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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/07/2026 is accepted and entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112 rejections and the previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. As the scope of the claims have changed, Claim 1 is now rejected using Brisebois/Schmoker, as set forth below. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments that the combination of Brisebois/Schmoker does not disclose the limitations of Claim 1 is unpersuasive. Applicant does not address why Brisebois/Schmoker in combination does not disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant did not specifically argue the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21 recite the limitation “a total core length” in lines 11-12 and 25, and lines 11 and 23, respectfully. It is unclear if both recitations of “a total core length” are intended to refer to the same total core length or different total core lengths. For the purpose of compact prosecution, these limitations are interpreted as referring to the same total core length. Claims 3-18 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 9 recite the same limitations that have been rolled up into Claim 1, and as such do not further limit the subject matter of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois (US 2004/0186449) in view of Schmoker et al (US 2020/0008988).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7-9, Brisebois discloses a feminine hygiene article (20, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (56, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
a secondary topsheet (transfer layer 62, Figs. 1-4; ¶ [0022]) beneath the topsheet (56, Fig. 2), having a secondary topsheet length (the length of secondary topsheet 62 is shown in Figs. 1 and 4) measured along a longitudinal direction (longitudinal centerline 28, Fig. 1);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (58, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
an absorbent core (64, Figs. 1-4) disposed between the topsheet (56, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2), and disposed between the secondary topsheet (62, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2);
the absorbent core (64, Fig. 2) having a pair of substantially parallel and substantially straight longitudinal side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective forward intersections with a projection (84, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective rearward intersections with a rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), and a total core length measured along the longitudinal direction at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), wherein
the total core length is less than the secondary topsheet length (as seen in Fig. 1, layer 64 (as seen in Fig. 3) fits fully within the perimeter of layer 62 (seen in Fig. 4), and therefore the total core length is less than the length of the secondary topsheet);
wherein a forward portion of the secondary topsheet length forwardly overhangs the forward projection (84, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the forward projection of the core);
wherein a rearward portion of the secondary topsheet length rearwardly overhangs the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the rearward recess of the core); and
wherein the forward projection (84, Fig. 3) and the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) are substantially complementary in size and shape (¶ [0049-0050]).
Brisebois is silent whether the total core length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core is from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the secondary topsheet, wherein the absorbent core comprises a total core length of from about 160 mm to about 310 mm, or from about 170 mm to about 250 mm, and a total core width of from about 55 mm to about 70 mm; and wherein the height of projection and depth of the recess are each from about 15 mm to about 25 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Brisebois to have the total core length be from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length and to have the height of the projection and depth of the recess each be from about 15 mm to about 25 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Brisebois would not operate differently with a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length and a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length would still function to absorb fluid, and would not operate differently with a projection height and recess depth each within 15 mm to about 25 mm since the core with a projection height and recess depth in those ranges would still function to absorb fluid, the device would function appropriately with the claimed core length and projection height and recess depth. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the total core length “is” within the claimed ranges, but does not indicate that the core length must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0034] of published application), and indicating simply that the height and depth “are” within the claimed ranges but does not indicate that the depth and height must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0070] of published application).
Brisebois is silent whether the total core length is from about 160 mm to about 310 mm, or from about 170 mm to about 250 mm, and wherein the total core width is from about 55 mm to about 70 mm.
Schmoker teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core (38, Fig. 1) which can have a total core length of 170 mm to 250 mm and a total core width from about 55 mm to about 70 mm (¶ [0111, 0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the total core length and total core width of Brisebois to be from about 170 mm to about 250 mm and from about 55 mm to about 70 mm, respectively, as taught by Schmoker, as these ranges of core dimensions are well known as useable in the art of absorbent articles, specifically those designed to be used as feminine sanitary napkins (as motivated by Schmoker ¶ [0111, 0115]).
Regarding Claim 3, Brisebois/Schmoker is silent whether the height of the projection and depth of the recess are each from about 15 mm to about 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Brisebois/Schmoker to have the height of the projection and depth of the recess each be from about 15 mm to about 20 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Brisebois/Schmoker would not operate differently with a projection height and recess depth each within 15 mm to about 20 mm since the core with a projection height and recess depth in those ranges would still function to absorb fluid. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the height and depth “are” within the claimed ranges but does not indicate that the depth and height must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0070] of published application).
Regarding Claim 4, Brisebois further discloses the projection (84, Fig. 3) has a convex shape.
Regarding Claim 5, Brisebois further discloses the recess (94, Fig. 3) has a concave shape.
Regarding Claim 6, Brisebois/Schmoker is silent whether the total core length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core is from about 75% to about 85% of the secondary topsheet length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the secondary topsheet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Brisebois/Schmoker to have the total core length be from about 75% to about 85% of the secondary topsheet length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Brisebois/Schmoker would not operate differently with a total core length from about 75% to about 85% of the secondary topsheet length and a total core length from about 75% to about 85% of the secondary topsheet length would still function to absorb fluid, the device would function appropriately with the claimed core length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the total core length “is” within the claimed ranges, but does not indicate that the core length must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0034] of published specification).
Regarding Claim 10, Brisebois further discloses the secondary topsheet (62, Fig. 4) has a straight cut edge along the longitudinal side edges of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3; the central portion of the secondary topsheet has straight cut edges).
Regarding Claim 11, Brisebois further discloses the secondary topsheet (62, Fig. 4) has an hourglass shaped edge along the longitudinal side edges of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3; as seen in Fig. 4, the secondary topsheet is generally hourglass shaped).
Regarding Claim 12, Brisebois further discloses a method of folding the article, wherein when the article is folded the forward projection nests in the rearward recess (¶ [0049-0050], since the projection and recess are described as matingly engageable, when the article is folded the projection will nest in the rearward recess).
Claim(s) 13-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois (US 2004/0186449) in view of Schmoker et al (US 2020/0008988) further in view of Aviles (US 2019/0000691).
Regarding Claims 13-16, Brisebois/Schmoker is silent whether the absorbent core comprises superabsorbent polymer and a core wrap immobilizing the superabsorbent polymer, wherein the core wrap comprises two or more substrates, wherein the superabsorbent polymer creates a superabsorbent gradient, and wherein the absorbent core comprises one or more channels.
Aviles teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core (30, Fig. 1) that comprises superabsorbent polymer (¶ [0110]) and a core wrap (¶ [0113]) immobilizing the superabsorbent polymer (¶ [0110, 0113]; the SAP cannot migrate outside of the core wrap), wherein the core wrap comprises two or more substrates (¶ [0113]), wherein the superabsorbent polymer creates a superabsorbent gradient (¶ [0112]), and wherein the absorbent core (30, Fig. 1) comprises one or more channels (¶ [0111]). This allows the absorbent core to be varied for different types of use and different sizes of wearers (¶ [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent core of Brisebois/Schmoker to have an absorbent core comprising superabsorbent polymer and a core wrap immobilizing the superabsorbent polymer, wherein the core wrap comprises two or more substrates, wherein the superabsorbent polymer creates a superabsorbent gradient, and wherein the absorbent core comprises one or more channels, as taught by Aviles. This allows the absorbent core to be varied for different types of use and different sizes of wearers (as motivated by Aviles ¶ [0112]).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Brisebois/Schmoker is silent whether the absorbent core comprises varying caliper zones or a hydrophilic gradient.
Aviles teaches an absorbent core that can comprise varying caliper zones or a hydrophilic gradient (¶ [0112]) to allow the absorbent core to be varied for different types of use and different sizes of wearers (¶ [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent core of Brisebois/Schmoker to have varying caliper zones or a hydrophilic gradient, as taught by Aviles, to allow the absorbent core to be varied for different types of use and different sizes of wearers (as motivated by Aviles ¶ [0112]).
Regarding Claim 21, Brisebois discloses a feminine hygiene article (20, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (56, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
a secondary topsheet (transfer layer 62, Figs. 1-4; ¶ [0022]) beneath the topsheet (56, Fig. 2), having a secondary topsheet length (the length of secondary topsheet 62 is shown in Figs. 1 and 4) measured along a longitudinal direction (longitudinal centerline 28, Fig. 1);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (58, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
an absorbent core (64, Figs. 1-4) disposed between the topsheet (56, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2), and disposed between the secondary topsheet (62, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2);
the absorbent core (64, Fig. 2) having a pair of substantially parallel and substantially straight longitudinal side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective forward intersections with a projection (84, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective rearward intersections with a rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), and a total core length measured along the longitudinal direction at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), wherein
the total core length is less than the secondary topsheet length (as seen in Fig. 1, layer 64 (as seen in Fig. 3) fits fully within the perimeter of layer 62 (seen in Fig. 4), and therefore the total core length is less than the length of the secondary topsheet);
wherein a forward portion of the secondary topsheet length forwardly overhangs the forward projection (84, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the forward projection of the core);
wherein a rearward portion of the secondary topsheet length rearwardly overhangs the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the rearward recess of the core); and
wherein the forward projection (84, Fig. 3) and the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) are substantially complementary in size and shape (¶ [0049-0050]).
