DETAILED ACTION
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
The Amendments filed February 24th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-11,15,17-19 and 21-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments have overcome the previous 102 Rejections and the 102 Rejections of December 2nd, 2025 are hereby withdrawn. However, claims 23-25 are newly rejected under 103 in light of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 15, 17-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethiopia et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0173162); hereafter "Ethiopia" in view of itself, Arnold et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6649547); hereafter “Arnold”, and Patel (U.S. 20180338873); hereafter “Patel”alongside “Friction” (2017) and “Mechanisms of Static and Kinetic Friction of Polypropylene” (2016); hereafter “Mechanisms”, with Friction and Mechanisms used as a teaching reference; and Arnold used solely as evidence on the tackiness property that manifests in propylene-ethylene bicomponent fiber mixtures.
Regarding claim 1, Ethiopia discloses a bed pad (paragraph 0003: “other personal hygiene products”) comprising: a liquid-absorbent structure (paragraph 0022: “low fuzzing, soft nonwoven suitable for use as a component in a disposable absorbent article”); and a composite nonwoven backing layer (paragraph 0028: “In another aspect, the present invention is a spun bond nonwoven fabric made using fibers”) comprising a first polymeric fiber (paragraph 0029: “from about 50 to about 95 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a first polymer”) and a second polymeric fiber (paragraph 0030: “from about 5 to about 50 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a second polymer”), the second polymeric fiber being relatively tacky relative to the first polymeric fiber and being present in said backing layer in an amount relatively smaller than the amount of said first fiber and comprising a bicomponent fiber.
Notably, in paragraphs 0028-0030, it is additionally disclosed and considered that the polymers are provided in spun-bond fibers, where the first polymer fiber is provided in an amount 50-95 percent, and the second polymer fiber is provided in an amount 5-50 percent, clearly indicating the second polymer fiber is to be in an amount relatively smaller. Where further in paragraph 0030, Ethiopia discloses that the second polymer is propylene with ethylene used as a comonomer, forming a fiber of two components (or bicomponent). Notably, Ethiopia also discloses that the material is spunbond (paragraphs 0040/0042), which is known to occur by extruding molten thermoplastics, which would possess an inherent tackiness between the fibers. Further, by carding and thermally bonding, the materials would grow tacky with one another and fuse to one another as heat bonding is known to instigate (paragraph 0050).
It is further considered that Ethiopia discloses in paragraph [0099] that the components can be formed “in a dual reactor” and further clarifies in [0100] the incorporation of U.S. Pat. No. 5844045 that utilizes the technique for making the compositions by use of dual reactors that “can be operated sequentially or in parallel”, thereby availing two fibers produced at different melt flow rates (as outlined in paragraphs 0029 and 0030).
It is further considered that applicant’s preamble ‘a bed pad’ constitutes an effective use of the material (a fabric) that is used upon a bed to therefore be considered ‘a bed pad’. Where applicant has disclosed similarly that “ The pad may also find use in connection with wearable products such as diapers and sanitary napkins” (paragraph 0014), where Ethiopia avails a fabric (or otherwise pad of material in view of the desired material’s softness (Abstract)) and “desirable for use in a variety of products such as bandaging materials, garments, disposable diapers, and other personal hygiene products, including pre-moistened wipes”
It is further considered that Arnold teaches (Col. 7, lines 40-53) “bicomponent fibers… Examples include… propylene-ethylene copolymers having about 10% by weight or more ethylene, other propylene-alpha olefin copolymers having sufficient comonomer content to impart at least some tackiness”. Wherein Ethiopia particularly discloses (paragraph 0030) that its mixtures can be produced with ethylene content between 5% and 15%. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. In the instant reference of Ethiopia, a specific endpoint “15%” is provided that is within the range of “at least 10% ethylene” as Arnold teaches upon for bicomponent fibers and properties thereof. Therefore, it is concluded that Ethiopia discloses a range of ethylene content to reasonable specificity that is operable to manifest a relative tackiness property.
