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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
With respect to claims 1, 13 and 20, the claims refer to “the Thickness Under Compression Measurement Method" and “the Fiber Diameter and Weight Ratio of Multi-fiber Layer Nonwoven Measurement Method”.
The instant specification describes some methods that may be used to measure some dimensions but the instant specification does not specifically recite a “Thickness Under Compression Measurement Method" or a “Fiber Diameter and Weight Ratio of Multi-fiber Layer Nonwoven Method Measurement”. Additionally, on page 20, line 19 refers to a “Muti” fiber layer. The claims are not necessarily supported by the disclosure as there is no specifically named test in the specification as recited in the claims.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
"the Thickness Under Compression Measurement Method" in lines 5-6
“ the Fiber Diameter and Weight Ratio of Multi-fiber Layer Nonwoven Method Measurement” in lines 13-14.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the following limitations:
"the Thickness Under Compression Measurement Method" in lines 5-6
“ the Fiber Diameter and Weight Ratio of Multi-fiber Layer Nonwoven Method Measurement” in lines 12-13.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations:
"the Thickness Under Compression Measurement Method" in lines 5-6
“ the Fiber Diameter and Weight Ratio of Multi-fiber Layer Nonwoven Method Measurement” in lines 13-14.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations 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.
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 1-5, 10, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 6,632,974) and further in view of Autran et al. (US 9,072,633).
With reference to claims 1 and 20, Suzuki et al. (hereinafter “Suzuki”) discloses an absorbent article (1) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (2), a liquid impermeable backsheet (3), an absorbent core (4) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (col. 3, lines 60-65), and an outer cover layer (5) for covering the garment-facing side of the backsheet (col. 4, lines 6-7);
wherein the absorbent article has a Thickness Under Compression according to a method of from about 2.7 mm to about 4.0 mm as shown in Table 2.
The difference between Suzuki and claim 1 is the provision that the outer cover layer is formed by a muti-fiber layer nonwoven having a basis weight of from about 16gsm to about 35gsm and comprising a garment facing layer and a wearer facing layer, the garment facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 7µm to about 11 µm, and the wearer facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 13 µm to about 24 µm and wherein a weight ratio, according to methods, of the garment facing layer is from about 20% to about 70% of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven.
Autran et al. (hereinafter “Autran”) teaches an analogous absorbent article (abstract) having an outer cover formed by a multi-fiber layer nonwoven (col. 2, lines 39-60) having a basis weight of from about 16gsm to about 35gsm (col. 11, lines 7-11) and comprising a garment facing layer (75) and a wearer facing layer (70) as shown in figure 5A, the garment facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 7µm to about 11 µm, or about 11 µm or less (cl. 20) as set forth in col. 11, lines 39-41, and the wearer facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 13 µm to about 24 µm, or from about 13 µm or more (cl. 20) as set forth in col. 11, lines 45-47 and wherein a weight ratio of the garment facing layer is from about 20% to about 70% of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven as set forth in col. 11, lines 23-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the outer cover of Suzuki with the multi-fiber layer nonwoven as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with an outer cover with favorable mechanical, physical and aesthetic properties that provide the advantages of cotton underwear which conform well to an individual wearer’s body in response to body movements as taught by Autran in col. 2, lines 11-38.
As to claim 2, Suzuki teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Suzuki and claim 2 is the provision that the fibers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air-through carded fibers, and wherein the layers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air through bonded.
Autran teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the fibers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air-through carded fibers (i.e, carding) , and wherein the layers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air through bonded (i.e., thermal point bonding) as set forth in col. 10, line 65 to col. 11, line 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the outer cover of Suzuki with the multi-fiber layer nonwoven as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with an outer cover with favorable mechanical, physical and aesthetic properties that provide the advantages of cotton underwear which conform well to an individual wearer’s body in response to body movements as taught by Autran in col. 2, lines 11-38.
With reference to claims 3 and 14, Suzuki teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Suzuki and claims 3 and 14 is the provision that the absorbent core comprises a high loft material encompassing superabsorbent polymer particles.
Autran teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the absorbent core comprises a high loft material encompassing superabsorbent polymer particles as set forth in col. 20, lines 24-47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Suzuki with a high loft material encompassing superabsorbent polymer particles as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with favorable mechanical, physical and aesthetic properties that provide the advantages of cotton underwear which conform well to an individual wearer’s body in response to body movements as taught by Autran in col. 2, lines 11-38.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Suzuki teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Suzuki and claims 4 and 15d is the provision that the absorbent core comprises an absorbent layer having superabsorbent polymers disposed between first and second layers of nonwoven material immobilized by a fibrous layer of thermoplastic adhesive material
Autran teaches an analogous absorbent article including an absorbent core comprising an absorbent layer having superabsorbent polymers disposed between first and second layers of nonwoven material immobilized by a fibrous layer of thermoplastic adhesive material as set forth in through the incorporation (col. 34, lines 11-13) of Busam et al. (US 2004/0167486 in col. 20, lines 39-47.
