DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications file July 28, 2025.
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-16 remain pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 28, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
3. Claims 5 and 8 are amended to correct previously noted informalities; accordingly, these claim objections are withdrawn herein.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s argument that Shimizu fails to disclose each and every element of independent claim 1, examiner respectfully disagrees. As applicant correctly points out, the 37 gsm cited from samples 6 and 7 of Table 1 in Shimizu correspond to the basis weight of the release paper; however, it is examiner’s position that Shimizu’s wrapper (80) is comprised of a combination of a wrapper sheet material and a release paper, as suggested by the suitable combinations within paragraph [0050] and Table 1; and therefore, the release paper makes up a layer of Shimizu’s disclosed wrapper. This release paper, of the wrapper, can be clearly interpreted as including a layer of cellulosic fibers consisting essentially of paper material, as Shimizu suggests the use of silicone coated paper. Accordingly, Shimizu discloses a wrapper (80) for an absorbent article (20; Figs. 1, 2), as required by the preamble, comprising a release paper (removeable release sheet) and a wrapper sheet material, wherein the release paper comprises a layer of cellulosic fibers consisting essentially of paper material (silicone coated paper) having a basis weight between 10 gsm and 40 gsm (37 gsm); therefore, the wrapper (80) of Shimizu comprises the layer of cellulosic fibers consisting essentially of paper material (silicone coated paper) having a basis weight between 10 gsm and 40 gsm, as required by the claim.
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 wrapper made of cellulosic fibers covering a release paper and absorbent article”) 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). Independent claim 1 merely requires a “wrapper for an absorbent article comprising a release paper, said wrapper comprising a layer of cellulosic fibers wherein the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a basis weight comprised between 10 gsm and 40 gsm”; there is no requirement within the claims for the cellulosic fibers to cover a release paper. Applicant appears to be interpreting the claims more narrowly than presently presented. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Independent claim 1, as currently presented, does not preclude the layer of cellulosic fibers from being a part of the release paper; and does not preclude the wrapper from comprising layers other than or in addition to the layer of cellulosic fibers. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner suggests the inclusion of more narrowing claim language to further differentiate the instant invention from that disclosed by Shimizu; if the intent is for the claimed release paper and claimed layer of cellulosic fibers to be separate and distinct, covering one another, it is suggested that such language be included within the claims.
In view of the response to arguments above, the prior art rejection presented in the February 27, 2025 Office action is maintained and repeated below.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0179467).
6. With regard to claims 1 and 2, Shimizu discloses a wrapper (wrapper sheet, 80) for an absorbent article (sanitary napkin, 20; Figs. 1, 2) comprising a release paper (removable release sheet; [0037]; [0050]; [0058]), said wrapper (80) comprising a layer of cellulosic fibers consisting essentially of paper material (silicone coated paper; samples 6 and 7 of Table 1) wherein the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a basis weight comprised between 10 gsm and 40 gsm (37 gsm; [0002-0003]; [0013]; [0044]; [0059]; [0064-0065]; claims 1, 16).
7. With regard to claim 4, Shimizu discloses that wrapper (80) further comprises a layer of sealing agent (adhesive) arranged onto the layer of cellulosic fibers ([0059]).
8. With regard to claim 11, Shimizu discloses an assembly (Figs. 1, 2) comprising a wrapper (80) according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) and an absorbent article (20), the absorbent article (20) comprising a topsheet (liquid permeable topsheet, 30), a backsheet (liquid impermeable backsheet) and an absorbent core (50) arranged in-between wherein the absorbent article (20) comprises a first adhesive layer (peeling layer made of silicone; and a closing tape, 98) and a release paper (release sheet; claims 3, 6; [0037]; [0050]; [0058]).
9. With regard to claim 12, Shimuzu discloses that said first adhesive layer (peeling layer made of silicone; and a closing tape, 98) is arranged in-between the backsheet (40) and the release paper (release sheet; Figs. 1, 2; [0037]; [0050]; [0058])
9. With regard to claim 13, Shimuzu discloses that the absorbent article (20) comprises wings (“sanitary napkin”; [0003]; [0006]; [0012-0015]; [0020]) with release paper (release sheet).
10. With regard to claim 16, Shimizu discloses a method to manufacture an assembly (Figs. 1, 2) according to claim 11 (see rejection above), the process (abstract) comprising the following steps: a. providing at least one layer of cellulosic fibers (silicone coated paper, 80; samples 6 and 7 of Table 1); b. optionally applying a layer of sealing agent (adhesive) on a surface of said at least one layer of cellulosic fibers ([0059]); c. applying an absorbent article (20) onto said layer of cellulosic fibers (80) in a way that the release paper is arranged between the backsheet (40) and the wrapper (80; Fig. 2); d. folding the wrapper (80) and the absorbent article (20) altogether to enclose the absorbent article (20) within the wrapper (80; [0006]; [0022-0024]); and e. applying heat and/or pressure on the wrapper (80) to seal the absorbent article (20) within the wrapper (80; [0065-0066]; [0002-0003]; [0013]; [0044]; [0059]; [0064]; claims 1, 16).
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.
11. Claim(s) 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimuzu.
12. With regard to claims 3 and 8-9, Shimuzu, while disclosing that the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a basis weight comprised of 37 gsm ([0002-0003]; [0013]; [0044]; [0059]; [0064-0065]; claims 1, 16), fails to explicitly disclose that the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a basis weight comprised between 15 gsm and 35 gsm, or for example between 16 gsm and 30 gsm, or for example between 18 gsm and 29 gsm, or for example between 20 gsm and 28 gsm; and the layer of sealing agent (34,34') has a basis weight comprised between 1 gsm and 20 gsm; and said wrapper further comprises a layer of peeling agent (32,32') comprising a peeling agent selected from silicon resin series, fluororesin series, octadecilisocyanate series, said layer of peeling agent (32) comprising a basis weight comprised between 0,3 gsm and 3 gsm.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of the cellulosic fiber layer, peeling layer and sealing layer disclosed by Shimuzu, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to optimize the basis weight o the cellulosic fiber layer based on desired purpose.
.
13. Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimuzu in view of Kawahara et al. (EP 3023542).
14. With regard to claims 5-6, Shimuzu is silent in regard to the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises cellulosic fibers with an average fiber length comprised between 0,5 and 10 mm and/or with an average fiber diameter comprised between 0,5 and 50 um; wherein the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a thickness comprised between 5 um and 150 um.
However, Kawahara discloses a fine cellulose fiber sheet (abstract) comprising cellulosic fibers with an average fiber length comprised between 0,5 and 10 mm and/or with an average fiber diameter comprised between 0,5 and 50 um; wherein the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a thickness comprised between 5 um and 150 um ([0145]; example 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length/thickness of the cellulosic fiber layer disclosed by Shimuzu, to be similar to that disclosed by Kawahara, since Kawahara makes it known that these are standard dimensions for cellulosic fibers, in paragraph [0145].
15. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimuzu in view of Oomori et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0004687).
14. With regard to claims 7, Shimuzu fails to explicitly disclose that the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a first sub-layer of cellulosic fibers and a second layer of cellulosic fibers, the cellulosic fibers in the second sub-layer having a greater average fiber length than the first sub-layer.
However, Oomori discloses a laminated body (abstract; Fig. 1) wherein the layer of cellulosic fibers comprises a first sub-layer of cellulosic fibers and a second layer of cellulosic fibers, the cellulosic fibers in the second sub-layer having a greater average fiber length than the first sub-layer ([0013-0015]; [0029] ;[0050]; claims 1-3; Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the the cellulosic fiber layer disclosed by Shimuzu, to be similar to that disclosed by Oomori, in order to envisage a bi-layer cellulosic fiber, wherein the sub-layer may have many different lengths, as suggested by Oomori in paragraph [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 10, 14 and 15 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.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571)272-7159. 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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781