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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 26, 2026 has been entered.
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 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 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 20 each recite the limitations “no greater than about” and “no less than about”.
The scope of the claim is unclear. The claim combines an exactitude (i.e., no greater than, no less than) with an approximation (i.e., about). It is unclear if the limit is an exact measurement or an approximate.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “at least about” in lines 4-5.
The scope of the claim is unclear. The claim combines an exactitude (i.e., at least) with an approximation (i.e., about). It is unclear if the limit is an exact measurement or an approximate.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “at least about” in lines 4-5.
The scope of the claim is unclear. The claim combines an exactitude (i.e., at least) with an approximation (i.e., about). It is unclear if the limit is an exact measurement or an approximate.
Correction and/or clarification is 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.
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 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, 16 and 20 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 EP 1872759 A1.
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 and that the article includes a specific absorbent core and an intermediate layer.
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.
Autran provides the absorbent article with an intermediate layer (28) disposed between the absorbent core and the backsheet as shown in figure 5A.
Additionally, Autran teaches an absorbent core having a nonwoven core cover (29) to help immobilize material within the core (col. 20, lines 62-67). The absorbent core also includes overlying and/or underlying layers in the form of acquisition, distribution and/or storage layer in addition to superabsorbent polymers (col. 20, lines 24-47) where the materials of the core can be joined via any suitable adhesive as set forth in col. 21, lines 1-6.
Additionally, specific core wrap sheets are disclosed through the incorporation (col. 34, lines 11-19) of US 2006/0155254 to Sanz et al. (hereinafter “Sanz”) in col. 20, lines 42-47 where Sanz discloses core wrap sheets to envelope the core as set forth in [0056-0057].
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 multi-fiber layer nonwoven outer cover and absorbent core as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with a structure having 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.
The motivation to provide the article with first and second layers of nonwoven material is provided by the disclosure of Autran to provide multiple layers (i.e., acquisition, distribution, storage, containment and/or core cover) within the core assembly. Likewise, the motivation to provide the article with superabsorbent polymers immobilized by adhesive in the core is provided by the disclosure of Autran that the materials of the core can be joined via any suitable adhesive.
Additionally, 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].
Suzuki modified fails to explicitly recite that the intermediate layer has an MD tensile/basis weight no greater than about 0.75 N/5cm/ g/m2 and a thickness/basis weight no less than about 0.0078mm/ g/m2.
EP 1872759 A1 (hereinafter “Otsubo”) teaches an analogous disposable pull-on wearing article (1, see Abstract) comprising a nonwoven fabric (Nonwoven Fabric 1, see Table 1) wherein the nonwoven fabric has a MD tensile/basis weight no greater than about 0.75 N/5cm/ g/m2 as measured according to Tensile Strength Test (Tensile Strength of 8.15N on a 50mm test piece = 8.15N/5cm; and a basis weight of 18 g/m2; therefore would have MD Tensile/basis weight of 0.45 N/5cm/ g/m2, see Table 1; Figure 4), and a thickness/basis weight no less than about 0.0078mm/ g/m2, as measured according to the FTT Test (Thickness of 180 micrometers = .18mm; and a basis weight of 18 g/m2; therefore would have a thickness/basis weight of 0.01 mm/ g/m2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide the intermediate layer of Suzuki modified with the parameters as taught by Otsubo in order to provide a conformable article with the desired degree of resistance as taught by in [0037] and [0041].
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.
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.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2.
Additionally, Autran discloses that the intermediate layer may include any of the aforementioned materials as set forth in col. 20, lines 48-61.
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 and that the article includes a specific absorbent core and an intermediate layer.
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. The absorbent core also includes high loft material through the incorporation (col. 34, lines 11-19) of US 2006/0155254 to Sanz in col. 20, lines 42-47 where Sanz discloses the use of wool in [0049]. Sanz also discloses superabsorbent particles in [0042] and discloses that all of the disclosed materials are suitable for the core as set forth in [0042].
Autran further provides the absorbent article with an intermediate layer (28) disposed between the absorbent core and the backsheet as shown in figure 5A.
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 multi-fiber layer nonwoven outer cover and intermediate layer as taught by Autran in order to provide the article with a structure having 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.
Suzuki modified fails to explicitly recite that the intermediate layer has an MD tensile/basis weight no greater than about 0.75 N/5cm/ g/m2 and a thickness/basis weight no less than about 0.0078mm/ g/m2.
EP 1872759 A1 (hereinafter “Otsubo”) teaches an analogous disposable pull-on wearing article (1, see Abstract) comprising a nonwoven fabric (Nonwoven Fabric 1, see Table 1) wherein the nonwoven fabric has a MD tensile/basis weight no greater than about 0.75 N/5cm/ g/m2 as measured according to Tensile Strength Test (Tensile Strength of 8.15N on a 50mm test piece = 8.15N/5cm; and a basis weight of 18 g/m2; therefore would have MD Tensile/basis weight of 0.45 N/5cm/ g/m2, see Table 1; Figure 4), and a thickness/basis weight no less than about 0.0078mm/ g/m2, as measured according to the FTT Test (Thickness of 180 micrometers = .18mm; and a basis weight of 18 g/m2; therefore would have a thickness/basis weight of 0.01 mm/ g/m2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to provide the intermediate layer of Suzuki modified with the parameters as taught by Otsubo in order to provide a conformable article with the desired degree of resistance as taught by in [0037] and [0041].
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 EP 1872759 A1 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 with respect to claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 16 and 18-20 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.
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