Busam et al. (hereinafter “Busam”) teaches the core including superabsorbent mixed with thermoplastic adhesives as set forth in [0029] and [0065]. Busam also provides the absorbent layer between first and second nonwoven layers as set forth in [0036-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Suzuki with the specific absorbent core as taught by Autran (through the incorporation of Busam) in order to ensure that the combine good cohesion and good adhesion behavior as taught by Busam in [0065-0066].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Suzuki teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Suzuki and claims 5 and 16 is the provision that article includes an acquisition system (cl. 16) that comprises viscose (cl.5).
Autran teaches an analogous absorbent article including an acquisition system comprising viscose (i.e., rayon) as set forth in through the incorporation (col. 34, lines 11-13) of Angstadt (US 4,888,231) in col. 20, lines 59-61.
Angstadt teaches an acquisition layer (1010) that includes viscose as set forth in col. 3, lines 22-26, col. 4, lines 14-18 and in col. 5, lines 10-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Suzuki with an acquisition layer as taught by Autran (through the incorporation of Angstadt) in order to provide the article with wicking properties that serve to quickly collect, temporarily hold and distribute discharge body fluid as taught by Angstadt in col. 3, lines 33-35.
As to claim 10, Suzuki discloses an absorbent article comprising an application means, wherein the application means is selected from the group of a fastening means (11) and an elastic belt as set forth in col. 4, lines 24-27.
With reference to claim 13, Suzuki discloses an absorbent article (1) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (2), a liquid impermeable backsheet (3), an absorbent core (4) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (col. 3, lines 60-65), and an outer cover layer (5) for covering the garment-facing side of the backsheet (col. 4, lines 6-7);
wherein the absorbent article has a Thickness Under Compression, according to a method, of from about 2.7 mm to about 4.0 mm as shown in Table 2.
The difference between Suzuki and claim 13 is the provision that the outer cover layer is formed by a muti-fiber layer nonwoven having a basis weight of from about 16gsm to about 35gsm and comprising a garment facing layer and a wearer facing layer, the garment facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 7µm to about 11 µm, and the wearer facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 13 µm to about 24 µm, wherein a weight ratio of the garment facing layer, according to a method, is from about 20% to about 70% of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven and wherein the fibers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air-through carded fibers, and wherein the layers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air through bonded.
Autran teaches an analogous absorbent article (abstract) having an outer cover formed by a multi-fiber layer nonwoven (col. 2, lines 39-60) having a basis weight of from about 16gsm to about 35gsm (col. 11, lines 7-11) and comprising a garment facing layer (75) and a wearer facing layer (70) as shown in figure 5A, the garment facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 7µm to about 11 µm (col. 11, lines 39-41), and the wearer facing layer comprising fibers having a diameter from about 13 µm to about 24 µm (col. 11, lines 45-47) and wherein a weight ratio of the garment facing layer is from about 20% to about 70% of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven as set forth in col. 11, lines 23-25.
Autran also teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the fibers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air-through carded fibers (i.e., carding), and wherein the layers of the multi-fiber layer nonwoven are air through bonded (i.e., thermal point bonding) as set forth in col. 10, line 65 to col. 11, line 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the outer cover of Suzuki with the multi-fiber layer nonwoven as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with an outer cover with favorable mechanical, physical and aesthetic properties that provide the advantages of cotton underwear which conform well to an individual wearer’s body in response to body movements as taught by Autran in col. 2, lines 11-38.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 6,632,974) in view of Autran et al. (US 9,072,633) and further in view of Driskell et al. (US 2003/0069557).
Regarding claims 11-12, Suzuki modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Autran teaches that the muti-fiber layer nonwoven forms the backsheet for the entire article, including any additional components as set forth in col. 1, lines 34-41.
The difference between Suzuki modified and claims 11-12 is the provision that the application means is the elastic belt extending in the transverse direction, wherein the elastic belt comprises a laminate comprising an inner sheet, an outer sheet, and a plurality of elastic members running in the transverse direction; wherein the muti-fiber layer nonwoven forming the backsheet nonwoven also forms the outer sheet and that the inner sheet has a melting point of no more than about 165°C (cl. 12).
Driskell et al. (hereinafter “Driskell”) also teaches an analogous absorbent article including an application means in the form of an elastic belt (figure 1) including a laminate comprising an inner sheet, an outer sheet, and a plurality of elastic members [0047] running in the transverse direction as shown in figure 1. Driskell also teaches an inner sheet with a melting point of no more than about 165°C (i.e., polypropylene) as set forth in [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Suzuki modified with the specific elastic belt as taught by Driskell in order to provide an article a greater amount of flexibility to accommodate a greater range of body sizes as taught by Driskell in [0015].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sample is the measured thickness under the pressure of 41 gf/cm2, during the compression test) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is found in the references themselves as noted by applicant where Suzuki seeks to provide user assurance and Autran provides the advantages of conformance an individual wearer’s body in response to body movement which ultimately provides user assurance.
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
Prosecution Insights