryness may be one advantage taught by Graef, the disclosed structure also provides increased pad integrity, improved appearance and a reduction in wet collapse as set forth in [0158] which are all considered as desirable properties in the swim articles.
As such, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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