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 Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 5 use a comma where a decimal point should be. For example, Claim 4 recites “between 0,5 and 10 mm”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0179467.
As to claim 1, Shimizu teaches a wrapper 80 for an absorbent article (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph 0023) comprising a layer of cellulosic fibers – where Shimizu teaches the removable release sheet comprises paper (Shimizu paragraph 0059), a layer of peeling agent arranged onto the layer of cellulosic fibers – Shimizu teaches the layer of cellulosic fibers (removable release sheet) has at least one surface coated with a release coating material (paragraph 0059). Shimizu teaches the layer has a basis weight of around 37 gm (Table 1), which has values in the claimed range of between 10 gsm and 40 gsm.
As to claim 2, the layer of cellulosic fibers consists essentially of paper material (Shimizu paragraph 0059).
As to claim 3, the wrapper 80 further comprises a layer of sealing agent arranged onto the layer of cellulosic fibers - where Shimizu teaches the release sheet may be attached to the inside surface of the wrapper sheet 80 at a few portions by means of an adhesive (Shimizu paragraph 0059).
As to claim 9, wrapper 80 comprises a closing tape 98 arranged on an outer surface of the wrapper 80 (Figure 2), the closing tape 98 comprising a grasping section (at distal end of tape 98 Figure 1) free of adhesive and an attaching section (at proximal end of tape 98 Figure 1) that comprises adhesive so that the closing tape 98 can adhere to the outer surface of the wrapper 80 (Shimizu paragraph 0023).
As to claim 10, Shimizu teaches the wrapper 80 comprises a rectangular
configuration (Figure 1), the sealing agent being arranged on the periphery of the wrapper along at least two edges arranged on opposite sides thereby defining a frame with an inner area – where Shimizu teaches the pouch may be formed by folding and sealing the edges of a wrapper sheet (paragraph 0065), the peeling agent (adjacent the cellulose layer) being arranged within the inner area of the frame defined by the sealing agent – where Shimizu teaches the release sheet may be attached to the inside surface of the wrapper sheet 80 at a few portion by means of an adhesive. Thus, the adhesive securing the release sheet would be inside the perimeter where the release sheet covers the adhesive 70 (Figure 1; paragraph 0061).
As to claim 13, Shimizu teaches an assembly comprising a wrapper 80 according to claim 1 and an absorbent article 20, the absorbent article 20 comprising a topsheet 30, a backsheet 40 and an absorbent core 50 (Figure 2; paragraph 0022) arranged in-between wherein the absorbent article 20 comprises an adhesive layer 70, the adhesive layer 70 being arranged between the backsheet 40 and the layer or peeling agent of the wrapper 80 (paragraph 0058) – where Shimizu teaches the adhesive 70 are on the garment surface 24 of the backsheet (paragraph 0057) and the cellulose layer (release sheet) may be a silicone-coated paper which covers the adhesive 70. Thus, the adhesive is between the backsheet and the coated layer of the wrapper.
As to claim 14, Shimizu teaches a process to manufacture an assembly according to claim 13, the process
comprising the following steps:
a. providing at least one layer of cellulosic fibers – where Shimizu teaches a release liner comprising paper (paragraph 0059),
b. applying a layer of peeling agent (paragraph 0059) on a surface of said at least one layer of cellulosic fibers – where Shimizu teaches coating the release paper;
c. optionally applying a layer of sealing agent on a surface of the at least one
layer of cellulosic fibers – this is an optional limitation;
d. applying an absorbent article 20 on the layer of peeling agent in a way that
the adhesive layer 70 being arranged between the backsheet 40 and the layer of
peeling agent where Shimizu teaches the adhesive 70 are on the garment surface 24 of the backsheet (paragraph 0057) and the cellulose layer (release sheet) may be a silicone-coated paper which covers the adhesive 70. Thus, the adhesive is between the backsheet and the coated layer of the wrapper;
e. folding the wrapper 80 and the absorbent article 20 altogether to enclose the
absorbent article 20 within the wrapper 80 (Shimizu Figure 2; paragraph 0023); and
f. applying heat and/or pressure on the wrapper 80 to seal the absorbent article 20
within the wrapper 80 (Shimizu paragraph 0065).
As to claim 15, the process comprises an additional step of printing a graphic element on the wrapper 80 (Shimizu paragraphs 0028, 0044).
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0179467 in view of Kawahara et al. EP 3023542. Shimizu teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Shimizu teaches a layer of cellulose fibers for the release sheet (Shimizu paragraph 0059). Shimizu does not teach the average fiber length of the layer of cellulose fibers. Kawahara teaches a fine cellulose fiber sheet which has paper making ability (Kawahara Abstract; paragraphs 0009, 0012). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cellulose sheet structure of Kawahara in the invention of Shimizu since both are concerned with paper-making ability and adhesion and Kawahara teaches the fine cellulose fiber sheet can be used as a separation membrane (paragraph 0263), which has functionality as a separator for the adhesive and wrapping components of Shimizu.
As to claim 4, Shimizu/Kawahara does not specifically teach the fiber length of the cellulosic fiber. Kawahara does teach the cellulose fibers having a maximum fiber diameter of 1000 nm that compose the fine cellulose fiber sheet are fine fibers in the form of short fibers (staple fibers) and do not contain endless long fibers (filaments) (Kawahara paragraph 0017). One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the fiber length needed to provide dimensional stability to the cellulose fiber sheet.
As to claim 5, Shimizu/Kawahara teaches an average fiber diameter for the paper making sheet is 2nm to 1000nm (paragraph 0014) which has values in the claimed range of 0.5 to 10µm (1000nm is 1µm). Shimizu/Kawahara teaches if the average fiber diameter of the fine cellulose fibers is less than 2nm, the fibers dissolve in water as cellulose molecules. And if the fiber diameter of the fine cellulose fibers exceeds 1000nm, a fine, uniform network structure is unable to be formed and sheet properties become unstable. Kawahara teaches the fiber diameter of 1000 nm or less provides sheet strength and dimensional stability (paragraph 0017).
11. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0179467. Shimizu teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Shimizu does not specifically teach the amount of the peeling agent and sealing agent present in the wrapper. Shimizu teaches the removable release sheet comprises paper providing the claimed layer of cellulosic fibers (Shimizu paragraph 0059), a layer of peeling agent arranged onto the layer of cellulosic fibers – Shimizu teaches the layer of cellulosic fibers (removable release sheet) has at least one surface coated with a silicone release coating material (paragraph 0059). Shimizu further teaches a layer of sealing agent arranged onto the layer of cellulosic fibers - where Shimizu teaches the release sheet may be attached to the inside surface of the wrapper sheet 80 at a few portions by means of an adhesive (Shimizu paragraph 0059).
Therefore, the general conditions of the article having a peeling agent and sealing agent are satisfied. One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the amount of the agents necessary to provide good adhesion, without imparting stiffness, allowing the article to be compacted and folded in the packaged condition (Shimizu Figure 2).
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0179467 in view of Camille Nijs et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0038197. Shimizu teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Shimizu does not teach the wrapper 80 comprises uncoated portions arranged at least at one of the corners of the rectangular configuration of the wrapper. Camille Nijs teaches an individually-packaged hygiene article having a grip zone 5 located on the periphery of the package in an area where the permanent seal line 3 is not present (Camille Nijs paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0024; Figure 1). The grip zones are located in the corners of the rectangular wrapper (Camille Nijs Figure 1) for the benefit of providing the user a graspable portion of the package to aid in opening the package (paragraphs 0007, 0023, 0024). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the wrapper of Shimizu with an uncoated corner for the benefits taught in Camille Nijs.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not teach or suggest the layer of cellulosic fibers has multiple layers including a first and second sublayer of cellulosic fibers and where the second sublayer has a greater average fiber length than the first sub-layer. Claim 12 depends from claim 6.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohba et al. US 20030163109, Hsieh et al. US 2015/0272791 and Kuroda et al. US 2008/0276570 are cited to show absorbent article wrappers and release sheets.
15. 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 on 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