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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final office action on 08/13/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection and objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/13/2025
With regard applicant’s argument with respect 35 USC 103 rejections, see page 9, have been considered and are at least partially persuasive, but are moot in light of new rejection/interpretation.
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.
Claims 1,2, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1) in view of Chakravarty et al (US 20070224903 A1) and Kurata et al (US 20010014795 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sillerstrom substantially teaches applicant’s claimed invention, and specifically discloses a device with every structural limitation of applicant’s claimed invention (except for the limitations shown in italics and grayed-out) including:
a disposable absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet (figure 2, topsheet 3);
a backsheet (figure 2, backsheet 4); and
an absorbent core structure (figure 2, absorbent core 5) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet,
wherein the absorbent core structure comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer (figure 2 [0031], core cover 11 comprising nonwoven thermoplastic polymer material fiber) comprising polymer fibers, wherein the polymer fibers comprise a sheath-core configuration, wherein a sheath of the sheath-core configuration comprises a lower melting temperature than a core component of the sheath-core configuration, and wherein the polymer fibers comprise inter-fiber bonds ;
b. a lower nonwoven layer (figure 2 [0031], cover 12 comprising nonwoven thermoplastic polymer material fiber) comprising polymer fibers; and
c. an inner core layer (figure 2, absorbent core 5) disposed between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer, wherein the inner core layer the inner core layer comprises from 50% to 85% cellulosic fibers, by weight of the inner core layer, and from 15% to 50% superabsorbent particles, by weight of the inner core layer
wherein the inner core layer is contained within the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer by substantially sealing at least a left side region and a right side region of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer at a perimeter seal ([0055], [0059] and figure 2, upper and lower covers 11 and 12 are attached and sealed by at least first and second side seams 15 and 16), wherein the perimeter seal comprises a seal width (figure 2, W3 and W4) of from 1 mm to 10 mm;
wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between 10 N.mm2 to 30 N.mm2 as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method, and a 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery of between 29% and 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method
Sillerstrom does not teach wherein the polymer fibers comprise a sheath-core configuration, wherein a sheath of the sheath-core configuration comprises a lower melting temperature than a core component of the sheath-core configuration, and wherein the polymer fibers comprise inter-fiber bonds;
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent articles comprising a nonwoven web, Chakravarty teaches wherein the polymer fibers comprise a sheath-core configuration ([0048]-[0050] nonwoven web comprises binder fiber. The binder fiber includes a sheath component and a core component, wherein the core component have a thermal melting temperature greater than the sheath component), wherein a sheath of the sheath-core configuration comprises a lower melting temperature than a core component of the sheath-core configuration, and wherein the polymer fibers comprise inter-fiber bonds ([0049] sheath component permits thermal bonding, i.e., inter-fiber bonding, of the binder fiber to other fibers);
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom to incorporate the teachings of Chakravarty and provide the polymer fibers as claimed for the purpose of providing desired strength and/or rigidity necessary to withstand the nonwoven production process, including formation of thermally bonded fibrous nonwoven structure as taught by Chakravarty ([0049]-[0050]).
The combination does not teach wherein the seal width ranged from 1 mm to 10 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Kurata teaches an absorbent core structure (figure 1, 1) comprises a perimeter seal (figures 1 and 3, round-seal portion 2), wherein the perimeter seal comprises a seal width of from 1 mm to 10 mm ([0064] rounded seal portion 2 having a width W of 2 mm).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty, to incorporate the teachings of Kurata and provide the perimeter seal as claimed for the purpose of providing desired shape retention of the absorbent core, i.e., preventing the seal being loosened or broken during use as taught by Kurata ([0009] and [0014])
Consequently, the combination further inherently teaches wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between 10 N.mm2 to 30 N.mm2 as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method, and a 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery of between 29% and 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method, as the combination teaches substantially identical structure as claimed, and properties such as stiffness are presumed to be inherent unless shown otherwise (see MPEP 2112). Here, the combination teaches substantially identical absorbent article structure, for example, absorbent article comprising topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core disposed between upper and lower nonwoven layer, the absorbent core comprising the cellulosic fiber and superabsorbent particles as claimed, the combination would necessarily exhibit the claimed properties measured by the claimed testing methods above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the stiffness and wet % recovery are properties of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed stiffness range, render the limitation obvious.