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of static friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene, Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of static friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the static coefficient of friction (sCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.47±0.05. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (as set forth in claim 3 prior) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.47±0.05, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of dynamic friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of kinetic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of dynamic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the kinetic coefficient of friction (kCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.45±0.04. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0047, 0071) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.45±0.04, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, although Ethiopia expresses the invention for use with an absorbent article [0022], Ethiopia does not explicitly express the arrangement of the liquid absorbant structure of the absorbent article as being opposite an exterior surface of the backing layer.
Regardless, Patel teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a liquid absorbent structure (40/50; FIGS. 2) that is on a surface opposite an exterior surface of a backing layer (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the absorbent structure of Patel opposite/planar with the backing layer (as illustrated in FIG. 1-2) into the absorbent article and considerations thereof into Ethiopia.
It would have been simple combination/modification to have incorporated the absorbent layer arrangement considerations to the backing layer of Patel (FIG. 1-2) into the construction of Ethiopia. Where the results would have been predictable as both Patel and Ethiopia concern backing layers used in absorbent articles. Where Patel explicitly acknowledges “as an example of an absorbent article in accordance with the present disclosure, including a top sheet 20, which is typically proximal to a patient, a bottom or back sheet 30, which is typically at a distal side of the article, and an absorbent core 40 disposed between the top sheet 20 and the back sheet 30” [0017] and “In FIG. 2, the absorbent core 40 is exemplarily illustrated as being disposed at about the center of the underpad 10 (shown in relation to the back sheet 30 and without the top sheet 20)” [0024], thereby expressing that the arrangement of the backing layer being opposite and planar/flush with the absorbent structure is typical and known obvious to the art.
Regarding claim 2, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 1, the backing layer comprising a heterogeneous spunbond material in which the second polymeric fiber is disposed predominantly on the exterior face of the backing layer. Notably, Ethiopia discloses in paragraph 0050 that “Nonwoven fabrics can be made by various methods, including… by carding and thermally bonding staple fibers” Where notably carding of “the staple fibers” (individually) would require both layers to be produced in a mat or flattened state, and thereafter thermally bonded together. Wherein with two layers, both would possess an exterior face of the pad. The thermal bonding process thereafter would render the two layers heterogeneously mixed and bonded together.
Regarding claim 3, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 2, wherein the first fiber comprises polypropylene (paragraph 0029: polypropylene) and the second fiber comprises polypropylene with random ethylene repeat units (paragraph 0030: “a second polymer which is a reactor grade propylene based elastomer”; paragraph 0047: “As used herein, the term "polypropylene elastomers" includes reactor grade copolymers of propylene”; paragraph 0071: “the copolymers are of a random configuration”). Notably, Ethiopia is disclosing by the paragraphs above that the second fiber is reactor grade propylene, and further discloses in paragraph 0047 that polypropylene elastomers includes reactor grade copolymers of propylene, it is clearly and eminently reversible that reactor grade copolymers of propylene includes polypropylene elastomers.
Regarding claim 4, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 3, wherein the second fiber is of a sheath/core structure (Ethiopia: [0101]: “The nonwoven fabrics of present invention may include monocomponent and/or bicomponent fibers”) and comprises a polypropylene core material (as set forth in claim 3 prior) and a sheath material ([0101]), the sheath material comprising polypropylene (As set forth in claim 3 prior) with random ethylene repeat units. Where Ethiopia establishes a known composition of core/sheathe material of 90:10 ([0016]) concerning an amorphous polymer and a crystalline polymer respectively, where polypropylene is a known amorphous polymer and ethylene is a known crystalline polymer.
Regarding claim 5, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 4, wherein the sheath material comprises from 10-20% of the mass of the second fiber. Where as expounded in claim 4, Ethiopia explains a configuration of sheathe and core material that is 90:10-85:15 which falls within the range of 10-20%.
Regarding claim 6, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 4, wherein random ethylene repeat units comprise from 10-20% of the mass of the sheath material. As previously set forth in claim 4, Ethiopia explains a configuration of sheathe/core material of 90:10-85:15 in proportions, and furthermore Ethiopia establishes an endpoint of 15% ethylene as set forth in claim 1 prior which falls within the range of applicant’s claimed invention with sufficient specificity as to reasonably anticipate as set forth in claim 1 prior.
Regarding claim 7, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 1 (as set forth in claim 2), the liquid-absorbing structure comprising at least first and second liquid-absorbent sublayers. As set forth in claim 2 previously, regarding processes of carding and thermally bonding, the liquid absorbing structure would be provided through two sublayers of the staple fibers (polypropylene and propylene) that are thermally bonded to one another to form the liquid absorbing structure.
Regarding claim 8, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 7, wherein the first sublayer comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polyamide, viscose rayon, nylon, and starch-based biodegradable material. Notably, paragraph 0029 discloses that the first polymer fiber (and therefore the first layer) can be polypropylene. Claim 24 further discloses that the first layer may comprise polyethylene terephthalate, and polyethylene.
Regarding claim 11, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses a method of absorbing fluids comprising: placing the bed pad of claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1) beneath a patient; and allowing one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient to absorb into the absorbent structure. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notably, in the ordinary operation of the apparatus, the device (noted exemplarily as a disposable diaper or pre-moistened wipe [0003]) would be rendered adjacent the person in such a manner that it would inherently always be under the patient in some form and as an absorbent garment would inherently absorb one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient and absorbed into the absorbent structure.
Regarding claim 15, Ethiopia discloses a bed pad (paragraph 0003: “other personal hygiene products”) comprising: a liquid-absorbent structure (paragraph 0022: “low fuzzing, soft nonwoven suitable for use as a component in a disposable absorbent article”); and a composite nonwoven backing layer (paragraph 0028: “In another aspect, the present invention is a spun bond nonwoven fabric made using fibers”) comprising a first polymeric fiber (paragraph 0029: “from about 50 to about 95 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a first polymer”) and a second polymeric fiber (paragraph 0030: “from about 5 to about 50 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a second polymer”), the second polymeric fiber being relatively tacky relative to the first polymeric fiber and being present in said backing layer in an amount relatively smaller than the amount of said first fiber, and the second fiber comprising a propylene ethylene copolymer (paragraph 0030: “a reactor grade propylene based elastomer or plastomer…ethylene is used as a comonomer”). Where it should be understood similar considerations as those outlined for claim 1 are availed for claim 26 similarly.
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of static friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene, Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of static friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the static coefficient of friction (sCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.47±0.05. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (as set forth in claim 3 prior) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.47±0.05, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of dynamic friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of kinetic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of dynamic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the kinetic coefficient of friction (kCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.45±0.04. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0047, 0071) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.45±0.04, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, although Ethiopia expresses the invention for use with an absorbent article [0022], Ethiopia does not explicitly express the arrangement of the liquid absorbant structure of the absorbent article.
Regardless, Patel teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a liquid absorbent structure (40/50; FIGS. 2) that is on a surface opposite an exterior surface of a backing layer (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the absorbent structure of Patel opposite/planar with the backing layer (as illustrated in FIG. 1-2) into the absorbent article and considerations thereof into Ethiopia.
It would have been simple combination/modification to have incorporated the absorbent layer arrangement considerations to the backing layer of Patel (FIG. 1-2) into the construction of Ethiopia. Where the results would have been predictable as both Patel and Ethiopia concern backing layers used in absorbent articles. Where Patel explicitly acknowledges “as an example of an absorbent article in accordance with the present disclosure, including a top sheet 20, which is typically proximal to a patient, a bottom or back sheet 30, which is typically at a distal side of the article, and an absorbent core 40 disposed between the top sheet 20 and the back sheet 30” [0017] and “In FIG. 2, the absorbent core 40 is exemplarily illustrated as being disposed at about the center of the underpad 10 (shown in relation to the back sheet 30 and without the top sheet 20)” [0024], thereby expressing that the arrangement of the backing layer being opposite and planar/flush with the absorbent structure is typical and known obvious to the art.
Regarding claim 17, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 15, wherein the second polymeric fiber is a homofilament. Where Ethiopia establishes that “The nonwoven fabrics of present invention may include monocomponent and/or bicomponent fibers” [0101]; “The sheath may advantageously be comprised of polyethylene homopolymers and/or copolymers” [0102] and “a second polymer which is a reactor grade propylene based elastomer or plastomer… ethylene is used as a comonomer” [0030], establishing that the second polymeric fiber can be homofilament (single filament, but a fusion of polypropylene and ethylene).
Regarding claim 18, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses a method of absorbing fluids comprising: placing the bed pad of claim 15 (as set forth in claim 15 and further expounded in claim 1) beneath a patient; and allowing one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient to absorb into the absorbent structure. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notably, in the ordinary operation of the apparatus, the device (noted exemplarily as a disposable diaper or pre-moistened wipe [0003]) would be rendered adjacent the person in such a manner that it would inherently always be under the patient in some form and as an absorbent garment would inherently absorb one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient and absorbed into the absorbent structure.
Regarding claim 19, Ethiopia discloses a bed pad (paragraph 0003: “other personal hygiene products”, wherein a simple sheet of the material would form a bed pad) comprising: a liquid-absorbent structure (paragraph 0022: “low fuzzing, soft nonwoven suitable for use as a component in a disposable absorbent article”); and a spunbond backing layer comprising polypropylene fiber (paragraph 0029: “from about 50 to about 95 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a first polymer which is an isotactic polypropylene homopolymer”) and fiber comprising a propylene ethylene copolymer (paragraph 0030: “from about 5 to about 50 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a second polymer… propylene…ethylene is used as a comonomer”), the fiber comprising the propylene ethylene copolymer being tacky relative to the polypropylene fiber (as discussed in claim 1 previously above) and being in the backing layer in an amount relatively smaller than the amount of the polypropylene fiber. Where the polypropylene fiber is provided in an amount 50-95 percent, and the polypropylene ethylene copolymer fiber is provided in an amount 5-50 percent, clearly indicating the polypropylene ethylene copolymer fiber is to be in an amount relatively smaller. Notably, Ethiopia also discloses that the material is spunbond (paragraphs 0040/0042). Where it should be understood similar considerations as those outlined for claim 1 are availed for claim 27.
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of static friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene, Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of static friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of static friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of static friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the static coefficient of friction (sCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.47±0.05. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (as set forth in claim 3 prior) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.47±0.05, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, while Ethiopia discloses wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction of the backing layer (a property inherent to physical materials), measured with reference to an acrylic sheet, is an {arbitrary proportion} of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene Ethiopia does not explicitly disclose wherein the coefficient of dynamic friction is specifically at least 200%.
Regardless, Ethiopia discloses the claimed invention except for the backing layer having a coefficient of kinetic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing layer composed only of polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the backing layer of a material that resulted in a coefficient of dynamic friction measured with reference to an acrylic sheet that is at least 200% of the coefficient of dynamic friction of a similar backing composed only of polypropylene, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the results would have been predictable as Ethiopia appears to disclose the materials and compositions of applicant’s invention (paragraphs 0028-0030/0040/0042/0047/0050/0071). Where there seems to be a lack of criticality to applicant’s claimed range/value “at least 200”, where applicant’s specification sets out in paragraph 0028 that an assortment of values (at least 120/130/140/etc. are preferred). Where further Friction teaches (pages 4-5) that the coefficient of friction is an empirical property of the contacting materials and that “the coefficient of friction depends on the materials used”. Therefore, the coefficient of friction is an established results effective variable that only necessitates the proper selection of material to achieve applicant’s claimed limitation.
