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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. (US 2020/0315859) in view of Harumoto et al. (US 2015/0173975) and further in view of Bianchi et al. (US 2017/0151103).
As to claim 1, Denti et al. (hereinafter “Denti”) teaches a feminine hygiene pad (10) having a longitudinal axis oriented along a y-direction (L), a lateral axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis oriented along an x-direction (T), and a pad caliper measured along a z-direction orthogonal to the longitudinal and lateral axes (figure 2), comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (12) comprising a unitary fibrous nonwoven web [0036], a fibrous fluid management layer (20) beneath the topsheet (figure 2), an absorbent structure (14) beneath the fluid management layer, and a backsheet (14) beneath the absorbent structure (figure 2), wherein:
the fibrous nonwoven web comprises bicomponent staple topsheet fibers [0036],
wherein the topsheet fibers have an average denier of 3.8 to 5.0 through the incorporation [0189] of US patent application serial number 16/547,843 which is the equivalent of US 11,925,539 to Cecchetto where Cecchetto discloses topsheet fibers having an average denier falling within the claimed range as set forth in col. 15, lines 38-47;
the topsheet fibers have a have a sheath-core configuration, wherein the sheath component comprises polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0036], and
the topsheet fibers comprise a blend of intermixed, polymeric hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers in a weight ratio as claimed as set forth in [0036].
Denti teaches that hydrophilicity of the hydrophilic fibers is effected by application of a surface treatment composition through the incorporation by reference [0189] of Osborn, III et al. (US 5,885,265) in [0112].
Osborn discloses an absorbent structure having a topsheet 28 and teaches at least portions of the body surface 28A of the topsheet 28 are hydrophilic so as to help liquid transfer through the topsheet faster than if the body surface was not hydrophilic. Osborn teaches a surfactant is applied to the body surface 28A of the topsheet 28. Osborn teaches such a hydrophilic surface helps to diminish the likelihood that bodily fluids will flow off the topsheet rather than flowing into and being absorbed by the absorbent core (Osborn col. 14, lines 8-22).
Denti, through the incorporation of Cecchetto as previously explained, also discloses a topsheet including less than 10 percent by weight of any combination of cotton fibers, other plant fibers, rayon fibers or monocomponent fibers comprising polyester or polyamide where Cecchetto discloses the material web comprising 100 percent polyethylene as set forth in col. 17, lines 40-42.
The difference between Denti and claim 1 is the provision that the bicomponent fibers are present in a weight ratio of PE/:PET is 40:60 to 60:40 and that the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a plurality of inter-fibers bonds randomly distributed within the fibrous nonwoven web along the x-, y- and z-directions wherein the inter-fiber bonds are present wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression.
Regarding the bicomponent fibers, Harumoto et al. (hereinafter “Harumoto”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a nonwoven sheet comprising a first core/sheath composite fiber which is composed of a sheath component comprising linear low density polyethylene and a core component comprising thermoplastic resin having a high melting point as set forth in the abstract.
Harumoto also teaches that the thermoplastic resin core component preferably includes a polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene or polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate in [0047]. Harumoto further teaches the ratio of core component/sheath component is preferably from about 80/20 to about 30/70, and most preferably from about 60/40 to about 40/60 as set forth in [0028], which values overlap with those claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the invention of Denti with the core/sheath composite fibers in the ratio taught by Harumoto to achieve excellent strength and softness of the nonwoven and bulkiness recovery characteristics as taught by Harumoto in [0028].
With respect to the inter-fiber bonds, Bianchi et al. (hereinafter “Bianchi”) teaches an analogous absorbent article having a topsheet comprising a plurality of inter-fibers bonds randomly distributed within the fibrous nonwoven web along the x-, y- and z-directions wherein the inter-fiber bonds are present wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression as set forth in [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the topsheet of Denti with the plurality of inter-fibers bonds as taught by Bianchi to improve the structural integrity of the material as taught by Bianchi in [0059].
With reference to claims 2 and 10, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the fluid management layer comprises carded staple fibers [0061-0062, 0070] including absorbent fibers of regenerated cellulose [0083] in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 10 percent to about 60 percent [0074], bicomponent stiffening fibers in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 25 percent to about 70 percent [0076], and resilient fibers in a weight fraction of the fluid management layer of about 15 percent to about 70 percent as set forth in [0075].
With respect to claims 3 and 14, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the stiffening fibers have a sheath-core configuration wherein the core comprises PET and the sheath comprises PE as set forth in [0086].
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the resilient fibers are about 4 dtex to 15 dtex as set forth in [0090].
As to claim 5, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the resilient fibers comprise a polymer selected from the group consisting of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and combinations thereof as set forth in [0091].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the fluid management layer comprises a plurality of randomly-distributed inter-fiber bonds wherein adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression as set forth in [0088] where Denti describes post fiber entanglement via heat treatment to provide additional structural integrity to the integrated nonwoven by forming bonds between adjacent stiffening fibers.
With reference to claims 7 and 17, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the fluid management layer comprises a plurality of strata (i.e., first, second, and third carded web) as set forth in [0061-0062] and [0099].
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the fibers of the fluid management layer are integrated in a z-direction as set forth in [0063] and [0098].
As to claim 9, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad (10) having a longitudinal axis oriented along a y-direction (L), a lateral axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis oriented along an x-direction (T), and a pad caliper measured along a z-direction orthogonal to the longitudinal and lateral axes (figure 2), comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (12) comprising a unitary fibrous nonwoven web [0036], a fibrous fluid management layer (20) beneath the topsheet (figure 2), an absorbent structure (14) beneath the fluid management layer, and a backsheet (14) beneath the absorbent structure (figure 2), wherein:
the fibrous nonwoven web comprises bicomponent staple topsheet fibers [0036],
wherein the topsheet fibers have an average denier of 3.8 to 5.0 through the incorporation [0189] of US patent application serial number 16/547,843 which is the equivalent of US 11,925,539 to Cecchetto where Cecchetto discloses topsheet fibers having an average denier falling within the claimed range as set forth in col. 15, lines 38-47;
the topsheet fibers have a have a sheath-core configuration, wherein the sheath component comprises polyethylene (PE) and the core component comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [0036], and
in predominant weight fraction of the fibrous nonwoven web, are hydrophobic (see [0036] where it is disclosed that the hydrophobic fibers are present in at least about 50% hydrophobic fibers which would reasonably include 51%);
Denti, through the incorporation of Cecchetto as previously explained, also discloses a topsheet including less than 10 percent by weight of any combination of cotton fibers, other plant fibers, rayon fibers or monocomponent fibers comprising polyester or polyamide where Cecchetto discloses the material web comprising 100 percent polyethylene (also providing a predominant hydrophobic weight fraction) set forth in col. 17, lines 40-42.
The difference between Denti and claim 9 is the provision that the bicomponent in a weight ratio of PE/:PET is 40:60 to 60:40 and that the fibrous nonwoven web comprises a plurality of inter-fibers bonds randomly distributed within the fibrous nonwoven web along the x-, y- and z-directions wherein the inter-fiber bonds are present wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression.
Harumoto teaches an analogous absorbent article including a nonwoven sheet comprising a first core/sheath composite fiber which is composed of a sheath component comprising linear low density polyethylene and a core component comprising thermoplastic resin having a high melting point as set forth in the abstract.
Harumoto also teaches that the thermoplastic resin core component preferably includes a polyolefin-based resin such as polypropylene or polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate in [0047]. Harumoto further teaches the ratio of core component/sheath component is preferably from about 80/20 to about 30/70, and most preferably from about 60/40 to about 40/60 as set forth in [0028], which values overlap with those claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the invention of Denti with the core/sheath composite fibers in the ratio taught by Harumoto to achieve excellent strength and softness of the nonwoven and bulkiness recovery characteristics as taught by Harumoto in [0028].
With respect to the inter-fiber bonds, Bianchi teaches an analogous absorbent article having a topsheet comprising a plurality of inter-fibers bonds randomly distributed within the fibrous nonwoven web along the x-, y- and z-directions wherein the inter-fiber bonds are present wherein sheaths of adjacent fibers are fusion-bonded together without compression as set forth in [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the topsheet of Denti with the plurality of inter-fibers bonds as taught by Bianchi to improve the structural integrity of the material as taught by Bianchi in [0059].
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the absorbent fibers are about 1 to 7 dtex, thereby encompassing 0.6 to 2.4 dtex (cl. 12) as set forth in [0081].
As to claim 13, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the stiffening fibers are about 1.0 dtex to 6 dtex as set forth in [0085].
Regarding claim 19, Denti discloses a feminine hygiene pad wherein the unitary fibrous nonwoven web of the topsheet includes less than 10 percent by weight of any combination of cotton fibers, other plant fibers, rayon fibers or monocomponent fibers comprising polyester or polyamide as set forth in [0036] where Denti discloses that the unitary fibrous nonwoven web of the topsheet includes at least 50% of hydrophilic fibers and at least 50% of hydrophobic fibers.
As to claim 21, Denti is considered to teach the limitations as claimed because “less than 50 percent” includes zero, in which case the limitation is not necessarily required to be present.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti et al. (US 2020/0315859) in view of Harumoto et al. (US 2015/0173975) and Bianchi et al. (US 2017/0151103) and further in view of EP 0794804.
With respect to claim 22, Denti teaches a feminine hygiene pad wherein the topsheet bears a topical application of an anti-stick agent comprising a polypropylene glycol material through the incorporation by reference [0189] of Arndt et al. (US 6,664,439) in [0112].
Arndt et al. (hereinafter “Arndt”) discloses an absorbent structure having a topsheet including lotions and emmolients as set forth in col. 6, lines 62-64.
The instant specification notes that suitable anti-stick agents are disclosed as lotions.
However, Denti, through the incorporation of Arndt, does not explicitly recite polypropylene glycol.
EP-A-0794804 (hereinafter “Roe”) teaches a lotion/emollient that includes polypropylene glycol as set forth [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the lotion of Denti with polypropylene glycol as taught by Roe because Denti, through the incorporation of Arndt, discloses that the topsheet may include the materials as taught by Roe in col. 6, lines 62-64 of Arndt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 teaching, suggestion and motivation to do so is found in the references themselves. As noted by applicant, “Denti thus supplies the pad structure, the sheath-core PE/PET topsheet fiber, a fiber blend, and a topsheet already stabilized by inter-fiber bonds.” See page 2, 2nd full paragraph of Remarks filed July 2, 2026.
As such, Denti lays the groundwork of the general concept of the recited claims.
Harumoto and Bianchi further defines the general concepts disclosed by Denti for the benefits disclosed. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that the references are directed to different problems, but Denti provides a fundamental teaching of the fibers. The modification of the fibers as taught by Denti to provide the additional benefits of the secondary references supports an obviousness conclusion.
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation that the topsheet includes less than 50% of a particular surface area, the limitation is not necessarily required to be present as less than 50% includes zero.
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