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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "WS1 through WS6" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (WS6) in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0378932.
As to claims 1 and 2, Seitz teaches an array of durable absorbent underwear pants including pants of at least six differing size designations (Table 1) having a common cut style designation (paragraphs 0028, 0030). Seitz teaches an array of sizes should fit waist circumference and hip circumferences from 60 cm up to 163 cm (paragraph 0056).
Seitz teaches ideally a product array should fit the broadest range of consumers with the fewest number of size offerings (paragraphs 0004-0005). Seitz teaches the underwear pants have at least an array of at least six sizes in the waist opening/waist range as seen in Table 1. Seitz discloses an array of packages comprising a first, second, and third package. The first package comprises a first absorbent article and a first size. The second package comprises a second absorbent article and a second size. The third package comprises a third absorbent article and a third size (paragraphs 0010-0012). Seitz does not specifically teach the hip size designations as claimed:
Claim 1: a pant of a first size designation has a first hip size HS1,
a pant of a second size designation adjacent the first size designation has a second hip size HS2,
a pant of a third size designation adjacent the second size designation has a third hip size HS3,
a pant of a fourth size designation adjacent the third size designation has a fourth hip size HS4,
a pant of a fifth size designation adjacent the fourth size designation has a fifth hip size HSS, and
a pant of a sixth size designation adjacent the fifth size designation has a sixth hip size HS6, wherein the hip sizes HS1 through HS6 have the following relationship:
[(HS2 — HS1)/HS1] ≥ [(HS3 — HS2)/HS2] ≥ [(HS4 — HS3)/HS3] ≥ [(HS5 — HS4)]/HS4] ≥ [(HS6 — HS5)]/HS5].
And Claim 2:
wherein the hip sizes HS1 through HS6 have one or more of the following relationships:
(HS2 — HS1) ≥ (HS3 - HS2);
(HS3 — HS2) ≥ (HS4 - HS3);
(HS4 — HS3) ≥ (HS5 — HS4); and/or
(HS5 — HS4) ≥ (HS6 — HSS).
However, Seitz does teach a need for an array of articles which maximizes the product fit over all key body anthropometrics with the fewest number of sizes by modifying the product geometry and stretch properties of the waist and hip openings (paragraph 0007). Seitz teaches the higher the Elastic Modulus of the Belt, the more sizes may need to be offered to achieve proper fit given the range over which consumers perceive the product to be comfortable. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where product A has a higher Elastic Modulus of the Belt than does product B, the fit range over which it delivers a given belt stress range is smaller than that of product B (paragraph 0054). Seitz further teaches as an array of sizes should fit waist and hip circumferences, there exists a correlation between the required number of sizes in the array, the Relaxed Waist Circumference of each product in that array, and the Array Elastic Modulus of the Belt for any number of sizes offered in an array. More importantly, it enables the determination of the exact number of sizes required in an array necessary to fit the targeted range for any given array modulus of the belt as shown in Table 1 (paragraph 0056). Based on the teachings of Seitz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide graduated hip sizes in a product array. Doing so would provide a plurality of sizes of absorbent articles to fit people in a targeted range to provide improved fit in the hip area as taught by Seitz (paragraphs 0007, 0056). Additionally, it is noted that one claimed hip size is “greater than or equal to” the adjacent claimed hip size. Thus, the pant hip sizes for the first through the sixth size designation can be the same and still meet the claim limitations.
As to claims 3-6, Seitz teaches an array of durable absorbent underwear pants including pants of at least six differing waist size designations (Table 1) having a common cut style designation (paragraphs 0028, 0030). Seitz teaches an array of sizes should fit waist circumference and hip circumferences from 60 cm up to 163 cm (paragraph 0056).
Seitz teaches ideally a product array should fit the broadest range of consumers with the fewest number of size offerings (paragraphs 0004-0005). Seitz teaches the underwear pants have at least an array of at least six sizes in the waist opening/waist range as seen in Table 1. Seitz discloses an array of packages comprising a first, second, and third package. The first package comprises a first absorbent article and a first size. The second package comprises a second absorbent article and a second size. The third package comprises a third absorbent article and a third size (paragraphs 0010-0012). Seitz does not specifically teach the waist size designations as claimed:
Claim 3, wherein: the pant of the first size designation has a first waist size WS1,
the pant of the second size designation has a second waist size WS2,
the pant of the third size designation has a third waist size WS3,
the pant of the fourth size designation has a fourth waist size WS4, and
the pant of the fifth size designation has a fifth waist size WSS,
wherein the waist sizes WS1 through WSS have one or more of the following relationships: [(WS2 — WS1)/WS1] ≥ [(WS3 — WS2)/WS2];
[(WS3 — WS2)/W2] ≥ [(WS4 — WS3)/WS3]; and/or
[(WS4 — WS3)/WS3] ≥ [(WS5 — WS4)]/WS4];
And claim 4; wherein the waist sizes WS1 through WS6 have one or more of the following relationships: (WS2 — WS1) ≥ (WS3 — WS2);
(WS3 — WS2) ≥ (WS4 — WS3); and/or
(WS4 — WS3) ≥ (WSS — WS4).
And claim 5; wherein: a pant of a first size designation has a first waist size WS1,
a pant of a second size designation adjacent the first size designation has a second waist size WS2,
a pant of a third size designation adjacent the second size designation has a third waist size WS3,
a pant of a fourth size designation adjacent the third size designation has a fourth waist size WS4, and
a pant of a fifth size designation adjacent the fourth size designation has a fifth waist size WSS, wherein the waist sizes WS1 through WSS have the following relationship: [(WS2 — WS1)/WS1] ≥ [(WS3 — WS2)/WS2] ≥ [(WS4 — WS3)/WS3] ≥ [(WS5 — WS4)]/WS4];
And claim 6: wherein the waist sizes WS1 through WS5 have one or more of the following relationships:
(WS2 — WS1) ≥ (WS3 — WS2);
(WS3 — WS2) ≥ (WS4 — WS3); and/or
(WS4 — WS3) ≥ (WS5 — WS4).
While Seitz does not teach the claimed pant size designations with corresponding waist sizes, Seitz does teach a need for an array of articles which maximizes the product fit over all key body anthropometrics with the fewest number of sizes by modifying the product geometry and stretch properties of the waist and hip openings (paragraph 0007). Seitz teaches the higher the Elastic Modulus of the Belt, the more sizes may need to be offered to achieve proper fit given the range over which consumers perceive the product to be comfortable. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where product A has a higher Elastic Modulus of the Belt than does product B, the fit range over which it delivers a given belt stress range is smaller than that of product B (paragraph 0054). Seitz further teaches as an array of sizes should fit waist and hip circumferences, there exists a correlation between the required number of sizes in the array, the Relaxed Waist Circumference of each product in that array, and the Array Elastic Modulus of the Belt for any number of sizes offered in an array. More importantly, it enables the determination of the exact number of sizes required in an array necessary to fit the targeted range for any given array modulus of the belt as shown in Table 1 (paragraph 0056). Based on the teachings of Seitz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide graduated waist sizes in a product array. Doing so would provide a plurality of sizes of absorbent articles to fit people in a targeted range to provide improved fit in the waist area as taught by Seitz (paragraphs 0007, 0056, Table 1). Additionally, it is noted that one claimed waist size is “greater than or equal to” the adjacent claimed waist size. Thus, the pant waist sizes for the first through the fifth size designation can be the same and still meet the claim limitations.
As to claims 7 and 8, Seitz does not specifically teach the array of claim 5, wherein: the pant of the first size designation has a first hip size HS1, the pant of the second size designation has a second hip size HS2, the pant of the third size designation has a third hip size HS3, the pant of the fourth size designation has a fourth hip size HS4, and the pant of the fifth size designation has a fifth hip size HSS, wherein the hip sizes HS1 through HSS have one or more of the following relationships:
[(HS2 — HS1)/HS1] ≥ [HS3 — HS2)/HS2];
[(HS3 — HS2)/HS2] ≥ [HS4 — HS3)/HS3]; and/or
[(HS4 — HS3)/HS3] ≥ [(HS5 — HS4)]/HS4].
And the claim 8:
wherein the hip sizes HS1 through HSS have one or more of the following relationships: (HS2 — HS1) ≥ (HS3 - HS2);
(HS3 — HS2) ≥ (HS4 — HS3); and/or
(HS4 — HS3) ≥ (HS5 — HS4).
However, Seitz does teach a need for an array of articles which maximizes the product fit over all key body anthropometrics with the fewest number of sizes by modifying the product geometry and stretch properties of the waist and hip openings (paragraph 0007). Seitz teaches the higher the Elastic Modulus of the Belt, the more sizes may need to be offered to achieve proper fit given the range over which consumers perceive the product to be comfortable. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where product A has a higher Elastic Modulus of the Belt than does product B, the fit range over which it delivers a given belt stress range is smaller than that of product B (paragraph 0054). Seitz further teaches as an array of sizes should fit waist and hip circumferences, there exists a correlation between the required number of sizes in the array, the Relaxed Waist Circumference of each product in that array, and the Array Elastic Modulus of the Belt for any number of sizes offered in an array. More importantly, it enables the determination of the exact number of sizes required in an array necessary to fit the targeted range for any given array modulus of the belt as shown in Table 1 (paragraph 0056). Based on the teachings of Seitz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide graduated hip sizes in a product array. Doing so would provide a plurality of sizes of absorbent articles to fit people in a targeted range to provide improved fit in the hip area as taught by Seitz (paragraphs 0007, 0056). Additionally, it is noted that one claimed hip size is “greater than or equal to” the adjacent claimed hip size. Thus, the pant hip sizes for the first through the sixth size designation can be the same and still meet the claim limitations.
As to claims 9 and 10, Seitz teaches an array of durable absorbent underwear pants including pants of at least three differing size designations having a common cut style designation – where Seitz teaches the term “array” means a display of packages comprising disposable articles of different sizes having like article constructions (paragraph 0028), wherein: a pant of a first size designation has a first hip size HS1, a pant of a second size designation adjacent the first size designation has a second hip size HS2, and a pant of a third size designation adjacent the second size designation has a third hip size HS3 (paragraphs 0010-0012), wherein each of the hip sizes HS1 through HS3 are equal to or larger than 760 mm – where Seitz teaches the full range of hip circumference for adults (99% of the population) spans from approximately 24 inches (60 cm) to 64 inches (163 cm or 1630 mm) which has values in the claimed range of equal or larger than 760 mm (paragraphs 0055-0056). Seitz does not specifically teach the hip sizes have the following relationship:
Claim 9 [(HS2 — HS1)/HS1] ≥ [(HS3 — HS2)/HS2], and claim 10: (HS2 — HS1) ≥ (HS3 — HS2)
However, Seitz does teach absorbent underwear pants including an array of absorbent articles having different sizes (paragraphs 0010-0012). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the different sizes in the claimed relationship in order to fit consumers of different sizes. Additionally, it is noted that one claimed hip size is “greater than or equal to” the adjacent claimed hip size. Thus, the pant hip sizes for the first through the third size designation can be the same and still meet the claim limitations.
As to claims 11 and 12, Seitz teaches an array of durable absorbent underwear pants including pants of at least three differing size designations having a common cut style designation – where Seitz teaches the term “array” means a display of packages comprising disposable articles of different sizes having like article constructions (paragraph 0028), wherein: a pant of a first size designation has a first waist size WS1, a pant of a second size designation has a second waist size WS2, and a pant of a third size designation has a third waist size WS3 (paragraphs 0010-0012), wherein each of the waist sizes WS1 through WS3 are equal to or larger than 680 mm – where Seitz teaches the full range of waist circumference for adults (99% of the population) spans from approximately 24 inches (60 cm) to 64 inches (163 cm or 1630 mm) which has values in the claimed range of equal or larger than 680 mm (paragraphs 0055-0056). Seitz does not specifically teach the waist sizes have the following relationship:
Claim 11 [(WS2 — WS1)/WS1] ≥ [(WS3 — WS2)/WS2], and claim 12: (WS2 — WS1) ≥ (WS3 — WS2)
However, Seitz does teach absorbent underwear pants including an array of absorbent articles having different sizes (paragraphs 0010-0012). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the different sizes in the claimed relationship in order to fit consumers of different sizes. Additionally, it is noted that one claimed waist size is “greater than or equal to” the adjacent claimed waist size. Thus, the pant hip sizes for the first through the third size designation can be the same and still meet the claim limitations.
As to claims 13-16, Seitz teaches an array of durable absorbent underwear pants including pants of at least four differing size designations having a common cut style designation – where Seitz teaches the term “array” means a display of packages comprising disposable articles of different sizes having like article constructions (paragraph 0028), wherein:
a pant of a first size designation has a first hip size HS1 and a first waist size WS!,
a pant of a second size designation adjacent the first size designation has a second hip size HS2 and a second waist size WS2,
a pant of a third size designation adjacent the second size designation has a third hip size HS3 and a third waist size WS3; and
a pant of a fourth size designation adjacent the fourth size designation has a fourth hip size HS4 and a third waist size WS4. Seitz does not specifically teach the hip sizes HS1 through HS4 and waist sizes WS1 through WS4 have the following relationships:
HS4 > HS3 > HS2 > HS1;
WS4 > WS3 > WS2 > WS1 (Seitz Table 1); and
(HS1 — WS1) > (HS2 — WS2) > (HS3 — WS3) > (HS4 — WS4) and
Claim 14, having a pant of a fifth size designation adjacent the fourth size designation has a fifth hip size HS5 and a fifth waist size WS5; wherein the hip sizes HS1 through HS5 and waist sizes WS1 through WS5 have the following relationships:
HS4 > HS3 > HS2 > HS1;
WS4 > WS3 > WS2 > WS1 (Seitz Table 1); and
(HS1 — WS1) > (HS2 — WS2) > (HS3 — WS3) > (HS4 — WS4)
Seitz teaches the relationships of the different waist sizes (Table 1), but does not specifically teach the relationship with the different hip sizes. Seitz does teach the waist size does not adequately describe the body shape of the individual and therefore does not help define the thigh circumference nor the pitch that may be needed to provide the proper fit and gasketing of the article (paragraph 0005). Seitz further teaches a need for an array of articles which maximizes the product fit over all key body anthropometrics with the fewest number of sizes by modifying the product geometry and stretch properties of the waist and hip openings (paragraph 0007). Additionally, Seitz teaches an array of sizes should fit waist and hip circumferences from 60 cm up to 163 cm (paragraph 0056). Based on the teachings of Seitz, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to determine through routine experimentation the relationship between waist and hip sizes to provide an array of absorbent articles that are designed to fit a range of users.
As to claims 17 and 19, Seitz does not specifically teach the outer structures of all of the pants in the array comprise a common fabric type. However, Seitz does teach the term “array” means a display of packages comprising disposable articles of different sizes having like article constructions, i.e. same elastomeric materials (compositionally and/or structurally) (paragraph 0028). Based on the teaching of Seitz, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the outer structures of all of the pants in the array with a common fabric type since Seitz teaches the articles have like materials (paragraph 0028).
As to claims 18 and 20, the fabric has a direction of greatest elongation capability oriented at least approximately parallel to a lateral direction of the pant in the array in which it is present – where Seitz teaches the absorbent article comprises a belt 40 , which may comprise a front belt 84 and a back belt 86 (paragraph 0045). Seitz teaches the front and back belts 84, 86 comprise laterally oriented elastic strands (Figure 3; paragraph 0047). Seitz teaches the elastic strands are distributed amongst the different force zones and each force zone comprises at least one elastic strand (paragraph 0047). Seitz further teaches the elastic pre-strain may be used to change the force profile of a single elastic strand or a plurality of elastic strands. Thus, the elongation capability would be oriented along the elastic strands and the extent of elongation can be varied according to the number of strands, linear density and pre-strain of the elastic strands (paragraphs 0046-0050). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the greatest elongation capability oriented at least approximately parallel to a lateral direction in order to provide a dynamic fit in the waist regions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Long et al. US 2008/0147031, Seitz et al. US 2015/0272787, and Seitz et al. US 2015/0320611 are cited to show absorbent articles in arrays of sizes.
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