RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to claim 5, filed on 22 December 2025, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 16 and 17 have been added. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 December 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 3 only as over EP 1,354,575 A1 in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901), made of record on page 4, paragraph 11 of the office action mailed 25 September 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 22 December 2025, in particular that the general structure of Smith does not correspond to one of the structures of claim 3 because Smith requires the presence of carboxylic acid functional groups which are excluded from any of the structures of claim 3.
The objection of claim 3 is also withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments in the response filed 22 December 2025, as “PE” would be understood to be polyethylene by one having ordinary skill in the art and is clear from the context of the claims and specification.
REPEATED REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,354,575 A1 in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901) as evidenced by the SK Innovation PRIMACOR 3460 datasheet, available at https://sk-fp.com/wp-content/uploads/Technical-datasheet_PRIMACOR-3460_eng_v2.pdf.
Regarding claims 1-2, EP ‘575 discloses a package for feminine hygiene pads which includes a body of absorbent material 101 and adhesive strips 103. See claim 1 and the FIGURE, reproduced below. The package also includes a layer A with a low coefficient of friction formed with a siloxane polymer which is in contact with the adhesive strips 103 as shown. See p. 2, [0013]. The siloxane is polydimethylsiloxane (see p. 2, [0016]) present as a masterbatch with polyolefin materials such as polyethylene, see p. 2, [0019] through p. 3, [0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
514
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EP ‘575 does not disclose that the release layer uses a low density polyethylene which is covalently bonded to polydimethylsiloxane as claimed.
However, Smith describes siloxane modified polyolefin copolymers which are used to make dispensing films and plastics for packaging and adhesive releasing objects, see abstract and col. 1, lines 6-10. The siloxane modified polyolefin copolymer has the general structure shown below, see col. 2, lines 40-67.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This copolymer is formed from a polydimethylsiloxane and an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer which are reacted together to create the block copolymer having the structure shown above. See col. 4, lines 1-34. Note that commercial polydimethylsiloxanes GE 1149-165 and GE 1159-524 and commercial PRIMACOR 3460 ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer are used in the examples, see col. 4, lines 1-13 and lines 29-33 and Examples I and II in cols. 5-6. PRIMACOR has a density of 0.938 g/cm3 as shown in the SK Innovation datasheet. Although this is the density of the copolymer rather than the density of the polyethylene portion alone, the Examiner notes that 0.938 g/cm3 is within applicant’s descriptive range of density for LDPE resin which is typically in the range of 0.916 to 0.940 g/cm3, see p. 5, [0025] of the original specification. Thus, the Examiner has considered PRIMACOR to be based on a low-density polyethylene.
The Examiner notes that the general copolymer formula shown above and at col. 2, lines 40-67 is missing a right parenthesis in the –{(O-Sin(R)(R1)-R2}y siloxane structure which is present in the general siloxane structure shown at col. 4, line 10 (Examiner’s annotation arrow added for clarity):
PNG
media_image3.png
80
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Smith notes that the copolymers are chemically bonded, reading on covalently bonded, see col. 8, lines 53-61.
The Examiner notes that although the claims describe a reaction product of ethylene and a (meth)acrylic ester functionalized polydimethylsiloxane, whereas Smith describes the reaction product of an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer and a dimethylsiloxane, the resulting product reads on the claimed covalently bonded polymer of claims 1-2.
Smith and EP ‘575 are analogous because they are recognized in the art as being suitable for an intended purpose, as EP ‘575 uses a masterbatch blend of polyolefin and polydimethylsiloxane as a low coefficient of friction release layer material whereas Smith describes a copolymer of polyolefin and polydimethylsiloxane to formulate an adhesive release material, see Smith at col. 8, lines 19-29 and p. 2, [0013] of EP ‘575.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the copolymer of Smith as the release material of EP ‘575 to arrive at the claimed invention because Smith notes that physical mixtures of polymers tend to separate on standing, which causes the siloxane to be lost and migrate to the surface making an oily film on the package or migrating into an adjacent polymer. See col. 8, lines 53-61. There is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination as Smith specifies that the siloxane modified polyolefin polymers are used for adhesive release materials which is the same service used in EP ‘575.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the –(CH2)m- group of Smith shown above is the bridging group between the polydimethylsiloxane and the low density polyethylene. These are former methyl groups of the polydimethylsiloxane as shown in col. 4, line 10. Although Smith does not specify the density of the overall copolymer, the Examiner notes that in Example III Smith teaches reacting PRIMACOR with just 5 wt. % of the polydimethylsiloxane GE 1149-165, see col. 6, lines 53-60. Thus the Examiner has reason to suspect that the overall copolymer will have a density approximately equal to that of the PRIMACOR material, which is about 0.938 g/cm3 as evidenced by the SK Innovation datasheet. This is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, EP ‘575 shows that the package includes additional support layers B and C as shown in the FIGURE, and the release layer A is located between these support layers and the adhesive layer 103. See claim 1. Layers B and C are formed of LDPE (low density polyethylene) and LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) materials in the examples, see p. 4.
