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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive.
With regard to claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 18-19, Applicant argues Foss is directed to the use of PETG fibers having an anti-microbial additive and Foss fails to disclose, teach, or suggest fibers formed from a polyamide polymer composition that includes a polyamide polymer and a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer. Rather, Foss is directed to the use of PETG fibers having an anti-microbial additive. Applicant argues that since PETB necessarily melts at a lower temperature than nylon in order to function as described, the POSITA would not have any reasonable expectation of success in substituting the PETG polymer fibers of Foss with the polyamide fibers of Osborn. Moreover, such a substitution would impermissibly alter a principle of operation of Foss and would impermissibly render Foss unsuited for its intended purpose. Applicant contends that the combination of Foss and Osborn would be improper. 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, Foss teaches PETG may be used as one of the polymer blends and/or carriers for a wide variety of applications. Foss teaches PETG is an amorphous binder fiber than can be blended into yarns with other fibers to form woven fabrics, as well as knits, and nonwovens. Foss teaches it is used in the present invention as a carrier to carry pigments and/or antimicrobial additives and/or other additives and is blended with other fibers which may be natural fibers such as cotton, silk, flax, wool, etc. or other synthetic fibers such as :PET, PP, PE, Nylon, Acrylic, etc. Foss teaches after heat activation, the PETG melts, continuously releases the color pigments and/or anti-microbial or other additives and wets the surface of the surrounding fibers with the anti-microbial it carriers. The PETG delivers and distributes the anti-microbial uniformly within a fabric, generating the finished fabrics and/or fabrics having anti-microbial properties (Foss paragraph 0047). Thus, it would be obvious to use the PETG of Foss as a carrier of anti-microbial additives with the nylon of Osborn since Foss teaches the PETG is blended with nylon fibers (Foss paragraph 047).
Additionally with regard to claims 1, 18, and 19, Applicant argues that with respect to the rewet value, the Office Action’s reliance on inherency is improper. Applicant argues the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish inherency of that result or characteristic. Applicant asserts that the Office Action failed to provide a basis in fact or technical reasoning to establish that the recited rewet value “necessarily flows” from the teachings of Foss and Osborn. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim 1 requires a topsheet having a polyamide polymer and a zinc compound embedded in a polymer matrix. Claims 14, 18, and 19 require that between the topsheet, backsheet, and absorbent core, at least one of the layers comprise a polyamide polymer and a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer. Foss/Osborn teach an AM/AV material having a zinc compound embedded in a polyamide polymer matrix – where Foss teaches a PETG carrier having anti-microbial additives, such as zinc, blended with Nylon (polyamides) (Foss para. 0047). Osborn additionally teaches zinc compounds blended with polyamides, e.g. nylon-based polymers (Osborn para. 0013, 0024, 0029). Claims 1, 14, 18, and 19 do not require a specific amount of fiber or zinc in the composition in order for the topsheet to demonstrate the claimed rewet value and Foss and Osborn both provide the claimed materials, and if tested according to the test method recited in the claims would demonstrate a rewet value in the claimed ranges. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As to claim 14, Applicant argues Foss and Osborn fail to teach a powder composition that comprises and AM/AV compound. Applicant argues the Office Action attempted to remedy the admitted deficiency of the other cited documents using Noel (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0184150). However, inasmuch as the cited portion of Noel describes zinc oxide, Noel expressly describes that zinc oxide is a component of a hydrophobic lotion that is added to the topsheet of the sanitary napkin of Noel. Applicant contends that Noel fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “an absorbent core configured therebetween that comprises an AM/AV powder composition”. Applicant argues that attempting to modify Noel in such a manner as to relocate this hydrophobic lotion from the outer surface of the topsheet would impermissibly alter a principle of operation of Noel, and would impermissibly render Noel unsuited for its intended purpose. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Noel teaches the zinc oxide in a powder formulation (Noel para. 0055) and further teaches the carrier for the lotion composition can be a solid or semi-solid (Noel para. 0066) and the lotion can be applied as a solid or semi-solid at ambient conditions (Noel para. 0088). Noel teaches the lotion compositions are typically applied to the topsheet of an absorbent article for delivery of the lotion composition onto an external or internal surface of the skin. Noel also teaches the lotion composition can be applied to other areas of the absorbent article including the absorbent core and any secondary layer intermediate the core and topsheet (Noel para. 0091). Additionally, Foss teaches the anti-microbial fiber-containing fabrics may be used in both the covering fabric and the water absorbent interior material. Foss teaches in this way, both surface and interior protection is achieved (Foss paragraph 0090). For comments regarding the rewet value, see the discussion of the rewet value above for claims 1, 18, and 19.
With regard to claim 2, the claim has been amended to recite “the backsheet polymer composition comprises the polyamide polymer and the zinc AM/AV compound embedded in the polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer. Applicant argues Foss fails to describe forming the inner layer 37 from anti-microbial fibers, likely because the anti-microbial fibers of Foss were unsuited to forming an inner layer 37 that “is impervious to fluids so that the fluids such as urine do not wet and/or stain the outer layer of clothing”. As such, Applicant contends the asserted combination of Foss and Osborn is deficient and fails to support a prima facie case for obviousness against claim 2. Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 2 are persuasive. The examiner has applied a newly discovered reference, Amos et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0010478 to address the amended limitations of claim 2.
As to claims 9 and 10, Applicant argues the Office Action admitted the deficiency of the cited art (Foss/Osborn) with respect to the recited Escherichia coli efficacy log reduction value and the recited hygroscopy absorbance value and asserts the values are inherently disclosed by the asserted combination. Applicant argues the Office Action’s reliance on inherency is improper. Applicant asserts that the Office Action failed to provide a basis in fact or technical reasoning to establish that the recited Escherichia coli efficacy log reduction value and the recited hygroscopy absorbance value “necessarily flow” from the teachings of Foss and Osborn. As such, the asserted combination of Foss and Osborn is deficient with respect to these features. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. What is claimed in claim 9 is “the topsheet layer demonstrates and Escherichia coli efficacy log reduction greater than 4.0, as measured in accordance with ASTM E3160 (2018). The claimed topsheet from independent claim 1 is a topsheet layer comprising fibers having polyamide polymer composition comprising a polyamide polymer and a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer. As discussed above, Foss teaches the claimed polyamide polymer topsheet having a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of polyamide polymer. Claims 1, 9, or 10 do not require any other specific structure, percentage of materials, fiber size, or any other specific attribute that would necessarily provide the claimed test results. The reasoning that Foss/Osborn would provide the recited Escherichia coli efficacy log reduction value and the recited hygroscopy absorbance value is found in the fact that Foss/Osborn provide the recited structure. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As to dependent claim 20, Applicant argues paragraph 0075 of Noel cited by the examiner against claim 20, contends that the POSITA would interpret that passage of Noel as clearly describing treating layers with a hydrophobic lotion and/or wetting agents to alter the hygroscopicity and/or hydrophilicity of the carrier layer. Therefore, Noel fails to expressly describe “wherein none of the layers are treated to improve initial hygroscopicity and/or hydrophilicity”, and even appears to impermissibly teach away from the recitations of this claim. As such, Noel fails to resolve the admitted deficiency of Foss and Osborn, and as such, the asserted combination of Foss, Osborn, and Noel fails to support a prima facie case for obviousness against claim 20. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. What is claimed in claim 20 is “none of the layers are treated to improve initial hygroscopicity and/or hydrophilicity” Even if a layer is treated with a hydrophobic lotion, it would not improve hydrophilicity. Noel, in paragraph 0075, teaches the carrier is hydrophobic and that the lotion comprises no surfactant, thus the lotion composition is a hydrophobic composition which does not improve hydrophilicity, which is what is required by the claim.
Applicant’s arguments are partially persuasive and the rejection is maintained. New grounds of rejections are presented for amended claims as necessary.
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 1, 4, 6, 8-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss US Patent Application Publication 2005/0101213 in view of Osborn et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0187494.
As to claims 1, 18, and 19, Foss teaches an AM/AV material and a process for making the material (Foss paragraphs 0027, 0089-0091), comprising:
a topsheet layer 33 comprising fibers having a topsheet polyamide polymer composition – where Foss teaches a garment 34 having an outer layer 33 which contacts the skin of a wearer (Foss Fig. 7; para. 0094). Foss further teaches the outer layer 33 (topsheet) is made of anti-microbial fiber so that there is protection from microbes and fungus which causes infection and odors (paragraph 0096). Foss further teaches the antimicrobial additives are blended with fibers such as nylon (a type of polyamide) to form a fabric having anti-microbial properties (Foss para. 0047).
Foss teaches the topsheet polyamide polymer composition comprises a polyamide polymer and a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer (Foss paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0049).
Foss teaches a backsheet layer 37 (Foss Figure 7; par. 0094), but does not specifically teach the backsheet comprises a backsheet polymer composition. However, Foss does teach microbes can develop even when fluids are moved away from the skin and there is danger of infection due to bacterial and fungal growth in urine-soaked fabrics (paragraphs 0003-0005). To avoid and prevent bacteria develop it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to incorporate the antimicrobial composition in fiber, fabrics, and yarns in all of the layers that makeup the absorbent article. Foss further teaches an absorbent core 31 configured therebetween;
wherein the fibers of the topsheet layer 33 or at least one of the layers comprise a polymer and an AM/AV compound (Foss Abstract).
Foss teaches the importance of having antimicrobial additives in washable and/or disposable diapers having qualities imparted to it which remain for the life of the fabric (Foss paragraph 0002). Foss does not teach the fibers of the topsheet layer 33 demonstrate a rewet value less than 5 g after a first water application and a Staph Aureus efficacy log reduction greater than 2.6, as measured in accordance with ISO 20743:2013. Osborn teaches polymer compositions, fibers, and yarns having antimicrobial components having near-permanent retention in fabrics (Abstract; paragraph 0002). Osborne teaches the fibers can be used to make fabrics including garments that can withstand normal wear and laundering (Osborne paragraphs 0087) and the antimicrobial properties from the polymer composition are near permanent (Osborne paragraph 0002, 0009, 0041). Osborn further teaches a benefit of the fibers, yarns, and fabrics made from the polymer composition advantageously eliminate the need for a topical treatment to make apparel antimicrobial (Osborn paragraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the antimicrobial fibers, yarns, and fabrics of Osborn in the absorbent article of Foss for the benefits taught in Osborn.
Foss/Osborn teach the fibers of the topsheet layer 33 have a Staph Aureus efficacy log reduction greater than 2.6, as measured in accordance with ISO 20743:2013 (Osborn Table 5; paragraphs 0095-0096). Foss/Osborn does not teach the claimed rewet. However, Foss/Osborn teaches the claimed materials and compositions. Since the prior art has met the structural and material requirements of the claims, Foss/Osborn obviously includes an absorbent article and components capable of achieving the claimed test results.
As to claim 4, Foss/Osborne teach the fibers in each of the layers have an average fiber
diameter from 1 micron to 50 microns (Osborne paragraphs 0071-0072)..
As to claim 6, Foss teaches the fabrics can be meltblown, spunbond, electrospun, spunlace, or flashspun (Foss paragraph 0089).
As to claim 8, the fibers of the topsheet layer demonstrate a Klebsiella pneumoniae efficacy log reduction greater than 2.4, as measured in accordance with ISO 20743:2013 (Osborne paragraphs 0010, 0054-0056).
As to claims 9 and 10, Foss/Osborn does not teach the claimed Escherichia coli efficacy log reduction greater than 4.0, as measured in accordance with ASTM E3160 (2018) or the claimed hygroscopy absorbance of greater than 1.5 wt.% water, based on the total weight of the polymer. However, Foss/Osborn teaches the claimed materials for the topsheet polyamide polymer composition, the backsheet polymer composition, or both. Since the prior art has met the structural and material requirements of the claims, Foss/Osborn obviously includes an absorbent article and components capable of achieving the claimed test results. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 2, 3, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss US Patent Application Publication 2005/0101213 in view of Osborn et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0187494 and further in view of Amos et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0010478.
As to claim 2, Foss/Osborn teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Foss/Osborn do not specifically teach the backsheet polymer composition comprises the polyamide polymer and the zinc AM/AV compound embedded in the polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer. Amos teaches an antimicrobial disposable absorbent article (Figures 2-3F). Amos teaches the antimicrobial composition can be coated onto the body facing surface of the backsheet material (Amos Figures 3A and 3B; paragraphs 0106, 0110). Being from the same field of endeavor as Amos, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed provide the antimicrobial composition on the backsheet of Foss/Osborn.
As to claim 3, Foss/Osborn/Amos teach the topsheet layer, the backsheet layer, or both, further comprise a thermoplastic polymer, polyester, nylon, rayon, polyamide, polyamide, poly olefin, polyolefin terephthalate, polyolefin terephthalate glycol, co-PET, or polylactic acid, or combinations thereof - where Foss teaches the fibers can be used to make both woven and nonwoven fabrics, such as for incontinent garments including disposable diapers (Foss para. 0089). Foss further teaches the outer layer 33 of a garment with a removable liner assembly 36 is made of anti-microbial fiber (paragraph 0096). Foss teaches PETG combined with PET, PP, PE, Nylon, Acrylic etc. provide the antimicrobial properties (para. 0047); and where Osborn teaches the fibers in the polymer composition are for next-to skin applications (topsheets) (Osborn paragraphs 0022, 0071). Amos teaches the topsheet and backsheet comprise some the claimed polymeric materials such as polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene fibers (Amos paragraphs 0086-0087).
As to claim 23, Foss/Osborn/Amos teach the polyamide polymer comprises PA-6, PA6,6, PA6,6/6T, or a combination thereof (Osborn paragraph 0022).
Claims 7, 11-15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss US Patent Application Publication 2005/0101213 in view of Osborn et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0187494 and further in view of Noel US Patent Application Publication 2006/0184150.
Foss/Osborn teaches the antimicrobial material is present in an absorbent article as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Foss/Osborn do not teach the characteristics of the topsheet and backsheet. Noel teaches an absorbent article having an antimicrobial compositions (Noel paragraphs 0033, 0047, 0051). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to use the absorbent structure of Noel in the invention of Foss/Osborn since Foss, Osborn, and Noel are from the same field of endeavor and all teach antimicrobial compositions on absorbent articles.
As to claim 7, Foss/Osborn/Noel does not specifically teach the topsheet layer has a thickness ranging from 25 microns to 500 microns and/or the backsheet layer has a thickness ranging from 25 microns to 500 microns. However, Noel does teach a thin pad is desirable as it is more flexible for wearing adjacent to the pudendal region (Noel paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to have the topsheet and backsheet in the claimed size, to provide a flexible and conformable structure. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the thickness needed for an intended use.
As to claims 11 and 12, Foss/Osborn/Noel teaches a pad layer comprising a pad polymer composition and configured between the topsheet layer and the absorbent core and/or an acquisition distribution layer comprising an ADL polymer composition and configured between the topsheet layer and the absorbent core; and an embossed layer configured between the absorbent core and backsheet - where in paragraph 0037, Noel incorporates by reference Richards et al. USPN 5607414. Richards teaches a catamenial pad 10 having a topsheet12 and a pad layer 14 between the topsheet 12 and the absorbent core 22 (Figure 2; Richards col. 22, lines 62-66). Richards further teaches an embossed layer 28 configured between the absorbent core 22 and the backsheet layer 18 (Figure 2; col. 23, line 60 through col. 24, line 20 - Richards teaches an acquisition layer 14 and a distribution layer 28 that are thermally bonded, using heat and pressure causing an embossed pad (Richards col. 13, lines 5-36) in the absorbent structure. Noel further teaches the compositions are typically applied to the topsheet of an absorbent article, but can be applied to other areas including the secondary layer (pad layer 14) or any other region of the absorbent article, which includes the embossed layer (Noel paragraph 0091).
As to claim 13, the absorbent core 31 comprises absorbent material and an AM/AV (Foss paragraphs 0029, 0098). Foss/Osborn do not teach a powder composition comprises an AM/AV compound and a polymer. Noel teaches the zinc compound, zinc oxide skin treatment agent is a powder composition with relatively small particles. Noel teaches the small nanoparticle diameter size zinc oxide avoids undesirable skin or hair whitening that results from the transfer of the zinc oxide composition from the topsheet of the absorbent article to the wearer’s body during product use (Noel paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the antimicrobial composition in a powder form for the benefits taught in Noel.
As to claim 14, Foss teaches an AM/AV material, comprising:
a topsheet layer 33 comprising fibers having a topsheet polymer composition (Foss paragraphs 0089, 0096-0097) comprising a polymer and an AM/AV compound (Foss Figure 7; paragraph 0094).
Foss teaches a backsheet layer 37, but does not specifically teach the backsheet comprises a backsheet polymer composition. However, Foss does teach microbes can develop even when fluids are moved away from the skin and there is danger of infection due to bacterial and fungal growth in urine-soaked fabrics (paragraphs 0003-0005). To avoid and prevent bacteria develop it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to incorporate the antimicrobial composition in fiber, fabrics, and yarns in all of the layers that makeup the absorbent article. Osborn teaches polymer compositions, fibers, and yarns having antimicrobial components having near-permanent retention in fabrics (Abstract; paragraph 0002). Osborne teaches the fibers can be used to make fabrics including garments that can withstand normal wear and laundering (Osborne paragraphs 0087) and the antimicrobial properties from the polymer composition are near permanent (Osborne paragraph 0002, 0009, 0041). Osborn further teaches a benefit of the fibers, yarns, and fabrics made from the polymer composition advantageously eliminate the need for a topical treatment to make apparel antimicrobial (Osborn paragraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the antimicrobial fibers, yarns, and fabrics of Osborn in the absorbent article of Foss for the benefits taught in Osborn.
Foss/Osborn further teaches an absorbent core 31 configured therebetween that comprises an AM/AV composition (Foss paragraph 0098).
Foss/Osborn do not teach a powder composition comprises an AM/AV compound and a polymer. Noel teaches the zinc compound, zinc oxide skin treatment agent is a powder composition with relatively small particles. Noel teaches the small nanoparticle diameter size zinc oxide avoids undesirable skin or hair whitening that results from the transfer of the zinc oxide composition from the topsheet of the absorbent article to the wearer’s body during product use (Noel paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the antimicrobial composition in a powder form for the benefits taught in Noel.
Foss/Osborn/Noel teach the fibers of the topsheet layer 33 have a Staph Aureus efficacy log reduction greater than 2.6, as measured in accordance with ISO 20743:2013 (Osborn Table 5; paragraphs 0095-0096). Foss/Osborn/Noel does not teach the claimed rewet. However, Foss/Osborn/Noel teach the claimed materials and compositions. Since the prior art has met the structural and material requirements of the claims, Foss/Osborn obviously includes an absorbent article and components capable of achieving the claimed test results. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As to claim 15, Foss/Osborn/Noel teach the AM/AV powder composition comprise an AM/AV compound and a polymer (Noel paragraphs 0055 and 0067).
As to claim 20, Foss/Osborn/Noel teach none of the layers are treated to improve initial
hygroscopicity and/or hydrophilicity – where Noel teaches it is preferable that the composition comprise no surfactant as the composition has a level of hydrophobicity at least as great as that of the topsheet so as to avoid any undesirable effects on any underlying tissue laminate structure, e.g. reductions in tensile strength (Noel paragraph 0075).
As to claim 21, Foss/Osborn/Noel teach the topsheet layer comprises a hydrophilic and/or hygroscopic fabric that is free of lotion – where Noel teaches the lotion composition is typically applied to the topsheet of an absorbent article, but can be applied to other areas of the article including the wings, side panels, absorbent core, any secondary layer intermediate the core and topsheet, or any region of the absorbent article (paragraph 0091). It still within the scope of the invention of Noel that the topsheet layer is hydrophilic without the lotion composition since Noel teaches the topsheet comprises hydrophilic materials. Additionally, Noel teaches rendering the topsheet hydrophilic by the use of any known method for making topsheet containing hydrophilic components (Noel para. 0079).
As to claim 22, Foss/Osborn/Noel teach the fibers of the topsheet layer, the fibers of the backsheet layer, or both, comprise a polyamide polymer and a zinc AM/AV compound embedded in a polymer matrix of the polyamide polymer - where Foss teaches a garment 34 having an outer layer 33 which contacts the skin of a wearer (Foss Fig. 7; para. 0094). Foss further teaches the outer layer 33 (topsheet) is made of anti-microbial fiber so that there is protection from microbes and fungus which causes infection and odors (paragraph 0096). Foss further teaches the antimicrobial additives including zinc (Foss para. 0032) are blended with fibers such as nylon (a type of polyamide) to form a fabric having anti-microbial properties (Foss para. 0047); and
wherein the polyamide polymer comprises PA-6, PA6,6, PA6,6/6T, or a combination thereof (Osborn paragraph 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alemany USPN 6203810 is cited to show an antimicrobial composition on an absorbent article.
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 JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781