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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 recites that there is a “second engagement portion over substantially an entirety of the wide direction of the tip end portion of the back sheet portion”. The term “substantially an entirety” is interpreted as encompassing a majority of the width direction.
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.
Claims 10-12 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 10 refers to “joint portions” in line 10. Independent claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends, recites a “joint portion” in line 7. Multiple “joint portions” have not been recited in or supported by the pending claims. The scope of claim 10 is unclear. Correction and/or clarification are required.
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 1-3 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 20080099130) in view of Plischke et al. (US 5,977,014).
As to claim 1, Umebayashi et al. (hereinafter “Umebayashi”) discloses a wearing article [0005] comprising:
a waist member (31) including a waist body extending in a width direction (figure 1(a), having elasticity (41,43) capable of expanding an contracting in the width direction, and disposed around a waist of a wearer [0076], and first engagement portions (F2) provided on a surface facing a skin surface side of the wearer at both end portions of the waist body in the width direction (figure 1(a));
an absorber (2) joined to waist member and extending in an orthogonal direction with respect to the width direction (figure 1a) from a joint portion with a waist member so as to be disposed from a back portion to a front abdomen portion of the wearer via the crotch portion (see figures),
wherein the absorber includes a core (C) for absorbing a body fluid, a front sheet (64) provided on the skin surface side of the wearer of the core, a back sheet (62) provided on an outer surface side opposite to the skin surface side of the core so as to sandwich the core between the back sheet and the front sheet [0078], and a second engagement portion (F1) provided on an outer surface opposite to a surface facing the skin surface side of the back sheet and detachable with respect to each of the first engagement portions [0073];
the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion are engaged with each other in a state where the absorber is folded in two in the orthogonal direction, and both side portions adjacent in the width direction of the joint portion in the waist member are folded in the width direction as shown in figures 8(a) – 8(c).
The difference between Umebayashi and claim 1 is the recitation that the core includes a water absorbent polymer, a core-side first non-woven fabric that holds the core includes a water absorbent polymer, and a core-side first non-woven fabric that holds the water absorbent polymer so as to form a holding region that holds the water absorbent polymer and a first low-density region that holds the water absorbent polymer having a lower density than the water absorbent polymer in the holding region and is adjacent in the orthogonal direction to both end portions of the holding region in the orthogonal direction.
Plischke et al. (hereinafter “Plischke”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including an absorbent composite structure including a water absorbent polymer (col. 3, line 59) and a core-side first nonwoven fabric that holds the water absorbent polymer so as to form a holding region as set forth in col. 16, lines 11-59. Plischke teaches the structure as having areas of varying basis weight including striped areas (3) with little or no absorbent particles adjacent to areas with a higher basis weight of absorbent particles (2) as discussed in col. 5, lines 16-32 and as shown in figures 11-14. Plischke also teaches that having areas with an absence of particle aggregates in the composite, the composite can be mechanically deformed without the particles becoming detached from the substrate of the composite as set forth in col. 5, lines 35-40. The low density region (3) is adjacent in the orthogonal direction to both end portions of the holding region in the orthogonal direction as shown in figure 14.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Umebayashi with high and low density regions as taught by Plischke in order to provide a structure with improved performance, flexibility and structure as well as having a reduced tendency to exhibit gel blocking as taught by Plischke in col. 3, lines 40-53.
With reference to claims 2 and 3, Umebayashi teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Umebayashi and claims 2 and 3 is the provision that the article includes a second low-density region extending in the orthogonal direction (cl. 3) that holds the water absorbent polymer having a lower density than the water absorbent polymer in the holding region and is sandwiched in the width direction by the holding region is formed in the core-side first non-woven fabric.
Plischke teaches an analogous absorbent article having a second low-density region extending in the orthogonal direction (cl. 3) that holds the water absorbent polymer having a lower density than the water absorbent polymer in the holding region and is sandwiched in the width direction by the holding region formed in the core-side first non-woven fabric (figures 7-9 and 15-16) as set forth in annotated figure 14 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Umebayashi with high and low density regions as taught by Plischke in order to provide a structure with improved performance, flexibility and structure as well as having a reduced tendency to exhibit gel blocking as taught by Plischke in col. 3, lines 40-53.
Regarding claims 6-7, Umebayashi teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Umebayashi and claims 6-7 is the provision that the article includes a fiber layer raised to form a gap for supporting the water absorbent polymer that is formed in the core-side first non-woven fabric and/or on an opposing surface of each of the core-side first non-woven fabric and the core-side second non-woven fabric (cl. 7).
Plischke teaches an analogous absorbent article where absorbent polymers may be placed between multiple layers of the absorber member as shown in figures 5, 7-9 and 15-16. The thickness of the layer(s) produce a gap as shown in the figures. See also, col. 17, lines 34-62 where Plischke teaches an expanding cellulosic foam which would also produce a gap (i.e., spacing) within the article. Additionally, Plischke notes that the structure is a laminate as set forth in col. 16, lines 60-65.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Umebayashi with the desired amount and location of fiber layers as taught by Plischke in order to provide a structure with improved performance, flexibility and structure as well as having a reduced tendency to exhibit gel blocking as taught by Plischke in col. 3, lines 40-53. Plischke also notes that the particulars of the substrate layer(s) will vary depending on the desired properties as set forth in col. 16, lines 60-65.
As to claim 8, Umebayashi discloses that elastics (43) are placed on the tip end of the absorber which are expandable/stretchable in the width direction as shown in figure 6a.
With reference to claim 9, Umebayashi discloses that the absorber has a second engagement portion (F1) which covers almost an entire width portion of the absorber at the tip end portion as shown in figure 8b.
As to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1.
Umebayashi discloses a waist member having inner and outer sheets with elastic members therebetween [0076-0079] where the elastic members are fully capable of performing as recited.
Umebayashi is silent to portions of the article becoming weaker than adjacent parts.
It would have, however, been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reasonably presume that the article of Umebayashi would function identically to that as claimed because the structure of Umebayashi provides sandwiched elastics as claimed as well as the core arrangement portion as claimed. The weakened areas appear to be a result of this configuration and, therefore, would have been considered to be reasonably present in the structure of Umebayashi.
Regarding claim 11, Umebayashi discloses an outer sheet having an extending portion that covers an end portion joined to the waist member in the orthogonal direction of the absorber as shown in the figures, see especially figures 5(a) – 8(c).
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 10.
With respect to claim 13, Umebayashi discloses the recited waist member, absorber joining and folding steps as well as the temporary joining of the side edges to the absorber portion as shown in at least figures 6a, 8a, 8b and 8c.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 2008/0099130) in Plischke et al. (US 5,977,014) and further in view of Di Berardino et al. (US 2021/0186777).
With reference to claims 4 and 5, Umebayashi modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Umebayashi modified and claims 4 and 5 is the provision that the front sheet includes a front-side first non-woven fabric having an irregularity shape, and a front-side second non-woven fabric joined to an outer surface opposite to a surface facing the skin surface side in the front-side first non-woven fabric so as to maintain the irregularity shape wherein the front-side second non-woven fabric has a shape that is gentler in undulation than the irregularity shape (cl. 5).
Di Berardino et al. (hereinafter “Di Berardino”) teaches an analogous multilayer absorbing element for sanitary articles having a top layer is formed by laminating a stretched back layer (12) to body side facing layer (11) which has been deformed to form protrusions and cavities (figures 1-4) wherein the front-side second non-woven fabric has a shape that is gentler in undulation than the irregularity shape as shown in figure 1bis .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the structure of Umebayashi modified to include a front sheet of the absorber with irregularities and a front-side second non-woven fabric having a shape that is gentler in undulation than the irregularity shape as taught by Di Berardino to provide the benefit of accelerating the absorption and distribution of organic fluid to the absorbent core/absorber as taught by Di Berardino in [0019].
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umebayashi et al. (US 20080099130) in Plischke et al. (US 5,977,014) and further in view of Yamakawa et al. (US 2005/0256492).
With reference to claims 14-20, Umebayashi modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Umebayashi discloses the recited waist member, absorber joining and folding steps as well as the temporary joining of the side edges to the absorber portion recited in claim 13 (Fig. 6a, 8a, 8b, 8c).
The difference between Umebayashi modified and claims 14-20 is the provision that a position of the temporary fixing is outside relative to the core in the width direction.
Yamakawa et al. (hereinafter “Yamakawa”) teaches an analogous absorbent article that includes a temporary fixing (via tape fasteners) that are fixed outside relative to the core in the width direction as shown in figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the fixed areas of Umebayashi modified outside of the core in the width direction as taught by Yamakawa in order to maintain improved contact between the article and the wearer as taught by Yamakawa in [0050].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are considered to be obvious over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The instant application requires all of the specifics of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698, The method of making the article with the specifically recited elements would naturally flow from the structure of the instant application.
The limitations of claim 1 of the instant application can be found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 2 of the instant application can be found in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 3 of the instant application can be found in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 4 of the instant application can be found in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 5 of the instant application can be found in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 6 of the instant application can be found in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 7 of the instant application can be found in claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 8 of the instant application can be found in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 9 of the instant application can be found in claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 10 of the instant application can be found in claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 11 of the instant application can be found in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 12 of the instant application can be found in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claim 13 of the instant application can be found in claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
The limitations of claims 14-20 of the instant application can be found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,698.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karami (US 4,027,672) discloses an absorbent article with high liquid holding capacity regions.
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