Regarding Claim 2, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurata, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination further inherently teaches wherein the absorbent article has a Light Touch Rewet value of from 0 to 0.15 grams as measured according to the Light Touch Rewet Method, as Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurata, teaches substantially identical structure as claimed, and the properties above are presumed to be inherent unless shown otherwise (see MPEP 2112). Here, the combination teaches substantially identical absorbent article structure, for example, absorbent article comprising topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core disposed between upper and lower nonwoven layer, the absorbent core comprising the cellulosic fiber and superabsorbent particles as claimed, the combination would necessarily exhibit the claimed property measured by the claimed testing method above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the rewet value is a property of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed stiffness range, render the limitation obvious).
Regarding Claim 6, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the absorbent article has a Dry Caliper of from 2.0 mm to 6.0 mm as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3-Point Method.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom such that the absorbent article has the claimed dimension as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in size/proportion. A change size in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV). One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of providing adequate thickness, fluid absorbent capacity along with desired stiffness. Furthermore, applicant has not shown unexpected result gleaming from the claimed range ([0078]), the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 8, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
Sillerstrom further teaches wherein the topsheet is in direct contact with the upper nonwoven layer, and the upper nonwoven layer is in direct contact with the inner core layer (see figure 2, cover 11 adjacent to topsheet 3 and absorbent core 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are the same.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven layers such that the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are the same, as such the modification would have been an obvious to try, with a reasonable expectation of success, if a person of ordinary skill has good reason to peruse the known options within his or her technical grasp and the modification leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (MPEP 2143.I.E). In the instant case, the modification involves choosing from a finite number if identified, for example the upper and lower nonwoven layer could be made of same or different material, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of simplifying manufacturing process.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1), in view of Chakravarty et al (US 20070224903 A1), Kurata et al (US 20010014795 A1), and in further view of Evans (US 3494821 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein the upper nonwoven layer is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven.
In the same field of endeavor, namely nonwoven fabric of hydraulically entangled textile fibers, Evans teaches wherein the upper nonwoven layer is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven (col 1 lines 15-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom to incorporate the teachings of Evans and provides strong, durable resilience fabric as taught by Evans (col 1 lines 60-65)
Regarding Claim 4, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty, Kurota and Evans, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 3.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer has a staple length of from 25 and 100 mm; though
Evans teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer has a staple length of from 6 mm to 150 mm (col 3 lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to have the claimed dimension since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having claimed dimension (specification [0059]) and therefore the claimed range is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1), in view of Chakravarty et al (US 20070224903 A1), Kurata et al (US 20010014795 A1), Evans (US 3494821 A), and in further view of Takai et al (US 20010026861 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty, Kurota and Evans, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 3.
The combination does not teach wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer comprises synthetic fibers and regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising rayon.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Takai teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer comprises from 60% to 100% synthetic fibers and from 0% to 40% regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising rayon ([0024] nonwoven fabric layer contain thermoplastic synthetic fiber by at least 70 wt % and hydrophilic chemical fiber such as rayon fiber at most 30 wt %).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty, Kurota and Evans, to incorporate the teachings of Takai and provides the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer as claimed for the purpose of providing desired fluid diffusibility and water retention capacity, as taught by Takai ([0004]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1), in view of Chakravarty et al (US 20070224903 A1), Kurata et al (US 20010014795 A1), and in further view of Osborn et al (US 5611790 AA).
Regarding Claim 7, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the absorbent article has an average density of between 0.045 g/cm3 and 0.15 g/cm3.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Osborn teaches wherein the absorbent article has an average density of between 0.045 g/cm3 and 0.15 g/cm3 (col 26 lines 19-25, absorbent core having a density of about 0.06g/cm^3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurata, to incorporate the teachings of Osborn and provide the claimed density, for the purpose of providing optimized fluid acquisition speed and fluid wicking, as taught by Osborn (col 26 lines 5-19).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1), in view of Chakravarty et al (US 20070224903 A1), Kurata et al (US 20010014795 A1), and in further view of Everett (US 6437214 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1.
The combination does not teach the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are different.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a layered absorbent structure, Everett teaches the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are different (col 17 lines 1-15, bodyside and outer side layers of wrap sheet 28 may be composed of different material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Chakravarty and Kurota to incorporate the teachings of Everett and provides the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer as claimed for the purpose of reducing manufacturing cost (col 17 lines 1-15).
Claims 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1) in view of Miyauchi et al (US 20110089593 A1) and Tan et al (US 20010031358 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sillerstrom teaches a disposable absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet (figure 2, topsheet 3);
a backsheet (figure 2, backsheet 4); and
an absorbent core structure (figure 2, absorbent core 5) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet,
wherein the absorbent core structure comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer (figure 2 [0031], core cover 11 comprising nonwoven thermoplastic polymer material fiber) comprising polymer fibers, wherein the polymer fibers comprises crimped fibers, wherein the crimped fibers comprises an average crimp count of 4 to 12 crimps per inch;
b. a lower nonwoven layer (figure 2 [0031], cover 12 comprising nonwoven thermoplastic polymer material fiber) comprising polymer fibers; and
c. an inner core layer (figure 2, absorbent core 5) disposed between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer, wherein the inner core layer comprises a cellulosic fiber and a superabsorbent polymer ([0077]);
wherein the inner core layer is contained within the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer by substantially sealing at least a left side region and a right side region of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer at a perimeter seal ([0055], [0059] and figure 2, upper and lower covers 11 and 12 are attached and sealed by at least first and second side seams 15 and 16);
wherein the inner core layer comprises from 125 gsm to 400 gsm of the cellulosic fiber;
wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between about 10 N.mm2 to about 30 N.mm2as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method, and a 5t Cycle Wet % Recovery of between 29% and 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method.
Sillerstrom does not teach wherein the polymer fibers comprises crimped fibers, wherein the crimped fibers comprises an average crimp count of 4 to 12 crimps per inch;
In the same field of endeavor, namely a liquid absorbing nonwoven fabrics, Miyauchi teaches wherein the polymer fibers comprises crimped fibers, wherein the crimped fibers comprises an average crimp count of 4 to 12 crimps per inch ([0057] crimp count of the conjugate fiber for air-laid nonwoven fabric ranges preferably from 8 to 12 crimps/2.54 cm);
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom to incorporate the teachings of Miyauchi and provide the polymer fibers as claimed for the purpose of providing desired texture while enhancing processability as taught by Miyauchi ([0057])
The combination does not teach wherein the inner core layer comprises from 125 gsm to 400 gsm of the cellulosic fiber.
In the same filed of endeavor, namely a soft, strong, absorbent material, Tan teaches wherein the inner core layer comprises from 125 gsm to about 400 gsm of the cellulosic fiber ([0078] absorbent layer comprising three layers, and middle layer of the three layers contains about 100 g/m2 and about 260 g/m2 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi, to incorporate the teachings of Tan and provides the absorbent layer as claimed for the purpose of providing desired absorbency, strength and softness requirement for absorbent article while saving manufacturing cost as taught by Tan ([0013]), and it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having claimed dimension (specification [0069]) and therefore the claimed range is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Consequently, the combination further inherently teaches wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between 10 N.mm2 to 30 N.mm2 as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method, and a 5* Cycle Wet % Recovery of between 29% and 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method, as the combination teaches substantially identical structure as claimed, and properties are presumed to be inherent unless shown otherwise (see MPEP 2112). Here, The combination teaches substantially identical absorbent article structure, for example, absorbent article comprising topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core disposed between upper and lower nonwoven layer, the absorbent core comprising the cellulosic fiber and superabsorbent particles as claimed, the combination wound necessarily exhibit the claimed properties measured by the claimed testing method above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the stiffness is a property of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed stiffness range, render the limitation obvious.
Regarding Claim 12, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer are selected from polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, polylactic acid, bicomponent fiber comprising polyethylene/polypropylene or polyethylene/polyethylene terephthalate, and combinations thereof (Sillerstrom; [0031] the nonwoven layer made of bicomponent fibers of polypropylene and polyethylene)
Regarding Claim 13, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are selected from polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, polylactic acid, bicomponent fiber comprising polyethylene/polypropylene or polyethylene/polyethylene terephthalate, and combinations thereof (Sillerstrom; [0031] the nonwoven layer made of bicomponent fibers of polypropylene and polyethylene).
Regarding Claim 17, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a basis weight of from about 35 gsm to about 85 gsm.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a soft, strong, absorbent material, Tan teaches wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a basis weight of from about 35 gsm to about 85 gsm ([0078] top layer of three layer absorbent layer structure comprises a basis weight of 50 gsm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan and provides the upper nonwoven layer as claimed for the purpose of providing desired absorbency, strength and softness requirement while saving manufacturing cost as taught by Tan ([0013]).
Regarding Claim 18, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further inherently teaches where the 5th Cycle Wet Energy of Recovery is between about 1.0 and about 3.5 N*mm as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method., as Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches substantially identical structure as claimed, and the properties are presumed to be inherent unless shown otherwise (see MPEP 2112). Here, The combination teaches substantially identical absorbent article structure, for example, absorbent article comprising topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core disposed between upper and lower nonwoven layer, the absorbent core comprising the cellulosic fiber and superabsorbent particles as claimed, the combination wound necessarily exhibit the claimed property measured by the claimed testing method above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the stiffness is a property of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed stiffness range, render the limitation obvious.
Regarding Claim 19, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further teaches wherein the topsheet is in direct contact with the upper nonwoven layer, and the upper nonwoven layer is in direct contact with the inner core layer (Sillerstrom; see figure 2, cover 11 adjacent to topsheet 3 and absorbent core 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination further inherently teaches wherein the absorbent article has a Light Touch Rewet value of from about 0 to about 0.15 grams as measured according to the Light Touch Rewet Method, as Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches substantially identical structure as claimed, and properties are presumed to be inherent unless shown otherwise (see MPEP 2112). Here, The combination teaches substantially identical absorbent article structure, for example, absorbent article comprising topsheet, backsheet, absorbent core disposed between upper and lower nonwoven layer, the absorbent core comprising the cellulosic fiber and superabsorbent particles as claimed, the combination wound necessarily exhibit the claimed property measured by the claimed testing method above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the stiffness is a property of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed stiffness range, render the limitation obvious.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1) in view of Miyauchi et al (US 20110089593 A1) and Tan et al (US 20010031358 A1), and in further view of Evans (US 3494821 A)
Regarding Claim 14, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer have a staple length of greater than 10 mm.
In the same field of endeavor, namely nonwoven fabric of hydraulically entangled textile fibers, Evans teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer have a staple length of 6 to 150 mm (col 3 lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, to incorporate the teachings of Evans and provides strong, durable resilience fabric as taught by Evans (col 1 lines 60-65), and it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having claimed dimension (specification [0059]) and therefore the claimed range is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Regarding Claim 15, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 14.
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer have the staple length of from than 10 mm to 100 mm; though
Evans teaches wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer has a staple length of from 6 mm to 150 mm (Evans; col 3 lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to have the claimed dimension since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, the applicant has not shown unexpected results gleaming from having claimed dimension (specification [0059]) and therefore the claimed range is not patentably distinct from the prior art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sillerstrom et al (US 20200323709 A1) in view of Miyauchi et al (US 20110089593 A1), Tan et al (US 20010031358 A1), and in further view of Osborn et al (US 5611790 AA).
Regarding Claim 16, Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 11.
The combination does not teach wherein the absorbent article has an average density of between 0.045 g/cm3 and 0.15 g/cm3.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Osborn teaches wherein the absorbent article has an average density of between 0.045 g/cm3 and 0.15 g/cm3 (col 26 lines 19-25, absorbent core having a density of about 0.06g/cm^3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sillerstrom, as modified by Miyauchi and Tan, to incorporate the teachings of Osborn and provide the claimed density, for the purpose of providing optimized fluid acquisition speed and fluid wicking, as taught by Osborn (col 26 lines 5-19).
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 SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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.
/S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781