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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Cole et al. (US 5,514,104).
With reference to claim 1, Cole et al. (hereinafter “Cole”) discloses an absorbent system (100) comprising:
an absorbent core having a thickness (figure 1) and comprising at least one material free zone (306) that is devoid of absorbent material (figure 1) and that extends through the thickness of the absorbent core (figure 1), the at least one material free zone having no absorption capacity (see figure 1 where material free zone includes no material and would therefore have no absorption capacity);
an upper core wrap (112) with a bottom surface directly facing a top surface of the absorbent core (figure 4);
a lower acquisition distribution layer (106) with a top surface directly facing a bottom surface of the absorbent core (figure 4);
at least one central longitudinal extending embossed channel (120); and
at least two longitudinal extending embossed channels (left and right outermost channels 120) positioned between the at least one material free zone (306) and lateral edges of the absorbent system (figure 2), the at least one material free zone has a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite the first longitudinal end, and the first and second longitudinal ends of the at least one material free zone are disposed between longitudinal ends of the absorbent core as shown in annotated figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Cole discloses an absorbent system wherein:
the absorbent core comprises two material free zones (306 as shown at both ends of the article) and two central longitudinal extending embossed channels (120) as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, Cole discloses an absorbent system wherein the central embossed channels are sinusoidal in shape as shown in figures 5A, 5B, 5D and 5E.
With reference to claims 8-9, Cole discloses an absorbent system further comprising a liquid management system (102) below the absorbent core as set forth in col. 4, lines 6-27 wherein a length of the liquid management system is greater than a length of the at least one material free zone (cl. 9) as shown in figure 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 5,514,104).
Regarding claim 4, Cole teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Cole and claim 4 is the provision that the channels are made from a repeating pattern of triangle shaped embossments.
Initially, it is held that the mere change in size or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the channels of Cole with triangle shaped embossments because Cole discloses that embossments may have numerous variations including a series of intersecting and/or parallel lines as set forth in col. 5, lines 9-17. See also figures 2 and 5D of Cole.
As to claim 5, Cole discloses an absorbent system wherein the at least one central longitudinal extending embossed channel and the at least two longitudinal extending embossed channels are coextensive with a length of the absorbent system as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claims 6-7 , Cole teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Cole and claims 6-7 is the provision that the material free zones have a specific open area and length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the open area and/or length of the material free zones of Cole as desired in order to provide the article with the desired degree of freedom and relative movement while continuing to provide conformance to the wearer as taught by Cole in col. 6, lines 18-36.
Additionally, 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”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a)(2) as anticipated by Cole (US 5,514,104) as set forth in the preceding rejection of claim 1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cole et al. (US 5,514,104) and further in view of Mukai et al. (US 2013/0110075 ).
With respect to claim 1, Cole teaches the invention as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Mukai et al. (hereinafter “Mukai”) teaches an analogous absorbent article that includes a slit (33A) as shown in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the specific slit of Mukai within the absorbent core of Cole in order to allow for further contouring of the core for an improved fit and reduced leakage.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole et al. (US 5,514,104) and further in view of Mukai et al. (US 2013/0110075 ).
With reference to claim 10, Cole discloses an absorbent product (100) comprising:
a backsheet (103);
a coversheet (110);
an absorbent system (100) disposed between an upper surface of the backsheet and a lower surface of the coversheet (figure 1), the absorbent system comprising:
an absorbent core (104) having a thickness (figure 1) and comprising at least one material free zone (306) that is devoid of absorbent material (figure 1) and that extends through the thickness of the absorbent core (figure 1), the at least one material free zone having no absorption capacity (see figure 1 where material free zone includes no material and would therefore have no absorption capacity);
an upper core wrap (112) with a bottom surface directly facing a top surface of the absorbent core (figure 4);
a lower acquisition distribution layer (106) with a top surface directly facing a bottom surface of the absorbent core (figure 4);
at least one central longitudinal extending embossed channel (120); and
at least two longitudinal extending embossed channels (left and right outermost channels 120) positioned between the at least one material free zone (306) and lateral edges of the absorbent system as shown in figure 2. Cole also provides the at least one material free zone has a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite the first longitudinal end, and the first and second longitudinal ends of the at least one material free zone are disposed between longitudinal ends of the absorbent core as shown in annotated figure 1 above.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the specific slit of Mukai within the absorbent core of Cole in order to allow for further contouring of the core for an improved fit and reduced leakage.
The difference between Cole and claim 10 is the provision that a body facing surface of the backsheet includes elastic strands aligned to pass longitudinally in a central portion of the at least one material free zone.
Mukai teaches an analogous absorbent article that includes a body facing surface of the backsheet having elastic strands (41C) aligned to pass longitudinally in a central portion of the at least one material free zone (34A) as shown in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the body facing surface of the backsheet of Cole with elastic strands aligned to pass longitudinally in a central portion of the at least one material free zone in order to enable the prevention of leakage of urine outside the wearing article in the cases of both slow urine and the discharge of large amount of urine as taught by Mukai in [0008].
As to claim 11, Cole discloses an absorbent product further comprising a liquid management system disposed between an upper surface of the absorbent system (112) and the lower surface of the coversheet (108) as shown in figure 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ryu et al. (US 2017/0246047) teaches an analogous absorbent article having at least one material free zone has a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end opposite the first longitudinal end, and the first and second longitudinal ends of the at least one material free zone are disposed between longitudinal ends of the absorbent core.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 at 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