Regarding claim 8, The Examples 1-4 of EP ‘575 show that the release layer A is 18 wt. % of the total of layers A, B, and C that comprise the wrapping, see p. 4. This is within the claimed range of 5-20 wt. %.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, EP ‘575 shows that the package includes two support layers B and C as shown in the FIGURE, and the release layer A is located between these support layers and the adhesive layer 103. See claim 1. Layers B and C are formed of LDPE (low density polyethylene) and LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) materials in the examples, see p. 4.
Regarding claim 12, EP ‘575 teaches that none of the package layers A, B, and C include a material comprising at least 60 wt. % of silicone resin. See p. 4. The copolymer of Smith includes the siloxane and olefin raw materials in the preferable range of from 1:1 to 1:100 weight ratio, see col. 4, lines 62-67. This is at most 50 wt. % of the siloxane polymer. Example III of Smith uses only 5 wt. % of siloxane polymer in the copolymer, see col. 6, lines 50-60. Thus by substituting the copolymer of Smith for the Layer A release layer of EP ‘575, the resulting article remains void of any materials comprising at least 60 wt. % silicone resins.
Regarding claim 13, Neither EP ’575 nor Smith specifies the maximum peel force to remove the feminine hygiene pad from the pouch wrap nor static nor dynamic coefficients of friction for the release layer. However, these are values depend on the materials used to construct the article, most particularly the adhesive layer and the release layer materials. As EP ‘575 in view of Smith teaches the same release layer materials as claimed, the package is expected to possess the same properties including maximum peel force and coefficients of friction as those recited in claim 13.
Regarding claims 14-16, EP ‘575 discloses a package for feminine hygiene pads which includes a support layers C and B and release layer A and adhesive strips 103. See claim 1 and the FIGURE, reproduced below. Layer A is formed with a siloxane polymer which is in contact with the adhesive strips 103 as shown. See p. 2, [0013]. The siloxane is polydimethylsiloxane (see p. 2, [0016]) present as a masterbatch with polyolefin materials such as polyethylene, see p. 2, [0019] through p. 3, [0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
514
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
EP ‘575 does not disclose that the release layer uses a low density polyethylene which is covalently bonded to polydimethylsiloxane as claimed.
However, Smith describes siloxane modified polyolefin copolymers which are used to make dispensing films and plastics for packaging and adhesive releasing objects, see abstract and col. 1, lines 6-10. The siloxane modified polyolefin copolymer has the general structure shown below, see col. 2, lines 40-67.
PNG
media_image2.png
474
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This copolymer is formed from a polydimethylsiloxane and an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer which are reacted together to create the block copolymer having the structure shown above. See col. 4, lines 1-34. Note that commercial polydimethylsiloxanes GE 1149-165 and GE 1159-524 and commercial PRIMACOR 3460 ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer are used in the examples, see col. 4, lines 1-13 and lines 29-33 and Examples I and II in cols. 5-6.
The Examiner notes that the general copolymer formula shown above and at col. 2, lines 40-67 is missing a right parenthesis “)” in the –{(O-Sin(R)(R1)-R2}y siloxane structure which is present in the more specific siloxane structure shown at col. 4, line 10 (Examiner’s annotation arrow added for clarity):
PNG
media_image3.png
80
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This reads on the polymer composition comprising ethylene and (meth)acrylic ester functionalized polydimethylsiloxane copolymers as recited in claims 14 and 16.
Smith and EP ‘575 are analogous because they are recognized in the art as being suitable for an intended purpose, as EP ‘575 uses a masterbatch blend of polyolefin and polydimethylsiloxane as a low coefficient of friction release layer material whereas Smith describes a copolymer of polyolefin and polydimethylsiloxane to formulate an adhesive release material, see Smith at col. 8, lines 19-29 and p. 2, [0013] of EP ‘575.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the copolymer of Smith as the release material of EP ‘575 to arrive at the claimed invention because Smith note that physical mixtures of polymers tend to separate on standing, which causes the siloxane to be lost and migrate to the surface making an oily film on the package or migrating into an adjacent polymer. See col. 8, lines 53-61. There is a reasonable expectation of success in the combination as Smith specifies that the siloxane modified polyolefin polymers are used for adhesive release materials which is the same service used in EP ‘575.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,354,575 A1 in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901) and further in view of Toms (U.S. Pat. 8,292,861) as evidenced by the SK Innovation PRIMACOR 3460 datasheet, available at https://sk-fp.com/wp-content/uploads/Technical-datasheet_PRIMACOR-3460_eng_v2.pdfas applied above.
