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 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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem et al. (US 2020/0078229) in view of Makoui (US 5,128,082).
With reference to claims 1 and 3, Van Ingelgem et al. (hereinafter “Van Ingelgem”) discloses an absorbent core structure (abstract) comprising:
a. a first piece of absorbent core material (see annotated figure 1C below);
b. a second piece of absorbent core material (see annotated figure 1C below);
c. an upper wicking layer (110) located above the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C);
d. a lower wicking layer located (120) below the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C); and
e. a barrier layer (i.e., backsheet – as discussed in [0411])
wherein there is a channel (140,150) between the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C),
wherein the upper wicking layer is bonded to the lower wicking layer at a bottom portion of the channel ([0413], [0420] and figure 1C); and
wherein the barrier layer is bonded to the lower wicking layer as set forth in [0439].
PNG
media_image1.png
510
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Van Ingelgem and claims 2 and 3 is the provision that the first and second piece of absorbent core material are made from a mix of super absorbent fibers (SAF) and non-absorbent fibers and wherein the mix of super absorbent fibers (SAF) and non-absorbent fibers includes from 20% to 30% of non-absorbent fibers selected from a specific group (cl. 3).
Makoui teaches an analogous absorbent core structure that includes a mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers and wherein the mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers includes from 20% to 30% of non-absorbent fibers (col. 7, lines 59-63) wherein the non-absorbing fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyester fibers, polypropylene fibers, polylactic acetate fibers, and combinations thereof (cl. 3) as set forth in col. 7, lines 51-54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Van Ingelgem with a mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers in order to provide an article that has improved absorption characteristics as taught by Makoui in col. 2, lines 63-67.
With reference to claim 4, Van Ingelgem modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1-3.
While Van Ingelgem modified does not recite a specific absorbency speed when absorbing 100 mL of liquid measured using test method NWSP070.9.R1(15), one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably presume that absorbent core structure of Ingelgem modified would produce the same results if subjected to the same testing under the same conditions since the absorbent core structure of Van Ingelgem modified is identical in composition and weight percentages. The absorbent core structure of Van Ingelgem modified provides a mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers includes from 10% to 50% of non-absorbent fibers wherein the non-absorbing fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyester fibers, polypropylene fibers, polylactic acetate fibers, and combinations thereof.
Since products of identical compositions can not have mutually exclusive properties, the absorbent core structure of Van Ingelgem modified would be expected to also provide the same absorbency speed as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Van Ingelgem discloses an absorbent core structure wherein the channel is between 2 mm and 10 mm in width as set forth in [0413].
With reference to claim 7, Van Ingelgem discloses an absorbent core structure wherein the first and second piece of absorbent core material are bonded to the lower wicking layer as set forth in [0412].
As to claim 9, Van Ingelgem discloses an absorbent core structure wherein the first piece of absorbent core material has an outer edge (131), wherein the second piece of absorbent core material has an outer edge (132), and wherein the width between the outer edge of the first piece of absorbent core material and the outer edge of the second piece of absorbent core material is between 70 mm and 80 mm as set forth in [0417] where it is disclosed that the distance (d34) between a first and second channel (160,170) may be 35 mm while the distance between the an attachment zone 165/channel 160 and the first longitudinal side (131) may also be 20 mm, and the distance between a second attachment zone (175) and the second longitudinal side (132) may also be 20 mm.
With reference to claim 10, Van Ingelgem discloses an absorbent garment [0001] comprising:
a. an elasticated outer garment layer [0440];
b. an absorbent core structure comprising:
i. a first piece of absorbent core material (see annotated figure 1C above);
ii. a second piece of absorbent core material (see annotated figure 1C above);
iii. an upper wicking layer (110) located above the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C);
iv. a lower wicking layer located (120) below the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C); and
v. a barrier layer [0446]
c. a cover (i.e., topsheet) retaining the absorbent core structure within the absorbent garment [0411];
wherein there is a channel (140,150) between the first and second piece of absorbent core material (see figure 1C),
wherein the upper wicking layer is bonded to the lower wicking layer at a bottom portion of the channel ([0413], [0420] and figure 1C);
wherein the barrier layer is bonded to the lower wicking layer [0439]; and
wherein the cover is welded to the elasticated outer garment layer as set forth in [0389].
The difference between Van Ingelgem and claim 10 is the provision that the first and second piece of absorbent core material are made from a mix of super absorbent fibers (SAF) and non-absorbent fibers and wherein the mix of super absorbent fibers (SAF) and non-absorbent fibers includes from 20% to 30% of non-absorbent fibers and that the weld is an ultrasonic weld.
Makoui teaches an analogous absorbent core structure that includes a mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers and wherein the mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers includes from 20% to 30% of non-absorbent fibers (col. 7, lines 59-63) wherein the non-absorbing fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyester fibers, polypropylene fibers, polylactic acetate fibers, and combinations thereof (cl. 3) as set forth in col. 7, lines 51-54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Van Ingelgem with a mix of super absorbent fibers and non-absorbent fibers in order to provide an article that has improved absorption characteristics as taught by Makoui in col. 2, lines 63-67.
With respect to the inclusion of an ultrasonic weld, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Van Ingelgem with an ultrasonic weld since the general teaching of welding is taught and the specific type of welding (i.e., ultrasonic) falls within the general teaching of welding. The substitution of one type of weld for another is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, Van Ingelgem discloses an absorbent garment further comprising an elasticated waist band and elasticated leg seams as set forth in [0439].
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claims 3 and 10.
With reference to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 7.
With respect to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 4 and 10.
With respect to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem et al. (US 2020/0078229) in view of Makoui (US 5,128,082) and further in view of Chmielewski (US 6,646,180).
With reference to claim 5, Van Ingelgem modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Ingelgem modified and claim 5 is the provision that the upper and lower wicking layer is an airlaid nonwoven containing at least 70% cellulosic fibers and wherein the barrier layer is made from a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polylactic acetate, and combinations thereof.
Chmielewski teaches an analogous absorbent core structure that includes the upper and lower wicking layer (342b,342c) as an airlaid nonwoven containing at least 70% cellulosic fibers (col. 20, lines 60-62) and wherein the barrier layer is made from a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polylactic acetate, and combinations thereof as set forth in col. 11, lines 51-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Van Ingelgem modified with an airlaid nonwoven containing at least 70% cellulosic fibers and a barrier layer made from a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, polylactic acetate, and combinations in order to provide an article with an optimum density for SAP efficiency and core utilization (col. 20, lines 40-44) that includes a suitable pliable liquid impervious material that prevents undesirable leakage as taught by Chmielewski in col. 11, lines 49-51.
With reference to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 5 and 10.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem et al. (US 2020/0078229) in view Makoui (US 5,128,082) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 5,921,975).
With reference to claim 8, Van Ingelgem modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Ingelgem modified and claim 8 is the provision that the ends of the barrier layer fold over a top portion of the first and second piece of absorbent core material to form a fin on each side of the absorbent core structure.
Suzuki et al. (hereinafter “Suzuki”) teaches an analogous absorbent article having ends of the barrier layer (12) fold over a top portion of the absorbent core material (13) to form a fin (25) on each side of the absorbent core structure as shown in figures 2 and 4B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Van Ingelgem modified with a folded barrier layer that is folded over a top portion of the absorbent core material to form a fin on each side of the absorbent core structure in order to provide an article has little risk of leakage on both sides of the absorbent article as taught by Suzuki in col. 2, lines 30-34.
With respect to claim 18, see the rejection of claims 8 and 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem et al. (US 2020/0078229) in view Makoui (US 5,128,082) and further in view of Fjeldsa (US 2015/0080820).
With reference to claim 8, Van Ingelgem modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 10 and 11.
The difference between Van Ingelgem modified and claim 8 is the provision that the elasticated outer garment layer is folded in half and is ultrasonically welded together to form the absorbent garment.
Fjeldsa teaches an analogous absorbent garment wherein the outer layer is folded in half and ultrasonically welded together to form the absorbent garment as set forth in [0093] and as shown in figure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ingelgem modified with ultrasonic welding in order to provide an article with the advantages of having relatively soft seams providing a more comfortable fit to the wearer as taught by Fjeldsa in [0036].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781