Where it is further considered that Friction states “For example, silicone rubber or acrylic rubber-coated surfaces have a coefficient of friction that can be substantially larger than 1” (page 5); while Mechanisms teaches (page 7) that the kinetic coefficient of friction (kCOF) of polypropylene against polypropylene would have a sCOF of 0.45±0.04. Wherein Ethiopia presents an embodiment (paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0047, 0071) wherein the backing layer is produced of Polypropylene. Therefore, the material property of the coefficient of friction to acrylic (as considered in Friction: pages 4 and 5) would be greater than 1, and the coefficient to polypropylene would be 0.45±0.04, which is at least 200% (200%+ in the immediate understanding).
However, although Ethiopia expresses the invention for use with an absorbent article [0022], Ethiopia does not explicitly express the arrangement of the liquid absorbant structure of the absorbent article.
Regardless, Patel teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a liquid absorbent structure (40/50; FIGS. 2) that is on a surface opposite an exterior surface of a backing layer (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the absorbent structure of Patel opposite/planar with the backing layer (as illustrated in FIG. 1-2) into the absorbent article and considerations thereof into Ethiopia.
It would have been simple combination/modification to have incorporated the absorbent layer arrangement considerations to the backing layer of Patel (FIG. 1-2) into the construction of Ethiopia. Where the results would have been predictable as both Patel and Ethiopia concern backing layers used in absorbent articles. Where Patel explicitly acknowledges “as an example of an absorbent article in accordance with the present disclosure, including a top sheet 20, which is typically proximal to a patient, a bottom or back sheet 30, which is typically at a distal side of the article, and an absorbent core 40 disposed between the top sheet 20 and the back sheet 30” [0017] and “In FIG. 2, the absorbent core 40 is exemplarily illustrated as being disposed at about the center of the underpad 10 (shown in relation to the back sheet 30 and without the top sheet 20)” [0024], thereby expressing that the arrangement of the backing layer being opposite and planar/flush with the absorbent structure is typical and known obvious to the art.
Regarding claim 21, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses the bed pad of claim 19, wherein the fiber comprising the propylene ethylene copolymer is disposed predominantly on an exterior face of the bed pad. Notably, Ethiopia discloses in paragraph 0050 that “Nonwoven fabrics can be made by various methods, including… by carding and thermally bonding staple fibers” Where notably carding of “the staple fibers” (individually) would require both layers to be produced in a mat or flattened state, and thereafter thermally bonded together wherein with two layers, both would possess an exterior face of the pad. The thermal bonding process thereafter would render the two layers heterogeneously mixed and bonded together.
Regarding claim 22, Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, Patel, Friction, and Mechanisms discloses a method of absorbing fluids comprising: placing the bed pad of claim 19 (as set forth in claim 15 and further expounded in claim 1) beneath a patient; and allowing one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient to absorb into the absorbent structure. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Notably, in the ordinary operation of the apparatus, the device (noted exemplarily as a disposable diaper or pre-moistened wipe [0003]) would be rendered adjacent the person in such a manner that it would inherently always be under the patient in some form and as an absorbent garment would inherently absorb one or more bodily fluids emitted by the patient and absorbed into the absorbent structure.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ethiopia et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0173162); hereafter "Ethiopia" in view of itself, Arnold et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6649547); hereafter “Arnold”, and Patel (U.S. 20180338873); hereafter “Patel” , with Arnold used solely as evidence on the tackiness property that manifests in propylene-ethylene bicomponent fiber mixtures.
Regarding claim 23, Ethiopia discloses a bed pad (paragraph 0003: “other personal hygiene products”) comprising: a liquid-absorbent structure (paragraph 0022: “low fuzzing, soft nonwoven suitable for use as a component in a disposable absorbent article”); and a composite nonwoven backing layer (paragraph 0028: “In another aspect, the present invention is a spun bond nonwoven fabric made using fibers”) comprising a first polymeric fiber (paragraph 0029: “from about 50 to about 95 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a first polymer”) and a second polymeric fiber (paragraph 0030: “from about 5 to about 50 percent (by weight of the polymer blend) of a second polymer”), the second polymeric fiber being relatively tacky relative to the first polymeric fiber and being present in said backing layer in an amount relatively smaller than the amount of said first fiber and comprising a bicomponent fiber; wherein the first fiber comprises polypropylene (paragraph 0029: polypropylene) and the second fiber comprises polypropylene with random ethylene repeat units (paragraph 0030: “a second polymer which is a reactor grade propylene based elastomer”; paragraph 0047: “As used herein, the term "polypropylene elastomers" includes reactor grade copolymers of propylene”; paragraph 0071: “the copolymers are of a random configuration”) (Notably, Ethiopia is disclosing by the paragraphs above that the second fiber is reactor grade propylene, and further discloses in paragraph 0047 that polypropylene elastomers includes reactor grade copolymers of propylene, it is clearly and eminently reversible that reactor grade copolymers of propylene includes polypropylene elastomers); the backing layer comprising a heterogeneous spunbond material in which the second polymeric fiber is disposed predominantly on an exterior face of the bed pad (Notably, Ethiopia discloses in paragraph 0050 that “Nonwoven fabrics can be made by various methods, including… by carding and thermally bonding staple fibers” Where notably carding of “the staple fibers” (individually) would require both layers to be produced in a mat or flattened state, and thereafter thermally bonded together. Wherein with two layers, both would possess an exterior face of the pad. The thermal bonding process thereafter would render the two layers heterogeneously mixed and bonded together); wherein the second fiber is of a sheath/core structure ([0101]: “The nonwoven fabrics of present invention may include monocomponent and/or bicomponent fibers”) and comprises a polypropylene core material (as set forth prior) and a sheath material ([0101]), the sheath material comprising polypropylene (As set forth prior) with random ethylene repeat units. Where Ethiopia establishes a known composition of core/sheathe material of 90:10 ([0016]) concerning an amorphous polymer and a crystalline polymer respectively, where polypropylene is a known amorphous polymer and ethylene is a known crystalline polymer.
Notably, in paragraphs 0028-0030, it is additionally disclosed and considered that the polymers are provided in spun-bond fibers, where the first polymer fiber is provided in an amount 50-95 percent, and the second polymer fiber is provided in an amount 5-50 percent, clearly indicating the second polymer fiber is to be in an amount relatively smaller. Where further in paragraph 0030, Ethiopia discloses that the second polymer is propylene with ethylene used as a comonomer, forming a fiber of two components (or bicomponent). Notably, Ethiopia also discloses that the material is spunbond (paragraphs 0040/0042), which is known to occur by extruding molten thermoplastics, which would possess an inherent tackiness between the fibers. Further, by carding and thermally bonding, the materials would grow tacky with one another and fuse to one another as heat bonding is known to instigate (paragraph 0050).
It is further considered that Ethiopia discloses in paragraph [0099] that the components can be formed “in a dual reactor” and further clarifies in [0100] the incorporation of U.S. Pat. No. 5844045 that utilizes the technique for making the compositions by use of dual reactors that “can be operated sequentially or in parallel”, thereby availing two fibers produced at different melt flow rates (as outlined in paragraphs 0029 and 0030).
It is further considered that applicant’s preamble ‘a bed pad’ constitutes an effective use of the material (a fabric) that is used upon a bed to therefore be considered ‘a bed pad’. Where applicant has disclosed similarly that “ The pad may also find use in connection with wearable products such as diapers and sanitary napkins” (paragraph 0014), where Ethiopia avails a fabric (or otherwise pad of material in view of the desired material’s softness (Abstract)) and “desirable for use in a variety of products such as bandaging materials, garments, disposable diapers, and other personal hygiene products, including pre-moistened wipes”
It is further considered that Arnold teaches (Col. 7, lines 40-53) “bicomponent fibers… Examples include… propylene-ethylene copolymers having about 10% by weight or more ethylene, other propylene-alpha olefin copolymers having sufficient comonomer content to impart at least some tackiness”. Wherein Ethiopia particularly discloses (paragraph 0030) that its mixtures can be produced with ethylene content between 5% and 15%. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. In the instant reference of Ethiopia, a specific endpoint “15%” is provided that is within the range of “at least 10% ethylene” as Arnold teaches upon for bicomponent fibers and properties thereof. Therefore, it is concluded that Ethiopia discloses a range of ethylene content to reasonable specificity that is operable to manifest a relative tackiness property.
However, although Ethiopia expresses the invention for use with an absorbent article [0022], Ethiopia does not explicitly express the arrangement of the liquid absorbant structure of the absorbent article.
Regardless, Patel teaches (FIGS. 1-2) a liquid absorbent structure (40/50; FIGS. 2) that is on a surface opposite an exterior surface of a backing layer (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to have incorporated the absorbent structure of Patel opposite/planar with the backing layer (as illustrated in FIG. 1-2) into the absorbent article and considerations thereof into Ethiopia.
It would have been simple combination/modification to have incorporated the absorbent layer arrangement considerations to the backing layer of Patel (FIG. 1-2) into the construction of Ethiopia. Where the results would have been predictable as both Patel and Ethiopia concern backing layers used in absorbent articles. Where Patel explicitly acknowledges “as an example of an absorbent article in accordance with the present disclosure, including a top sheet 20, which is typically proximal to a patient, a bottom or back sheet 30, which is typically at a distal side of the article, and an absorbent core 40 disposed between the top sheet 20 and the back sheet 30” [0017] and “In FIG. 2, the absorbent core 40 is exemplarily illustrated as being disposed at about the center of the underpad 10 (shown in relation to the back sheet 30 and without the top sheet 20)” [0024], thereby expressing that the arrangement of the backing layer being opposite and planar/flush with the absorbent structure is typical and known obvious to the art.
Regarding claim 24, Ethiopia in view of Arnold and Patel discloses the bed pad of claim 23, wherein the sheath material comprises from 10-20% of the mass of the second fiber. Where as expounded in claim 23, Ethiopia explains a configuration of sheathe and core material that is 90:10-85:15 which falls within the range of 10-20%.
Regarding claim 25, Ethiopia in view of Arnold and Patel discloses the bed pad of claim 23, wherein random ethylene repeat units comprise from 10-20% of the mass of the sheath material. As previously set forth in claim 23, Ethiopia explains a configuration of sheathe/core material of 90:10-85:15 in proportions, and furthermore Ethiopia establishes an endpoint of 15% ethylene as set forth in claim 23 prior which falls within the range of applicant’s claimed invention with sufficient specificity as to reasonably anticipate as set forth in claim 1 prior.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 11, 15, 17-19, and 21-22 under 103 with Ethiopia itself, Arnold, Mechanism and Friction; and 23-25 under 102 with Ethiopia 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.
Particularly, the rejection of the former now relies on a 103 Rejection with Ethiopia, itself, Arnold, Mechanism and Friction, and newly Patel in the capacity to address the orientation of the absorbent articles, while the rejection of the latter (former 102’s) is newly rejected under Ethiopia in view of Arnold, Mechanisms, Friction and newly Patel in the capacity to address the orientation of the absorbent articles.
Applicant's arguments filed February 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicants allege (Remarks: page 7) that Ethiopia does not disclose two fibers, respectfully in seeming part because the invention of Ethiopia may use a dual reactor which is disclosed of the type in U.S. Pat. 5844045. The incorporation of 5844045 is acknowledged in Ethiopia [0100], which notes the use of two materials produced from two separate reactors and “reactors can be operated sequentially or in parallel”. However, Ethiopia also discloses in [0099] that “compositions disclosed herein can be formed by... a dual reactor”. Furthermore, although Ethiopia does give an explicit definition of monocomponent in [0058] as cited by applicant, Ethiopia also recites “The nonwoven fabrics of present invention may include monocomponent and/or bicomponent fibers. "Bicomponent fiber" means a fiber that has two or more distinct polymer regions or domains. Bicomponent fibers are also known as conjugated or multicomponent fibers. The polymers are usually different from each other although two or more components may comprise the same polymer.” [00101]
Notably, in paragraphs 0028-0030 of Ethiopia, it is disclosed and considered that the polymers are provided in spun-bond fibers (plural), where the first polymer fiber is provided in an amount 50-95 percent, and the second polymer fiber is provided in an amount 5-50 percent, clearly indicating the second polymer fiber is to be in an amount relatively smaller. Where further in paragraph 0030, Ethiopia discloses that the second polymer is propylene with ethylene used as a comonomer, forming a fiber of two components (or bicomponent). Notably, Ethiopia also discloses that the material is spunbond (paragraphs 0040/0042), which is known to occur by extruding molten thermoplastics, which would possess an inherent tackiness between the fibers. Further, by carding and thermally bonding, the materials would grow tacky with one another and fuse to one another as heat bonding is known to instigate (paragraph 0050).
Where it is further considered Ethiopia specifically defines in [0042] “"spunbonded fibers", refers to small diameter fibers which are formed by extruding a molten thermoplastic material as filaments from a plurality of fine, usually circular, capillaries of a spinneret”, identifying both filament and fiber as synonymous and such spunbound ‘fibers’ are produced by the dual reactors clarified in [0100] and further clarified in the 5844045 patent ([17:61-18:8].
It is compoundingly considered that Ethiopia discloses in paragraph [0099] that the components can be formed “in a dual reactor” and further clarifies in [0100] the incorporation of U.S. Pat. No. 5844045 that utilizes the technique for making the compositions by use of dual reactors that “can be operated sequentially or in parallel”, thereby availing two fibers produced at different melt flow rates (as outlined in paragraphs 0029 and 0030), that thereby produce two different fibers of two different rates, not one single fiber extruded at a single rate and ‘mixed to homogeneity’ as applicants respectfully appear to allege.
While applicants respectfully appear allege that components formed of a dual reactor and formed in parallel have no bearing on whether Ethiopia discloses first and second polymeric fibers in a heterogeneous spundbound mixture, this evidence is considered by examiner to be crucial in establishing two fibers are formed (in parallel, separately, at different flow rates), to form the spunbonded material (by two distinct and chemically different materials, heterogenous: Merriam Webster: “heterogeneous”, “consisting of dissimilar or diverse ingredients or constituents”).
Particularly, applicant’s respectfully appear to be alleging that because the fibers are made into the same end product (a pad) they cannot be heterogeneous. Or that because they use two components it may be a holopolymer. However, Ethiopia does not describe its compositions as ‘homogenous’, and evidence clearly points to two fibers produced by spunbounding extrusion in parallel extruders (under two separate flow rates, parallel, separately), that thereby provide “a first polymeric fiber” and “a second polymeric fiber” that produce a ‘composite nonwoven backing layer comprising a first polymeric fiber and a second polymeric fiber, the polymeric fiber being relatively tacky’ (per Arnold’s material considerations as set forth in Col. 7, lines 40-53), and provided for ‘in an amout relatively smaller than the amount of said first fiber and comprising a bicomponent fiber’ (as set forth in Ethiopia: [0028-0033].
Therefore, examiner respectfully is not persuaded at present that Ethiopia fails to avail the claimed features of the invention herein cited concerning comprising two materials of a heterogenous compositional mix. Effectively, because Ethiopia by Ethiopia’s own definitions provides two ‘fibers’/filaments, that form an overall composition (heterogeneous: per Merriam Webster’s definition thereof), applicant’s invention appears to be respectfully anticipated or made obvious by Ethiopia.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully is not persuaded that Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, “Friction” “mechanisms”, and newly Patel in combination therewith among others fails to avail the claimed features of the invention and the claims are rejected under at a minimum Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, “Friction” “mechanisms”, and Patel; alongside Ethiopia in view of itself, Arnold, and Patel.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights