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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrnsperger et al. (US 2014/0163501) and further in view of Turner et al. (US 2019/0322900).
With reference to claims 1 and 2, Ehrnsperger et al. (hereinafter “Ehrnsperger”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (24), a liquid impermeable backsheet (25) and an absorbent core (28) positioned between said topsheet and said backsheet [0026], said absorbent core comprising absorbent material selected from the group consisting of cellulose fibers, superabsorbent polymers and combinations thereof [0048-0049], wherein said absorbent material is contained within at least one core wrap substrate enclosing said absorbent material [0074], and wherein a top layer of said core wrap is bonded via a hot melt adhesive to a bottom layer of said core wrap at one or more attachment zones to form one or more channels substantially free of absorbent material [0053, 0086] characterized in that said hot melt adhesive [0055] is a rubber-based adhesive as set forth in [0058].
The difference between Ehrnsperger and claim 1 is the provision that the rubber based adhesive has a viscosity at least 5500, or 8000 (cl. 2) mPa s at 150° C.
Turner et al. (hereinafter “Turner”) teaches an analogous rubber based adhesive composition (i.e., polybutadiene as disclosed in [0056]) for absorbent articles wherein the adhesive has a viscosity of at least 8000 mPa∙s at 150° C as set forth in [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the adhesive of Ehrnsperger with the viscosity as taught by Turner in order to provide an adhesive with better performance, improved processability and lower cost as taught by Turner in [0004].
With reference to claims 3-4, Ehrnsperger teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Ehrnsperger and claims 3-4 is the provision that the channel has a stability of at least 20 minutes, or at least 30 minutes (cl. 4) according to the Hang-Peel Test at 38° C.
Turner teaches an analogous adhesive composition for absorbent articles that is identical in composition to the one disclosed in the instant application.
One of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably presume that the adhesive composition of Turner would perform identically to provide the channel of Ehrnsperger with the claimed stability since the composition of the adhesive is the same and since it has been held that materials and their properties cannot be separated.
As to claim 5, Ehrnsperger discloses an absorbent article wherein the attachment zones form a single channel (26) as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 6, Ehrnsperger discloses an absorbent article wherein the absorbent core is free of any channel extending up to the edges of the absorbent core as shown in figure 1.
With respect to claim 9, Ehrnsperger discloses an absorbent article wherein an acquisition distribution system is present between the topsheet and the absorbent core [0086], said system being a single layer [0100] of spunbond and/or carded nonwoven as set forth in [0109].
As to claim 10, Ehrnsperger discloses an absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein an acquisition distribution system is present between the topsheet and the absorbent core [0086], said system being multi-layered and comprising at least one spunbond layer and at least one meltblown layer as set forth in [0109].
Regarding claim 11, Ehrnsperger discloses an absorbent article wherein the top layer of the core wrap is in direct contact with the topsheet and comprises a spunbond and/or carded nonwoven layer.
Claims 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrnsperger et al. (US 2014/0163501) in view of Turner et al. (US 2019/0322900) and further in view of EP 2949299.
With reference to claims 7-8 and 13, Ehrnsperger modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Ehrnsperger modified and claims 7-8 and 13 is the provision that the adhesive is present in the channels in a quantity of at least 3 gsm, at least 4 gsm (cl. 8), or from 4 to 6 gsm (cl. 13).
EP 2949299 (hereinafter “Bianchi”) teaches an analogous absorbent article that includes channels and has adhesive applied in a range of 0.5 gsm to 10 gsm as set forth in [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the adhesive of Ehrnsperger modified in the amount as taught by Bianchi in order to improve the adhesion of the elements within the article as taught by in [0066].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrnsperger et al. (US 2014/0163501) in view of Turner et al. (US 2019/0322900) and further in view of Lord et al. (US 2007/0049892).
With reference to claim 12, Ehrnsperger modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Ehrnsperger discloses a topsheet that is multi-layered and comprises at least one spunbond layer and at least one meltblown layer as set forth in [0109].
The difference between Ehrnsperger modified and claim 12 is the provision that the top layer of the core wrap is in direct contact with the topsheet.
Lord et al. (hereinafter “Lord”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a core wrap (84) having a top layer in direct contact with the topsheet (30) as shown in figure 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ehrnsperger modified with a core wrap having a top layer in direct contact with the topsheet as taught by Lord in order to provide an article having improved containment of the absorbent core materials as taught by Lord in [0002].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 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