Brisebois is silent whether the total core length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core is from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the secondary topsheet, wherein the absorbent core comprises a total core length of from about 160 mm to about 310 mm, and a total core width of from about 55 mm to about 70 mm; and wherein the height of projection and depth of the recess are each from about 15 mm to about 25 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Brisebois to have the total core length be from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length and to have the height of the projection and depth of the recess each be from about 15 mm to about 25 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Brisebois would not operate differently with a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length and a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length would still function to absorb fluid, and would not operate differently with a projection height and recess depth each within 15 mm to about 25 mm since the core with a projection height and recess depth in those ranges would still function to absorb fluid, the device would function appropriately with the claimed core length and projection height and recess depth. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the total core length “is” within the claimed ranges, but does not indicate that the core length must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0034] of published application), and indicating simply that the height and depth “are” within the claimed ranges but does not indicate that the depth and height must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0070] of published application).
Brisebois is silent whether the total core length is from about 160 mm to about 310 mm, and wherein the total core width is from about 55 mm to about 70 mm.
Schmoker teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core (38, Fig. 1) which can have a total core length of 160 mm to 310 mm and a total core width from about 55 mm to about 70 mm (¶ [0111, 0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the total core length and total core width of Brisebois to be from about 160 mm to about 310 mm and from about 55 mm to about 70 mm, respectively, as taught by Schmoker, as these ranges of core dimensions are well known as useable in the art of absorbent articles, specifically those designed to be used as feminine sanitary napkins (as motivated by Schmoker ¶ [0111, 0115]).
Brisebois/Schmoker is silent whether the absorbent core comprises a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof.
Aviles teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core comprising a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof (¶ [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent material of Brisebois/Schmoker to include a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof, as taught by Aviles, who indicates that utilizing a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof as the absorbent material within an absorbent core is well known in the art of absorbent articles (¶ [0121]).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois (US 2004/0186449) in view of Aviles (US 2019/0000691).
Regarding Claim 19, Brisebois discloses a feminine hygiene article (20, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (56, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
a secondary topsheet (transfer layer 62, Figs. 1-4; ¶ [0022]) beneath the topsheet (56, Fig. 2), having a secondary topsheet length (the length of secondary topsheet 62 is shown in Figs. 1 and 4) measured along a longitudinal direction (longitudinal centerline 28, Fig. 1);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (58, Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]);
an absorbent core (64, Figs. 1-4) disposed between the topsheet (56, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2), and disposed between the secondary topsheet (62, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (58, Fig. 2);
the absorbent core (64, Fig. 2) having a pair of substantially parallel and substantially straight longitudinal side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective forward intersections with a projection (84, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), the side edges (76, 78, Fig. 3) terminating at respective rearward intersections with a rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), and a total core length measured along the longitudinal direction at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core (64, Fig. 3), wherein
the total core length is less than the secondary topsheet length (as seen in Fig. 1, layer 64 (as seen in Fig. 3) fits fully within the perimeter of layer 62 (seen in Fig. 4), and therefore the total core length is less than the length of the secondary topsheet);
wherein a forward portion of the secondary topsheet length forwardly overhangs the forward projection (84, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the forward projection of the core);
wherein a rearward portion of the secondary topsheet length rearwardly overhangs the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3; as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, part of the secondary topsheet will overhang the rearward recess of the core); and
wherein the forward projection (84, Fig. 3) and the rearward recess (94, Fig. 3) are substantially complementary in size and shape (¶ [0049-0050]).
Brisebois is silent whether the total core length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the absorbent core is from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length as measured at the forwardmost and rearward most points of the secondary topsheet, and whether the absorbent core comprises a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Brisebois to have the total core length be from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Brisebois would not operate differently with a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length and a total core length from about 75% to about 99% of the secondary topsheet length would still function to absorb fluid, the device would function appropriately with the claimed core length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the total core length “is” within the claimed ranges, but does not indicate that the core length must be within the claimed range for the device to function (¶ [0034] of published application).
Brisebois is silent whether the absorbent core comprises a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof.
Aviles teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core comprising a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof (¶ [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent material of Brisebois to include a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof, as taught by Aviles, who indicates that utilizing a layer of open celled foams or pieces thereof as the absorbent material within an absorbent core is well known in the art of absorbent articles (¶ [0121]).
Regarding Claim 20, Brisebois/Aviles is silent whether the absorbent core further comprises a second layer comprising an airlaid material.
Aviles teaches the absorbent core can comprise optional additional layers such as a layer of airlaid material (¶ [0126]) to modify the absorbency of the article.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent core of Brisebois/Aviles to include a second layer comprising an airlaid material, as taught by Aviles, who indicates that additional airlaid layers are well known in the art of absorbent cores for absorbent articles.
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 Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights