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 with respect to claim(s) 1-10,14-23 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,17,20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao et al. US 2018/0256415, provided in the previous action, and hereafter Miao in view of Arceo-Yap et al. US 2021/0393452, provided in the previous office action, hereafter Areco, and further in view Fell US 2003/0187413, hereafter Fell.
Regarding claim 1, Miao discloses
A feminine hygiene pad (abstract, Fig 1A,1B) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (para. 0045, topsheet (16))), a liquid impermeable backsheet (para. 0045, backsheet (17)), and an absorbent system disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (absorbent core (18) seen between topsheet and backsheet)), the absorbent system comprising (absorbent core (18)): an absorbent foam layer beneath the topsheet (para. 0083, where absorbent may be made from a foam material), the foam layer having a wearer-facing surface and an outward-facing surface (wearer side surface interpreted as side facing the topsheet), and a plurality of apertures providing z-direction passageways from the wearer-facing surface to the outward-facing surface (the absorbent layer comprises two sets of apertures, the first in the central region (24), defined to be apertures under para. 0069, and apertures (31)).
The examiner notes that in the embodiment of figure 1A and 1B, there is no disclosure of a spacer layer. However, Miao discloses that a distribution layer or second absorbent layer (42, see figure 1C) may be positioned between the backsheet and absorbent (para. 0070). Therefore, as Miao teaches that additional absorbent or distribution layers may be used in the system it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a layer between the absorbent and backsheet, where said layer is interpreted as a spacer layer. The examiner notes that as this layer is disclosed to be “another absorbent layer” where the first absorbent layer is porous, it is interpreted that the defined spacer layer would be porous as well. Further, as seen in figure 1C, said spacer layer (42) underlies the entire absorbent layer and thus underlies substantially all of the apertures. The examiner notes that the peripheral region of the spacer layer is the layer underlying the edges of the absorbent (portions with apertures 31), and the central region of the spacer layer is the portion underlying the region with the defined apertures (24)). As seen in the figures, the two layers are separate.
Miao further discloses that layers may be combined with one another using adhesive methods known in the art, where the adhesives do not inhibit fluid flow through the device (para. 0038). The examiner notes that as fluid flows through the central region it is interpreted that the central region is substantially free of adhesive to allow the device to function properly.
Should applicant disagree, the examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 Section VI C In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Therefore as Miao discloses that known adhesive methods may be used, so long as fluid flow is not impacted, and as detailed in the above paragraph, the examiner interprets that placing adhesive in the central region would impact fluid flow, thus inhibiting the function of the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modifying the adhesive pattern of Miao to only be applied along a periphery of the layers as a matter of rearrangement of parts and design choice.
However, should applicant disagree with this interpretation, the examines provides a secondary rejection in view of Arceo.
Arceo teaches a feminine hygiene pad and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Arceo teaches that the layers of the pad are joined together (para. 0008) by various methods, including an adhesive, stitch, weld, or other bond, around a peripheral edge (para. 0025). Therefore, as Miao teaches that adhesives may be applied using known methods to bond the layers together, and Arceo teaches that it is known in the art to bond layers together using a peripheral edge adhesive and therefore is a suitable pattern, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesive to only the peripheral edge of the device of Miao.
Per the amendments filed 12/15/2025, the examiner notes that as seen in figure 1C of Miao, the defined spacer layer is interpreted to have a smaller surface area than the defined absorbent foam layer as the foam layer is thicker and has various apertures and cutouts extending through and into the layer thus further increasing the surface area compared to the defined spacer layer. As such it is interpreted that Miao reads to the limitation of the spacer layer comprising a smaller surface area. However, the examiner notes that as seen in the same figure, Miao fails to teach that the spacer layer (42) does not extend beyond a perimeter edge of the absorbent foam layer (18). The examiner notes that as detailed above, the spacer layer of Miao is taught to be “a distribution layer or second absorbent layer”.
Fell teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Fell teaches that said article comprises a first absorbent (24) and a second absorbent (26) where it is desired that the second absorbent (seen in figure 2 to be below the first absorbent) has a length that sized to be slightly shorter than the length of the first absorbent. Per MPEP section 2144.IV A, the Federal Circuit 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. Therefore as Miao teaches an absorbent article with a first and second layer and Fell teaches that absorbent articles may suitably function, and may be desirably made where the second (or lower) absorbent article is shorter than the first (upper) article, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the spacer layer (second absorbent layer or Miao) to be short than the first absorbent layer as a matter of obviousness change in size/proportion.
Regarding claim 17, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein apertures present within a discharge region have an average x-y plane opening area at the wearer-facing surface of the absorbent layer of 3 mm2 to 13 mm2 (para. 0035). Miao teaches that the diameter and therefore area of the apertures in the layer may vary such to allow fluid to flow through (para.0035). Per paragraph 0035, the area may range from .12-80 mm^2, and more specifically .8-12mm^2, and the diameter of the circular openings may vary between .5 and 50mm, and more specifically between 1 and 5mm. When calculating the area of a circle using these diameters, one would get a range of .79mm^2 to about 19.6mm^2, thus reading to the claimed limitation
Regarding claim 20, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein constituent material of the spacer layer is hydrophilic or has been treated to render surfaces thereof hydrophilic (Miao, para. 0083, where the absorbent is disclosed to be hydrophilic, and it was interpreted that the spacer layer is able to be made from the same material as the absorbent since it is “another absorbent”).
Regarding claim 21, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein at least a majority of a wearer facing surface of the absorbent foam layer is in direct contact with the topsheet (Miao figure 1B).
Regarding claim 22, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein the plurality of apertures includes one or more patterns (first pattern being apertures 24 in the center portion, see figure 1a) , including at least a first pattern disposed within an expected discharge region (figure 1a, where said are disposed in the center, interpreted to be the expected discharge reason) and at least a second pattern disposed in a rear region (apertures 31, seen disposed in the both the front and rear region, see also figure 2a), wherein the apertures of the second pattern have a longer lateral length than the apertures of the first pattern (figure 2a, where the apertures on the front and back (second pattern) are wider than the central apertures (first pattern), thus have a longer lateral length). Miao further discloses that the apertures may be slit shaped rather than dot shaped, as seen in figure 3a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of change of shape to modify the apertures of figure 1a to be slits, thus clearly being longer in lateral length than the central apertures. The examiner notes that seen in the respective figures (2a, 3a), both sets of respective apertures are sized and positioned differently and therefore interpreted to have different patterns.
Claim(s) 2,10,14,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Arceo and Fell, and further in view of Bewick et al. US 2017/0119596, provided in the previous office action, and hereafter Bewick.
Regarding claim 2, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein the spacer layer comprises a various materials (para. 0083 discloses that the absorbent may be made from fibers, foam, or combinations of the various materials listed and may further include nonwovens, mesh, or film layers wrapped around). The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, per the disclosure of Miao, the interpreted spacer layer may be “another absorbent layer”, and is thus interpreted to be capable of being made from the same materials listed.
However, Miao fails to specifically teach that one such material is a collection of fibers spun from one or more thermoplastic polymer resins (polymeric fibers)
Bewick discloses an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Bewick teaches an absorbent core surrounded by a heterogenous mass (Fig. 4), the heterogenous mass wrapping may be comprised of various spun polymers, such as polyethylene (para. 0136), and further where the fibers may be monocomponent or bicomponent (para. 0036, 0042). Therefore, as Miao teaches that the spacer layer (second absorbent layer) may be wrapped in various materials including nonwovens or mesh layers, and Bewick teaches that it is known in the art that absorbent layers may be wrapped in spun polymers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of simple substitution, to use spun polyethylene to wrap the spacer layer of Miao.
Regarding claim 10, Miao, Arceo, Fell, and Bewick teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 2 but fail to teach (As previously combined) wherein the polymeric fibers have an average denier of at least 1. The examiner notes that per paragraph 0136 of Bewick, the polymer fibers may range from .1 denier to 100 denier. As said range overlaps the range of at least 1, Bewick is interpreted to read to the claimed limitation. Therefore, as Bewick teaches that the fibers used in the combination of Miao, Areco, and Bewick, have a denier of .1 to 100, and thus at least 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a denier within said range, as Bewick teaches that such deniers are known in the art, thus reading to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein the spacer layer (para. 0083 discloses that the absorbent may be made from fibers, foam, or combinations of the various materials listed and may further include nonwovens, mesh, or film layers wrapped around). The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, per the disclosure of Miao, the interpreted spacer layer may be “another absorbent layer”, and is thus interpreted to be capable of being made from the same materials listed.
However, Miao fails to specifically teach that one such material is a collection of fibers spun from one or more thermoplastic polymer resins (polymeric fibers).
Bewick discloses an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Bewick teaches an absorbent core surrounded by a heterogenous mass (Fig. 4). Said mass has a void volume of at least 1,000 mm3 (Bewick para. 0091, 0143) and has a Dry Caliper no greater than 3.0 mm (Bewick para. 0015, 0073, 0078). Per para. 0091, the void space of the spacer layer may represent 1% to 95% the total volume, where para. 0143 discloses that the length of the bicomponent fibers (which make up the spacer layer) may vary and can range from 2-70mm long. Therefore as the fibers may be 2-70mm long and may have a void space representing 1-95% of the total volume, a fiber length within the range may be selected that would comprise a 1000mm^3 void volume. Further per paragraphs 0015, 0073, 0078, a dry caliper to caliper expansion is equal to or lower than 3mm/%, where the specific dry caliper may range from 1 to 10mm or more specifically 1 to 3.5mm, and therefore overlap with the claimed value of 3mm.
Therefore, as Miao teaches that the spacer layer (second absorbent layer) may be wrapped in various materials including nonwovens or mesh layers, and Bewick teaches that it is known in the art that absorbent layers may be wrapped in an heterogenous mass that reads to the claimed limitation as detailed above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of simple substitution, to use heterogenous mass of Bewick to wrap the spacer layer of Miao.
Regarding claim 19, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 with the foam layer (as detailed under the rejection of claim 1), but fails to teach the foam comprises a HIPE foam.
Bewick, as previously applied teaches that HIPE foam is a known material to be used for foam within an absorbent (Bewick para. 0087, 0115, 0116). Therefore, as Bewick teaches that HIPE foam is a known foam used for absorbent layers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use HIPE as the foam of Miao as a matter of simple substitution to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Areco, Fell, and Bewick and further in view of Anderson et al. US 5843063, hereafter Anderson.
Regarding claim 3, Miao, Areco, Fell, and Bewick teach
The feminine hygiene pad claim 2, but as previously rejected fail to teach wherein a majority, preferably substantially all, and more preferably all, of a basis weight of the fiber collection is constituted by the polymeric fibers.
The examiner notes that per para. 0042 and 0036 of Bewick, the fibers (wrapped around the absorbent layer) may be monocomponent of bicomponent fibers. It is interpreted that the nonwoven consist of only the fibers and therefore the entire basis weight for the nonwoven layer would consist of the fibers. Should applicant disagree, per para. 0042 of Bewick, the fibers may have additives for various properties, such as lubrication and hydrophilicity. Said additives should only make up a maximum of 5 weight percent, and therefore it is interpreted that the fibers make up the remaining weight percent, which is substantially a majority. 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 modify the device of Miao, Areco, and Bewick to have substantially all of the fiber wrapping basis weight be polymeric fibers.
Should applicant again disagree, Anderson has been brought in to teach this limitation.
