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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 3/19/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-15 made over the cited prior art of DE69716689T2 (translated document supplied by Applicants). Specifically, the published DE69716689T2 reference does not teach the claimed “further fiber layer”. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration claims 1-15 are rendered obvious over the combination of the published DE69716689T2 reference and Arora et al., US 2022/0104974 for reasons set forth herein below.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicants assert that the primary reference (published DE69716689T2) is directed to two-layer composite wherein the outer layer is heat treated to render the surface “abrasive” (e.g., a composite having opposing surfaces of differing properties) and there is no motivation to combine the secondary reference (Arora et al., US 2022/0104974) the primary reference to arrive at the claimed three-layer structure. Specifically, Applicants assert that the technical concept of DE 69716689T2 is focused on creating two surfaces having different functional properties. Introducing an additional intermediate storage layer between the two fiber layers would fundamentally change the structural concept disclosed in that document. For this reason, the skilled person starting from DE 69716689T2 would not have been motivated to modify the disclosed two-layer composite into a three-layer structure with an intermediate storage layer, as now claimed. This argument is not found persuasive. The Examiner is of the position that sufficient motivation exists to modify the two-layer composite of the published DE 69716689T2 on the grounds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of forming a hygiene article having a third layer, such an absorbent layer. DE 69716689T2 is already directed to a hygiene article and as such the Examiner is of the position that hygiene articles are commonly formed with absorbing layers. Further, the two-layer composite of the published DE 69716689T2 would still have two opposing surfaces having different functional properties if a third layer, such as absorbent layer is added. Claims 4 and 5 of the published DE 69716689T2 teach that only the first layer is heat treated to have an abrasive surface. Thus, if a third layer is added, the three-layer composite would still have opposing surfaces having different functional properties.
The secondary reference of Arora et al., teach an absorbent article comprising a top-sheet, a back-sheet, an absorbent core disposed therebetween and a fluid management layer disposed between the top-sheet and the absorbent core (abstract). Arora et al., teach that the fluid management layer can be carded (paragraph 0101). Arora et al., teach that the fluid management layer may comprise thermoplastic fibers (paragraph 0135). The Examiner considers top layer analogous to the claimed carded staple layer, the fluid management layer analogous to the claimed storage layer and the absorbent core analogous to the claimed “further fiber layer”. In this instance Arora et al., teach a three-layer system wherein the storage layer (the fluid management layer) is positioned between a top layer and absorbent core. Arora et al., teach that the absorbent layer is made of cellulose materials (wood pulp/cellulose wadding) (paragraph 0095). In other words, the arrangement of the layers in Arora et al., are analogous to and oriented as claimed with respect to the positioning of the claimed storage layer. As such, the Examiner is of the position that based on the desire to provide an absorbent hygiene article it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two-layer composite of the published DE 69716689T2 reference to have a third layer such as wood pulp or cellulose wadding comprising absorbent layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE69716689T2 (translated document supplied by Applicants) in view of in view of Arora et al., US 2022/0104974.