Regarding claim 6, EP ‘575, Smith, and the SK Innovation PRIMACOR 3460 datasheet are relied upon as described above. EP ‘575 shows that the package includes two support layers B and C as shown in the FIGURE, and the release layer A is located between these support layers and the adhesive layer 103. See claim 1. Layers B and C are formed of LDPE (low density polyethylene) and LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) materials in the examples, see p. 4.
EP ‘575 does not specify the basis weight of the package for feminine hygiene products.
However, Toms describes overlabel wrappers for absorbent articles such as articles for feminine hygiene, see title, abstract, and col. 1, lines 5-19. The package material includes polymeric films such as polyethylene, and has a basis weight of less than 50 gsm (grams/m2), such as less than 40 gsm, less than 30 gsm, less than 25 gsm, less than 20 gsm, less than 15 gsm, or less than 10 gsm, see col. 4, lines 23-47.
Toms and EP ‘575 are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as they each disclose packaging materials for feminine hygiene articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the polymeric films of EP ‘575 with a basis weight within the claimed range of 5-40 gsm as taught in Toms in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Toms teaches this is a suitable basis weight for a feminine hygiene package.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,354,575 A1 in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901) and further in view of Hardie (U.S. Pub. 2018/0098896) as evidenced by the SK Innovation PRIMACOR 3460 datasheet, available at https://sk-fp.com/wp-content/uploads/Technical-datasheet_PRIMACOR-3460_eng_v2.pdfas applied above.
Regarding claim 11, EP ‘575, Smith, and the SK Innovation PRIMACOR 3460 datasheet are relied upon as described above.
EP ‘575 also shows that the package includes layer 102 located between the absorbent layer 101 and the adhesive layer 103, see the FIGURE and claim 1 and p. 4, [0033]. However, EP ‘575 does not expressly state that the absorbent layer is a nonwoven material.
Hardie describes disposable absorbent articles such as incontinence pads, sanitary napkins, menstrual pads, and other personal hygienic articles, see p. 2, [0017]. The articles include a primary topsheet, absorbent core, and backsheet, see items 203, 205, and 207 in FIG. 2 and description at p. 2, [0023]. The topsheet may include nonwoven materials as described at p. 4, [0035-0036]. The backsheet may also include nonwoven fibers, see p. 7, [0065]. The absorbent core may also include nonwoven materials, see p. 8, [0075].
Hardie and EP ‘575 are analogous because they are similar in structure and function, as they each disclose packaging materials for personal hygiene articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a nonwoven fabric layer as a layer in the hygienic article of EP ‘575 as taught in Hardie in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Hardie teaches that nonwovens are suitable fibrous absorbent layers for the hygienic article. Absorbent fibers are used to wick and absorb viscous liquids such as menstrual fluid, see Hardie at p. 5, [0049-0050].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 17 are 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 an examiner's statement of the reasons for allowance:
The present claims are deemed allowable over the references since the references do not disclose or render obvious a reaction product of a (meth)acrylic ester functionalized polydimethylsiloxane with ethylene having one of the three specified structures in combination with a feminine hygiene article having an absorbent body with adhesive layer and a pouch wrap with a release liner.
While Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901) discloses a polydimethylsiloxane and an ethylene-acrylic acid copolymer which are reacted together, the general structure of Smith does not correspond to one of the structures of claims 3 or 17 because Smith requires the presence of carboxylic acid functional groups which are excluded from any of the structures of claims 3 or 17.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 22 December 2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-15 of record over EP 1,354,575 A1 in view of Smith (U.S. Pat. 5,476,901) have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues at p. 7-8 of the remarks that EP ‘575 and Smith are not combinable as suggested by the Examiner, as Smith and EP ‘575 each recognize the same problem that physical mixtures of polymers tend to separate on standing, and each develops a different solution to this problem. Specifically, EP ‘575 uses extruded compositions of olefin polymers mixed with high molecular weight siloxane which is trapped in a matrix and does not migrate towards a surface, while Smith uses a covalently bonded copolymer. As EP ‘575 has already addressed the problem of silicone oil migration in its film, and thus does not suffer from such a defect, there is no reason to look to Smith and thus the references cannot be combined.
The Examiner is not persuaded. Although EP ‘575 does teach one way to resolve the problem of a physical mixture of polymers separating upon standing, this is not the only way to remedy this concern. Smith describes an alternate method, suitable in its own right, to also avoid the problem of a physical blend of polymers separating upon standing. EP ‘575 does not disparage the use of a chemically bound combination of polymers such as that described in Smith. One having ordinary skill in the art would be aware of multiple suitable ways to alleviate the problem of polymers separating over time, and would consider such alternate methods when developing a release liner for an adhesive article.
Accordingly, this 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected.
Claims 3 and 17 are allowable but objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759