Anderson discloses an incontinence article where the device comprises a multifunctional and storage layer for fluids (fig. 1, reference number 3,4) and a surge layer of nonwoven fabric (2), where said nonwoven layer comprises 90 weight percent 3 denier polyethylene/polyethylene terephthalate sheath/core conjugate (column 20, lines 18-28). Therefore as the device of Miao, Areco, and Bewick teach that the heterogenous mass may be comprised of various polymer fibers, including a polyethylene sheath/core configuration (Bewick para. 0134-0136), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PE/PET sheath core configuration as a matter of simple substitution of known components to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 3 wherein the polymer resins comprise one or more polymers selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and combinations thereof. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 2 and 3, per Bewick para. 0136, the defined spacer layer of the prior art combination may be comprised of various spun polymers, such as polyethylene, where Anderson also teaches that the polymers include PE and PET)
Regarding claim 5, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 4 wherein the fibers are bicomponent fibers. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 2, Bewick para. 0036, and para. 0136, teach that the fibers of the nonwoven may be bicomponent, where the combination per the rejection of claim 3 also teaches bicomponent sheath/core configuration fibers.
Regarding claim 6, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 5 but under the previous citations fails to disclose wherein the bicomponent fibers are curled or crimped. However, Bewick teaches that said bicomponent fibers are crimped (Bewick para. 0142). 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 crimp the bicomponent fibers, as Bewick teaches that crimping of said fibers is known in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 5 wherein the bicomponent fibers have a sheath-core configuration (Bewick para. 0142, previously included and combined under the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 8, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 7 wherein the core component comprises PET. As detailed above under the rejection of claim 3, it would have been obvious to use the PE/PET sheath/core configuration of Anderson as the PE sheath/core configuration of Miao, Areco, and Bewick as a matter of simple substitution. Therefore the core component of the combination would be PET.
Regarding claim 9, Miao, Arceo, Fell, Bewick, and Anderson teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 7 wherein the sheath component comprises PE (As detailed above under the rejection of claim 3, Bewick teaches para. 0142 where the sheath may be polyethylene, and was found obvious to combine).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Areco, Fell, and further in view of Anderson.
Regarding claim 15, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the spacer layer has a Permeability of 1,000 Darcys to 6,000 Darcys. Miao discloses (para. 0083) that the absorbent may be made from fibers, foam, or combinations of the various materials listed and may further include nonwovens, mesh, or film layers wrapped around. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, per the disclosure of Miao, the interpreted spacer layer may be “another absorbent layer”, and is thus interpreted to be capable of being made from the same materials listed.
However, Miao fails to specifically teach that the permeability is 1,000-6,000 Darcys
Anderson discloses an incontinence article where the device comprises a multifunctional and storage layer for fluids (fig. 1, reference number 3,4) and a surge layer of nonwoven fabric (2), where said nonwoven layer comprises 90 weight percent 3 denier polyethylene/polyethylene terephthalate sheath/core conjugate (column 20, lines 18-28). Per said citation of Anderson, the material used was found to have a permeability of 1600 Darcy. Therefore as Miao discloses an absorbent layer may be wrapped in a nonwoven layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PE/PET sheath core configuration as the nonwoven a matter of simple substitution of known components to achieve predictable results. Said configuration has a permeability of 1600 Darcy and is thus within the claimed range of 1000-6000 Darcy.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Arceo, Fell, and further in view of Rollins et al. US 5423788, hereafter Rollins.
Regarding claim 16, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 1 wherein the device is disclosed to compress (Miao para. 0005), however there is no disclosure of a compression recovery.
Rollins teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Rollins teaches that said device comprises an acquisition fiber layer, where said layer has a desired amount of resiliency including a compression recovery of preferably at least 80% (column 6 lines 7-40). Therefore as Rollins teaches that it is desirable for acquisition layers to have a compression recovery percentage of at least 80% it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select fibers for the device of Miao to have a recovery percentage of at least 80% to ensure desired resiliency of the absorbent article.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Arceo, Fell, and further in view of Brownhill et al. US 4289513, hereafter Brownhill.
Regarding claim 18, Miao, Arceo, and Fell teach
The feminine hygiene pad of claim 17 but fails to specifically teach wherein apertures present within a discharge region have a numerical density of 3.0 to 9.0 apertures per cm2, on the wearer-facing surface of the absorbent layer.
Brownhill teaches materials for an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Brownhill teaches that that absorbing device comprises aperture to allow free flow of air through the device (column 9 lines 12-19), where the aperture density of the device is “an important consideration” where the density of apertures may vary dependent on the optimization of the need of the device (column 10 lines 40-48). Per the column 10 citation the acceptable range of aperture density ranges from 25-400 apertures per square inch, where the actual aperture size is disclosed to be varied based on end use (column 9, lines 20-28). The examiner notes that 25 apertures/ square inch converts to 25 apertures/6.4516 square centimeter, which reduces to 3.875 apertures/ square centimeter (25/6.415). Therefore as Brownhill teaches that apertures in absorbent cores may range in size as needed and articles may have a desirable aperture range as needed of 25-400 apertures/in^2 such to allow for free flow of air, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify aperture density of Bewick to be within the claimed range as 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). The examiner notes that the calculated density of 3 apertures per square centimeter is within the claimed range of 3-9.
The examiner notes that the rejection of claim 18 has been updated in view of the 12/15/2025 amendments. The examiner notes that Miao discloses that the discharge region comprises an elliptical area comprising a major longitudinal axis 5cm long. As seen in figure 2A of Miao the absorbent layer is seen, and exhibits an elliptical shape. The portion of the layer comprising apertures (24) is interpreted to be the discharge region, as this is where fluid is configured to enter the device. As such L3, as seen in figure 2, is the longitudinal length of the discharge region. Per para. 0053, L3 may be 30-300mm. As said values are provided in a range where said range includes the value of the claimed limitation (30-300mm would equate to 3-30cm) Miao is understood read to the claimed limitation. Should applicant disagree, based on the disclosure of Miao, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed to select a length of 5cm as the longitudinal length as 50mm (5cm) is within the suitable range of the disclosure. Miao further, teaches that the width, seen as T2 may be within the range of 25-180mm (2.5-18cm) (para. 0050). Thus Miao teaches that the minor lateral axis may be 2.5cm (25mm) wide and reads to the claimed limitation. Should applicant disagree, based on the disclosure of Miao, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed to select a length of 2.5cm as the lateral length as 25mm (2.5cm) is within the suitable range of the disclosure.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao in view of Arceo, Fell, and further in view of Bewick-Sonntag et al. CN 105451702, hereafter Bewick2 and further in view of Anderson, provided in both the previous action and above.
Regarding claim 23, Miao discloses
A feminine hygiene pad (abstract, Fig 1A,1B) (para. 0045, topsheet (16))), a liquid impermeable backsheet (para. 0045, backsheet (17)), and an absorbent system disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (absorbent core (18) seen between topsheet and backsheet)), the absorbent system comprising (absorbent core (18)): an absorbent foam layer beneath the topsheet (para. 0083, where absorbent may be made from a foam material), the foam layer having a wearer-facing surface and an outward-facing surface (wearer side surface interpreted as side facing the topsheet), and a plurality of apertures providing z-direction passageways from the wearer-facing surface to the outward-facing surface (the absorbent layer comprises two sets of apertures, the first in the central region (24), defined to be apertures under para. 0069, and apertures (31)).
The examiner notes that in the embodiment of figure 1A and 1B, there is no disclosure of a spacer layer. However, Miao discloses that a distribution layer or second absorbent layer (42, see figure 1C) may be positioned between the backsheet and absorbent (para. 0070). Therefore, as Miao teaches that additional absorbent or distribution layers may be used in the system it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a layer between the absorbent and backsheet, where said layer is interpreted as a spacer layer. The examiner notes that as this layer is disclosed to be “another absorbent layer” where the first absorbent layer is porous, it is interpreted that the defined spacer layer would be porous as well. Further, as seen in figure 1C, said spacer layer (42) underlies the entire absorbent layer and thus underlies substantially all of the apertures. The examiner notes that the peripheral region of the spacer layer is the layer underlying the edges of the absorbent (portions with apertures 31), and the central region of the spacer layer is the portion underlying the region with the defined apertures (24)). As seen in the figures, the two layers are separate.
Miao further discloses that layers may be combined with one another using adhesive methods known in the art, where the adhesives do not inhibit fluid flow through the device (para. 0038). The examiner notes that as fluid flows through the central region it is interpreted that the central region is substantially free of adhesive to allow the device to function properly.
Should applicant disagree, the examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 Section VI C In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Therefore as Miao discloses that known adhesive methods may be used, so long as fluid flow is not impacted, and as detailed in the above paragraph, the examiner interprets that placing adhesive in the central region would impact fluid flow, thus inhibiting the function of the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modifying the adhesive pattern of Miao to only be applied along a periphery of the layers as a matter of rearrangement of parts and design choice.
However, should applicant disagree with this interpretation, the examines provides a secondary rejection in view of Arceo.
Arceo teaches a feminine hygiene pad and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Arceo teaches that the layers of the pad are joined together (para. 0008) by various methods, including an adhesive, stitch, weld, or other bond, around a peripheral edge (para. 0025). Therefore, as Miao teaches that adhesives may be applied using known methods to bond the layers together, and Arceo teaches that it is known in the art to bond layers together using a peripheral edge adhesive and therefore is a suitable pattern, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adhesive to only the peripheral edge of the device of Miao.
In view of the amendments filed 12/15/25 Miao fails to teach wherein the absorbent foam layer comprises two sublayers formed together comprising a wearer-facing sublayer having a first average cell size and an outward-facing sublayer having a second average cell size, wherein the second average cell size is smaller than the first average cell size.
Bewick2 teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Bewick teaches that an absorbent core may be made of a foam, specifically HIPE foam (para. 0080). Per paragraph 0080, HIPE foam may be made in the form of a multilayer foam where the layer may be heterogenous in that they have different characteristics, including different pore sizes. Further, per paragraph 0082 the first layer of HIPE, having a larger pore size is placed on (above, or closer to the user since the device is an absorbent article) the second layer having a smaller pore size, since the larger pore size allows for fluid to be more quickly absorbed. Therefore, as Miao teaches a foam layer for the absorbent, and Bewick teaches that HIPE foams are known in the art to be used for absorbent cores, where a multilayer heterogenous HIPE is further known to be used to control different variables in the system (i.e. pore size, surface area, etc.) to achieve desired characteristics (greater absorbency in one layer of the multilayer than the other), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a multilayer HIPE foam as the absorbent of Miao. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element (absorbent foam layer) for another (absorbent HIPE foam layer) to obtain predictable results (absorption of fluid in an absorbent article), and as such a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that upon said combination the layer would be a multilayer foam where the user facing layer has a greater pore size than the layer below it and thus reads to the claimed invention.
The combination of arts however, further fail to teach wherein the spacer layer has a Permeability of from about 3,000 Darcys to about 6,000 Darcys.
Anderson discloses an incontinence article where the device comprises a multifunctional and storage layer for fluids (fig. 1, reference number 3,4) and a surge layer of nonwoven fabric (2), where said nonwoven layer may have a permeability of 500 to 5000 Darcy (column 14, lines 19-45). Therefore as Miao discloses an absorbent layer may be wrapped in a nonwoven layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the PE/PET sheath core configuration as the material for the spacer layer (disclosed to be an absorbent layer per the second paragraph of this rejection and Miao para. 0070) a matter of combining prior art elements (absorbent layer with a nonwoven surrounding layer) according to known methods (formation of absorbent articles) to yield predictable results (Absorbing fluid within absorbent articles) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Said configuration would thus have a permeability of between 500 to 5000 Darcy and as said range overlaps with the claimed range of 3000 to 6000 Darcy the combination of art reads to the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
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 Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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 on 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781