With regard to claims 1 and 2, the published DE reference shows a nonwoven element (claim 1) for hygiene articles (stated purpose and function; page 1, lines 3 to 6), comprising at least the following steps: - forming a fibrous web (page 1, lines 18-28) from a multi-ply nonwoven material (page 2, lines 7-25) with at least one carded staple fiber layer (page 1, lines 18-22; page 2, lines 12-16) and a storage layer which is arranged on the staple fiber layer and which has cellulose fibers (page 2, lines 18-19), wherein at least a portion of the staple fibers of the staple fiber layer are formed from a thermoplastic material (page 2, lines 12-16); - applying liquid jets to the fibrous web, as a result of which the fibers of the multi-ply nonwoven material are intermingled and entangled (page 3, lines 8-11), and the fibrous web is heat treated whereby the surface becomes abrasive (see document); applying heat to the fibrous web, as a result of which the thermoplastic staple fibers at least partially fuse and the fibrous web is bonded to form a nonwoven web (see D1, page 4, lines 19-33). The Examiner is of the position that such a surface is sufficient to meet the limitation of “embossed” as set forth in claim 1. With regard to claim 13, the published DE reference does not teach the claimed smooth surface. However, since the published DE reference does teach heat treating the surface of the non-woven web, the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to surface heat the non-woven web such that is smooth. The applied DE reference shows, mutatis mutandis, a nonwoven element for hygiene articles according to claim 16 (see comments regarding claim 1) (see search report). With regard to claims 6 and 9-12, the published DE teach that the first web consists in whole or in part of heat-fusible synthetic fibers, preferably selected from the class of polyolefins; advantageously this web consists of a mixture of cellulose fibers or the like and heat-fusible synthetic fibers, the percentage of these latter being capable of greater than 30%, preferably greater than 50% (see translation). The second layer in turn consists of natural and/or synthetic and/or synthetic fibers having a higher melting temperature than these latter (see translation). Although it is preferable to use polyolefin fibers whose characteristic is that they have a density of less than 1, it is also possible to consider the use of other types of fibers, for example fibers made of a copolymer of vinyl chloride (85%) and vinyl acetate (15%) having a melt temperature of the order of 160°C at a density of 1.37 g/cm 5. As natural and/or synthetic fibers, any type of fiber can be used which allows to obtain an absorbent character, such as wood pulp, cotton, linters, viscose; in the case of a chemical fiber, it is optionally multi-lobal in cross section or fibrillatable in order to optimize the effect of the liquid jets; if synthetic structural fibers are introduced into the second web. With regard to claim 5, if desired, it is possible to add to one or the other of the webs a certain percentage of binding fibers, for example bicomponent fibers, part or all of the fibers running on the adjacent fibers during a heat treatment, whereby a "bonding" can be achieved which makes the fibers integral; in such a case the melting point of the binding part of these binding fibers is lower than the melting point of the aforesaid structural fibers, but can be lower or higher than that of the fibers of the first web (see translation). The Examiner is of the position that bicomponent fibers are typically sheath/core type fibers. It would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to employ sheath/core type bicomponent fibers. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960). With regard to claims 7 and 8, the published DE reference doesn’t teach the claimed melting points. However, since the published DE reference teach the claimed bicomponent fibers and the use of the claimed types of polyolefin materials, the Examiner is of the position that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ thermoplastic fibers capable of heat fusing at a suitable temperature. Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed weight percentages of the thermally stable and unstable species, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). With regard to claim 14, the respective square meter weights of the two layers are adjusted depending on the applications, wherein these square meter weights can range from 15 to 200 gsm the second web and from 10 to 70 gsm the first web (see translation). With regard to claim 15, the published DE reference does not teach specifically teach the claimed length of the cellulose fibers, but does teach staple length fibers. Staple length fibers typically have lengths ranging from 10-500mm. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The published DE reference does not teach the claimed additional sheet(s).
The published patent application issued to Arora et al., teach an absorbent article comprising a top-sheet, a back-sheet, an absorbent core disposed therebetween and a fluid management layer disposed between the top-sheet and the absorbent core (abstract). Arora et al., teach that the fluid management layer can be carded (paragraph 0101). Arora et al., teach that the fluid management layer may comprise thermoplastic fibers (paragraph 0135). The Examiner considers top layer analogous to the claimed carded staple layer, the fluid management layer analogous to the claimed storage layer and the absorbent core analogous to the claimed “further fiber layer”. In this instance Arora et al., teach a three-layer system wherein the storage layer (the fluid management layer) is positioned between a top layer and absorbent core. Arora et al., teach that the absorbent layer is made of cellulose materials (wood pulp/cellulose wadding) (paragraph 0095). In other words, the arrangement of the layers in Arora et al., are analogous to and oriented as claimed with respect to the positioning of the claimed storage layer. As such, the Examiner is of the position that based on the desire to provide an absorbent hygiene article it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two-layer composite of the published DE 69716689T2 reference to have a third layer such as wood pulp or cellulose wadding comprising absorbent layer.
Therefore, motivated by the desire to form a multi-layer absorbent hygiene article it would have been obvious to use the entangled two-layer article of the DE reference with the additional cellulose comprising absorbent layer of Arora et al.
Conclusion
5. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights