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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 10/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s argument with respect 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a pair of partially longitudinally extending channels which are free of absorbent material, and wherein the pair of partially longitudinally extending channels are connected at their extremities to form a U shape” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van et al (US 20210030604 A1) in view of Barge et al (US 5989688 A), Ehrnsperger et al (US 20120323195 A1) and Weber et al (US 20190321243 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Van teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a liquid-permeable topsheet (figure 24 and [0185], liquid-permeable topsheet 18);
a liquid-impermeable backsheet (figure 24 and [0185], liquid-impermeable backsheet 20);
an absorbent material (figure 24, absorbent core 51 between topsheet 18 and backsheet 20) between the topsheet and the backsheet, the absorbent material comprising a superabsorbent polymer ([0105] and [0187]), wherein the absorbent material is disposed between an upper substrate layer and a lower substrate layer (figure 24 and [0205], the core is wrapped between lower and upper wraps); and
a lower acquisition and distribution layer (figure 24, release structure 52 between the core 51 and backsheet 20) disposed between the absorbent material and the backsheet;
wherein either:
the lower acquisition and distribution layer is disposed between the lower substrate layer and the backsheet; or
the lower acquisition and distribution layer and the lower substrate layer are the same layer; or
the lower acquisition and distribution layer is disposed between the absorbent material and the lower acquisition substrate layer (example configurations shown in figures 7, 8 and 10 teaches all the claimed arrangements above).
Van does not expressly teach wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In below 10 seconds, as measured by the Strike-In test, and a Median Desorption Pressure (MDP) of less than 20 cmH2O, as measured by the Capillary Sorption Test Method, though Van teaches the content of the low acquisition and distribution layer could be optimized to obtain desired absorption, absorption capacity and absorption rate ([0032]).
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely composite nonwovens and method, Barge teaches providing strike-through time, for example maintaining a strike-through time of at the most about 2.5 sec (col 4 line 60-col 5 line 17), for the purpose of maintaining the top layer of the diaper remain dry (col 8 lines 40-50)
Also, in the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article having improved absorption properties, Ehrnsperger teaches a lower acquisition layer (figure 2 and [0102], 54) has a Median Desorption Pressure (MDP) of less than 20 cmH2O, as measured by the Capillary Sorption Test Method ([0107] the lower acquisition layer 54 has an MDP value of less than about 18 cm H.sub.2O to provide for fast acquisition. ) to provide fast acquisition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van to incorporate the teachings of Barge and Ehrnsperger and provide the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In below 10 seconds, as measured by the Strike-In test, and a Median Desorption Pressure (MDP) of less than 20 cmH2O, as measured by the Capillary Sorption Test Method, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of provide fast acquisition of liquid while maintaining the layer dry.
The combination does not teach wherein the absorbent material comprises a pair of partially longitudinally extending channels which are free of absorbent material, and wherein the pair of partially longitudinally extending channels are connected at their extremities to form a U shape.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an articles comprising an absorbent core, Weber teaches wherein the absorbent material (figure 1, absorbent core 101) comprises a pair of partially longitudinally extending channels (figure 1, interconnected channel 106 comprising first and second channel portions 107 and 108 at least partially extending longitudinally) which are free of absorbent material ([0161] the interconnected channel 106 is substantially free of three-dimensional absorbent material), and wherein the pair of partially longitudinally extending channels are connected at their extremities to form a U shape (figure 1, the channel portions 106 and 108 are connected at 109 forming U shape).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge and Ehrnsperger, to incorporate the teachings of Weber and provides the channel as claimed for the purpose of providing fast liquid distribution along more than one axis of the absorbent core while providing improved snug fit onto the subject’s skin, as taught by Weber ([0151]).
Regarding Claim 2, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not tach wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In below 8 seconds.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely composite nonwovens and method, Barge teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In below 8 seconds (col 4 line 60-col 5 line 17, strike-through time most about 2.5sec), for the purpose of maintaining the top layer of the diaper remain dry (col 8 lines 40-50)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, to incorporate the teachings of Barge and provide the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In below about 8 seconds, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of provide fast acquisition of liquid while maintaining the layer dry.
Regarding Claim 3, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 2.
The combination does not tach wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In in the range of from 1.6 seconds to 8 seconds.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely composite nonwovens and method, Barge teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In in the range of from 1.6 seconds to 8 seconds (col 4 line 60-col 5 line 17, strike-through time most about 2.5sec), for the purpose of maintaining the top layer of the diaper remain dry (col 8 lines 40-50)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, to incorporate the teachings of Barge and provide the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Strike-In in the range of from 1.6 seconds to 8 seconds, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of provide fast acquisition of liquid while maintaining the layer dry.
Regarding Claim 4, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Median Desorption Pressure of less than 15 cmH2O.
However, Ehrnsperger teaches the lower acquisition layer may have a range of MDP greater than 5 cmH2O and less than 18 cmH2O. (Ehrnsperger; [0107] “the lower acquisition layer 54 may have a minimum MDP of greater than 5 cm H.sub.2O. Further, according to exemplary embodiments, the lower acquisition layer 54 has an MDP value of less than about 20.5 cm H.sub.2O, alternatively less than about 19 cm H.sub.2O, and alternatively less than about 18 cm H.sub.2O to provide for fast acquisition).
Therefore, 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 MDP from between 5 cmH2O and 18 cmH2O to less than 15 cmH2O as the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from the claimed range (specification [0065] indicating that claimed range is preferred for good acquisition properties ) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 4.
The combination does not teach wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a Median Desorption Pressure of from 8.8 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O.
However, Ehrnsperger teaches the lower acquisition layer may have a range of MDP greater than 5 cmH2O and less than 18 cmH2O. (Ehrnsperger; 0107] “the lower acquisition layer 54 may have a minimum MDP of greater than 5 cm H.sub.2O. Further, according to exemplary embodiments, the lower acquisition layer 54 has an MDP value of less than about 20.5 cm H.sub.2O, alternatively less than about 19 cm H.sub.2O, and alternatively less than about 18 cm H.sub.2O to provide for fast acquisition).
Therefore, 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 MDP from between 5 cmH2O and 18 cmH2O to between 8.8 cmH2O to 15 cmH2O as the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from the claimed range, and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 6, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a caliper of at least 0.3 mm, and up to 4 mm, as measured at 0.85 kPa pressure according to the Caliper Measurement Method.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber to have the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a caliper of at least 0.3 mm, and up to 4 mm, as measured at 0.85 kPa pressure according to the Caliper Measurement Method, 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) MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, the combination would not operate differently with the claimed range as the lower acquisition and distribution layer of Van is intended disposed between the absorbent core and the backsheet and provide adequate fit and comfort while preventing bulkiness and sagging of the wet (Van; [0021]) and applicant as not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range, indicating that it may be desirable to limit the caliper of the lower ADP to be in the range of from 0.3 mm optionally up to 2.g. 4 mm ([0071]).
Regarding Claim 7, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises a nonwoven layer (Van; [0012] "release structure comprises at least one non-woven fibrous substrate layer")
Regarding Claim 8, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises a carded nonwoven layer (Van; [0032] "release structure comprises a nonwoven fabric, more preferably an airlaid, drylaid, spunlaid, spunlaced, meltblown and/or carded nonwoven").
Regarding Claim 9, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises fibers, and wherein at least 50% by weight of the fibers have a denier below 10 dtex.
However, Barge teaches the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises mixture of layers comprising bulky fibres in the range of 5-12 dtex and fine fibres in the range of 1-5 dtex (col 6 line 60- col 7 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises fibers as claimed, as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to peruse the known options within his or her technical grasp and if the modification leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2143.I.A). In the instant case Barge teaches the nonwoven fabric comprising mixture of bulky fibre layer for facilitating high transfer of fluid, while fine fibres allows good fluid distribution, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the content of the mixture in the nonwoven layer to yield predictable results, namely providing optimized fluid transfer rate and fluid distribution rates for maintaining the lower acquisition and distribution layer relatively dry. Furthermore, applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from having the range claimed (applicant’s specification [0086]) .
Regarding Claim 10, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises a hydrophilic agent (Van; [0201] “The release structure preferably comprises hydrophilic fibers”).
Regarding Claim 12, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a basis weight of from 20 gsm to 100 gsm (Van; [0227] “the release structure comprises a nonwoven with a weight of at least 10 gsm, preferably at least 20 gsm, more preferably at least 35 gsm, and most preferably at least 50 gsm").
Regarding Claim 13, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 12.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer has a basis weight of from 30 gsm to 50 gsm (Van; [0227] “the release structure comprises a nonwoven with a weight of at least 10 gsm, preferably at least 20 gsm, more preferably at least 35 gsm, and most preferably at least 50 gsm").
Regarding Claim 14, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the absorbent material does not comprise cellulose fibers mixed with superabsorbent polymer particles (Van; [0187] “absorbent core containing little or no cellulose fibers or fluff pulp” ).
Regarding claim 16, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein at least 50% of the length of the channel is vertically superposed with the lower acquisition and distribution layer (Weber; figure 17a and [0179], the channel superposed with lower acquisition and distribution layer).
Regarding Claim 17, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein at least 30% by weight of the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises crimped fibers, and wherein the crimped fibers have two-dimensional crimp, three dimensional crimp, or a combination of two- and three-dimensional crimp.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a composite nonwovens, Barge teaches wherein at least 30% by weight of the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises crimped fibers, and wherein the crimped fibers have two-dimensional crimp, three dimensional crimp, or a combination of two- and three-dimensional crimp (col 7 lines 50-64, Bulky layers may comprises fibres with a bi or tri dimensional crimp with hollow fibres).
Barge provides the layer comprising with a bi or tri-dimensional crimp and hollow fibers in order to the material be able to quickly regain its original bulk state to provide the desired acquisition and distribution properties when in use (col 7 lines 50-64)
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, to incorporate the teachings of Barge provides the lower acquisition and distribution layers comprises crimped fibers, and wherein the crimped fibres have two-dimensional crimp, three dimensional crimp, or a combination of two- and three-dimensional crimp, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of allowing the material to be able to quickly return to its original bulky state that provide desired absorption property.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein at least 30% by weight of the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises crimped fibers.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber to have at least 30% by weight of the lower acquisition and distribution layer comprises crimped fibers, 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) MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, the combination would not operate differently with the claimed range as the lower acquisition and distribution layer of can be optimized to provide adequate absorption capacity and speed for lower acquisition and distribution layer (Van; [0021] and [0032]) and applicant as not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range, indicating that it may optionally at least 50% (specification [0077]).
Regarding Claim 18, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer consists of a single nonwoven layer (Van; figure 24 and [0032], the release structure comprises a nonwoven fabric and consist of single layer as illustrated in figure 24).
Regarding Claim 19, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the upper substrate layer and the lower substrate layer are at least longitudinally bonded to each other (Van; [0205] two substrate layer set forth in claim 1 can be bonded with each other along the side edges).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van et al (US 20210030604 A1) in view of Barge et al (US 5989688 A) and Ehrnsperger et al (US 20120323195 A1), and in further view of Jackson et al (US 20190247238 A1)..
Regarding Claim 11, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 10.
The combination does not teach wherein the hydrophilic agent is a surfactant coating, or a hydrophilic melt additive, or both.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an improved acquisition distribution laminate, Jackson teaches a deflection layer (figure 1, 140) comprises hydrophilic agent is a surfactant coating or a hydrophilic melt additive or both ([0046] “Such meltblown is treated to be hydrophilic through the use of a surfactant or a hydrophilic melt additive”).
Jackson teaches providing the hydrophilic melt additive would slow the fluid movement in the Z-direction which allows for more efficient use of the full capacity of ADL ([0046]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, to incorporate the teachings of Jackson and provide the hydrophilic agent is a surfactant coating, or a hydrophilic melt additive, or both, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of slowing fluid flow in the thickness direction for allowing more efficient use of the full capacity of lower ADL.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van et al (US 20210030604 A1) in view of Barge et al (US 5989688 A) and Ehrnsperger et al (US 20120323195 A1), and in further view of Fell et al (US 20150094682 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, teaches the absorbent article according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer is hydrophilic (Van; [0032]).
The combination does not teach the lower substate layer is hydrophilic, and wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer is less hydrophilic than the lower substrate layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, namely forming an absorbent structure, Fell teaches the lower substrate layer is hydrophilic ([0091] hydrophilic core wrap layer 178).
Furthermore, Fell teaches the hydrophilic core wrap is less hydrophilic than the absorbent body to permit liquid body exudates through the core wrap layer to the absorbent body ([0097])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van, as modified by Barge, Ehrnsperger and Weber, to incorporate the teachings of Fell and provides the hydrophilic lower substrate layer and wherein the lower acquisition and distribution layer is less hydrophilic than the lower substrate layer, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of allowing the fluid exudate pass through and flow into lower acquisition and distribution layer from the upper absorbent material, and the reduced hydrophilicity of the lower acquisition and distribution layers facilitates retaining the fluid within the absorbent material, thereby keeping the garment surface of the absorbent article relatively dry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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, Nicholas J Weiss can be reached at (571)270-1775. 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.
/SETH HAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781