DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received August 25, 2025.
The amendments of claims 1-5, 8, 12, 15, and 19; the cancellation of claim 11; and addition of claim 21 are acknowledged.
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 that amendments overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are persuasive and those previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Dreier not disclosing amended claim 15 are not persuasive. As explained below, Dreier discloses that adhesive 48 can be placed in the pocket (see Figs. 3-4). Applicant argues that Dreier discloses a passageway and not a pocket. However, a pocket is interpreted as a cavity or receptacle, with Dreier disclosing such a feature. Additionally, applicant argues that if a device were inserted into opening 43, as depicted in Figure 2, it would not be surrounded by any pocket but, however, Figures 3-4 disclose adhesive 48 being able to be inserted such that it is surrounded by a pocket.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are also not persuasive, as they are the same as those for claim 15 and similarly are not persuasive for the same reasons as explained above.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dreier (US 6,213,992).
Regarding claim 15, Dreier discloses an absorbent article (see Figs. 1-4) comprising a backsheet layer 12 on the garment facing side of said absorbent article (see Figs. 1-4) and a pocket (see Figs. 2-4, pocket into which 44 is placed) being accessible from the garment facing side of the absorbent article (see Figs. 2-4) through an opening of the backsheet layer (see col. 6, lines 7-17, opening created by cutting backsheet), the manufacturing method comprising the steps of: providing the backsheet layer 12, a cover strip layer 44, and an absorbent core layer 18, cutting an opening into the backsheet layer (see col. 6, lines 7-17), and placing the cover strip layer between the backsheet layer and the absorbent core layer (see Fig. 2), therefore disclosing the backsheet layer, the opening of the backsheet, the cover strip layer, the absorbent core layer, and the pocket accessible from the non-absorbent side of the absorbent article (see Figs. 2-4). Additionally, Dreier discloses a sealing pattern that seals at least two edges of the cover strip layer to the backsheet layer and forms the pocket between the backsheet layer and the cover strip layer (see Figs. 2, 3; col. 5, lines 42-46) into which at least a part of a device can be inserted and surrounded by the pocket (see Fig. 4, adhesive part 48 can be inserted into pocket, with device interpreted as a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function, which in this case would be adhesion), with the pocket being accessible from the non-absorbent side through the opening of the backsheet layer (see Figs. 3-4). Additionally, the manufacturing method of claim 1 is considered a product by process limitation.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the product features themselves are disclosed by Dreier and the process adding the speed-synchronized cutting would not limit the structure further, and therefore would not require a different structure than that disclosed by Dreier.
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.
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) 1-9, 12, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier (US 6,213,992) in view of Odorzynski (US 5,549,775) and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2017/0128277).
Regarding claim 1, Dreier discloses a manufacturing method for manufacturing an absorbent article (see Figs. 1-4) comprising a backsheet layer 12 on the garment facing side of said absorbent article (see Figs. 1-4) and a pocket (see Figs. 2-4, pocket into which 44 is placed) being accessible from the garment facing side of the absorbent article (see Figs. 2-4) through an opening of the backsheet layer (see col. 6, lines 7-17, opening created by cutting backsheet), the manufacturing method comprising the steps of: providing the backsheet layer 12, a cover strip layer 44, and an absorbent core layer 18, cutting an opening into the backsheet layer (see col. 6, lines 7-17), and placing the cover strip layer between the backsheet layer and the absorbent core layer (see Fig. 2). Additionally, Dreier discloses a sealing pattern that seals at least two edges of the cover strip layer to the backsheet layer and forms the pocket between the backsheet layer and the cover strip layer (see Figs. 2, 3; col. 5, lines 42-46) into which at least a part of a device can be inserted and surrounded by the pocket (see Fig. 4, adhesive part 48 can be inserted into pocket, with device interpreted as a mechanism designed to serve a special purpose or perform a special function, which in this case would be adhesion).
Dreier does not disclose wherein the cutting is speed-synchronized with respect to the provision of the backsheet layer in such a manner that the opening is placed at the same position for every absorbent article in a sequence of absorbent articles, or wherein in the case that the absorbent article further comprises a pattern on the backsheet layer, the backsheet layer is speed-controlled with respect to the positioning of the pattern in such a manner that the opening is placed at the same position relatively to the pattern for every absorbent article in a sequence of absorbent articles.
Odorzynski discloses cutting the backsheet layer in such a manner that the opening is placed at the same position for every absorbent article in a sequence of absorbent articles (see col. 3, lines 6-10, use of cutting die). It would have been obvious to use such a cutting die for cutting the backsheet layer as disclosed by Odorzynski in order to easily and consistently create the cut opening in the backsheet layer.
Dreier and Odorzynski do not disclose the cutting is speed-synchronized.
However, Yamamoto manufacturing an absorbent article wherein cutting is speed-synchronized via a cutting die (see Figs. 4A-4B, par. 215). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the cutting speed-synchronized, as disclosed by Yamamoto, in order to efficiently manufacture multiple absorbent articles of the same type.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 16, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 and as the pattern is not required by claim 1 due to the “or” requiring either the limitations related to the cutting being speed-synchronized or the absorbent article comprising a pattern, with the prior art clearly disclosing those limitations related to cutting being speed-synchronized, it is interpreted that Dreir, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto also disclose claims 2-7 as these claims further claim limitations related to the pattern.
Regarding claim 8, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 and further disclose the opening of the backsheet layer is cut with the aid of a cutting die (see rejection of claim 1 discussing cutting die) and/or wherein the cover strip layer is placed between the backsheet layer and the absorbent core layer in such a manner that the opening of the backsheet layer is at least partly covered by the cover stirp layer (see Dreier, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 and Dreier further discloses the width of the cover strip layer 44 is less than the width of the backsheet layer 12 and/or the width of the absorbent article (see Fig. 2), and/or wherein the width of the cover strip layer 44 is wider than the opening of the backsheet layer 12 (see Figs. 2, 4), and/or wherein the cover strip layer 44 comprises or is a liquid barrier (see col. 5, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 12, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 and Dreier further discloses the step of sealing comprises an adhesive application and/or a welding application (see col. 5, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 17, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 and Dreier further discloses the manufacturing method comprises the step of sealing four edges of the cover strip layer to the backsheet layer in such a manner that the sealing pattern is surrounding the opening to form the pocket between said backsheet layer and said cover strip layer (see Figs. 2, 4; col. 5, lines 42-46).
Regarding claim 20, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 12 and Dreier further discloses the welding is thermal welding or any suitable means (see col. 5, lines 42-46) and does not specifically disclose it being ultrasonic welding.
Dreier discloses the use of ultrasonic welding as an alternative thermal welding as affixing means (see col. 4, lines 19-21). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the welding be ultrasonic welding as Dreier discloses ultrasonic welding is a well known alternative to thermal welding, and this would predictably result in the desired fixation between the cover layer and the backsheet layer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier in view of Odorzynski and further in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noel et al. (US 5,304,161).
Regarding claim 10, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1, and the cover strip layer would have to be either non-intermittently placed or intermittently placed (it would have to be either one or the other). Dreier further discloses the placement would have to result in the length of the cover strip layer being less than the length of the backsheet layer and/or the length of the absorbent article (see Figs. 2, 4). Dreier further discloses the cover layer is rectangular (see Fig. 2). However, none of these references disclose placement of the cover strip layer comprises the additional step of cutting the cover strip layer.
However, Noel discloses sizing a rectangular material comprises the step of cutting the material to the desired rectangular size (see col. 30, lines 6-7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut the cover strip layer to the desired sizing for placing it in the absorbent article, Noel disclosing cutting a material to the desired rectangular sizing for use, allowing for intermittent placement.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreier in view of Odorzynski and further in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heran et al. (US 4,641,381).
Regarding claim 13, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 but do not disclose the backsheet layer comprises at least one outer layer and at least one inner layer being closer to the cover strip layer than the at least one outer layer, wherein at least two layers of the backsheet layer are laminated to each other, and/or wherein the at least one outer layer covers at least a part of the surface of the at least one inner layer and/or especially at least surrounds the opening of the backsheet layer.
Heran discloses an absorbent article with a backsheet layer 17, the backsheet layer comprises an outer layer 17 and an inner layer 30 being facing inward towards the absorbent core 18 and closer to the absorbent core than the outer layer (see Abstract, Fig. 7), providing the dual characteristics of liquid imperviousness and clothlike appearance, therefore the absorbent article can be perceived as protective underwear rather than a diaper (see col. 2, lines 24-29). Heran further discloses the inner and outer layers are laminated to one another (see col. 4, lines 19-27) and/or wherein the at least one outer layer covers at least a part of the surface of the at least one inner layer (see Figs. 5, 7; col. 4, lines 19-27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the backsheet layer comprise the inner and outer layers disclosed by Heran, providing the dual characteristics of liquid imperviousness and clothlike appearance, therefore the absorbent article can be perceived as protective underwear rather than a diaper. Consequently, with the position of the inner layer inward towards the absorbent core, the inner layer would be closer to the cover strip layer than the outer layer.
Regarding claim 14, Heran further discloses the outer layer comprises a non-woven substrate (see col. 4, lines 3-18) and the inner layer comprises a non-permeable film (see Fig. 7, col. 3, line 59-col. 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto disclose the manufacturing method according to claim 1 but do not disclose the backsheet layer comprises at least one outer layer and at least one inner layer being closer to the cover strip layer than the at least one outer layer, wherein all layers of the backsheet layer are laminated to each other, and/or wherein the at least one outer layer (1la) covers at least a part of the surface of the at least one inner layer (1 1b) and/or at least surrounds the opening of the backsheet layer (11).
Heran discloses an absorbent article with a backsheet layer 17, the backsheet layer comprises an outer layer 17 and an inner layer 30 being facing inward towards the absorbent core 18 and closer to the absorbent core than the outer layer (see Abstract, Fig. 7), providing the dual characteristics of liquid imperviousness and clothlike appearance, therefore the absorbent article can be perceived as protective underwear rather than a diaper (see col. 2, lines 24-29). Heran further discloses all layers of the backsheet layer are laminated to one another (see col. 4, lines 19-27) and/or wherein the at least one outer layer covers at least a part of the surface of the at least one inner layer (see Figs. 5, 7; col. 4, lines 19-27). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the backsheet layer comprise the inner and outer layers disclosed by Heran, providing the dual characteristics of liquid imperviousness and clothlike appearance, therefore the absorbent article can be perceived as protective underwear rather than a diaper. Consequently, with the position of the inner layer inward towards the absorbent core, the inner layer would be closer to the cover strip layer than the outer layer.
Regarding claim 19, Heran further discloses the outer layer comprises a non-woven substrate (see col. 4, lines 3-18) and the inner layer comprises a non-permeable film (see Fig. 7, col. 3, line 59-col. 4, line 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art found is Dreier, Odorzynski, and Yamamoto, which do not disclose the pocket has a longitudinal length greater than a longitudinal length of the opening. As the opening defines of the pocket of Dreier, the longitudinal length of the pocket is disclosed as the same as the longitudinal length of the opening. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to have such a configuration with the longitudinal length of the pocket being greater, as such a length would weaken the seal surrounding the pocket that is between the backsheet and cover layer.
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 ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is (303)297-4665. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F.
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 E 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.
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781