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 Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2023, and 11/10/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Schneider fails to explicitly teach [the features of independent claim 1] wherein the inner core layer comprises a liquid absorbent material comprising from about 50% to about 85% cellulosic fibers, by weight of the inner core layer, and from about 15% to about 50% superabsorbent particles, by weight of the inner core layer; wherein the absorbent core structure has an average density of between about 0.045g/cm3 and about 0.15g/cm3; wherein the lateral perimeter seal is positioned in the middle region and has a longitudinal seal length that is from about 45% to about 90% of the longitudinal inner core length, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As far as criticality, the applicant must submit an affidavit proving the cited range is critical to the invention.
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, 4-6, 8-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20050043694 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schneider teaches disposable absorbent article (20) comprising:
a front end region (36), a middle region (37), and a back end region (38);
a topsheet (24);
a backsheet (26); and
an absorbent core (28) structure disposed between the topsheet (24) and backsheet (26) (figure 2), wherein the absorbent core structure comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer comprising polymer fibers and having a basis weight of from about 30 gsm to about 65 gsm (paragraph [0077 and 0079]);
wherein the upper nonwoven layer (56) comprises a first side region, a laterally opposing second side region, and a first nonwoven lateral width (paragraph [0046])(figure 2);
b. a lower nonwoven layer (58) comprising polymer fibers and having a basis weight of from about 10 gsm to about 40 gsm (paragraph [0077 and 0079]);;
wherein the lower nonwoven layer (58) comprises a first side region, a laterally opposing second side region, and a nonwoven second lateral width (paragraph [0046])(figure 2); and
c. an inner core layer (60) having a longitudinal inner core length, a first inner core layer lateral width, and a second inner core lateral width (figure 1);
wherein a portion of the inner core layer (60) is disposed between the upper nonwoven layer(56) and the lower nonwoven layer (58) (figure 2);
wherein the portion of the inner core layer is contained within the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer by sealing a portion of the first side region and the second side region of the upper nonwoven layer with a portion of the first side region and the second side region of the lower nonwoven layer at a lateral perimeter seal, wherein an adhesive is positioned between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer in the perimeter seal (paragraph [0048] The top layer 56 and the bottom layer 58 may also be joined to each other, preferably along their periphery. In one preferred option both layers are joined along their longitudinal peripheries, in other embodiments they are joined along the transversal peripheries, or along the longitudinal and the transversal peripheries. The joining can be achieved by multiple means well known in the art, eg. by adhesive means, using a continuous or a discontinuous pattern, and preferably a linear or curvilinear pattern.).
Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the inner core layer comprises a liquid absorbent material comprising from about 50% to about 85% cellulosic fibers, by weight of the inner core layer, and from about 15% to about 50% superabsorbent particles, by weight of the inner core layer; wherein the absorbent core structure has an average density of between about 0.045g/cm3 and about 0.15g/cm3; wherein the lateral perimeter seal is positioned in the middle region and has a longitudinal seal length that is from about 45% to about 90% of the longitudinal inner core length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have any of the above ranges made by various manufacturing since this claimed dimension of the cellulosic fibers weight, superabsorbent particle weight and average density are non critical and the wide range shows that the diaper would be just as effective depending how it is manufactured. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see pages 3-4 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 4, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the entire inner core layer (60) is disposed between the upper nonwoven layer (52) and the lower nonwoven layer (58).
Regarding Claim 5, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the upper nonwoven layer(56) and the lower nonwoven layer (58) are further joined by at least one of a front perimeter seal region and a back perimeter seal region (figure 2) (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 5. Schneider fails to teach wherein the at least one front perimeter seal region and the back perimeter seal region extend longitudinally outboard from an inner core layer perimeter a distance of from about 3 mm to about 30 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner core layer perimeter a distance of from about 3 mm to about 30 mm in order to fit an method of manufacturing since this claimed dimension of the perimeter is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 13, paragraphs 3 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 8, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width are the same (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein the absorbent article comprises a front article edge and a back article edge (annotated figure 2) ; wherein the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer each comprise a front edge (paragraph [0048]) (annotated figure 2); wherein the front edge of at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer is coterminous with the front article edge (annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 9. Schneider further teaches wherein the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer each comprise a back edge and the back edge of at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer is coterminous with the back article edge (annotated figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider further teaches wherein at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer is shaped (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 9. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the lateral perimeter seal has a maximum seal width of from about 1 mm to about 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the lateral perimeter seal has a maximum seal width of from about 1 mm to about 15 mm in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the perimeter seal is non-critical . Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 11, paragraph 0003 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20050043694 A1) in view of Carlin (US 20200375810 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the first inner core layer lateral width is greater than at least one of the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein one of the inner core layers has a width larger than the other (paragraph [0088] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Schneider to have the first inner core layer lateral width is greater than at least one of the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width similar to Carlin so the larger layer folds over the absorbent (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 3, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the second inner core layer lateral width is greater than at least one of the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein one of the inner core layers has a width larger than the other (paragraph [0088] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Schneider to have the first inner core layer lateral width is greater than at least one of the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width similar to Carlin so the larger layer folds over the absorbent (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 7, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width are different. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein one of the inner core layers has a width larger than the other (paragraph [0088] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Schneider wherein the first nonwoven lateral width and the second nonwoven lateral width are different similar to Carlin so the larger layer folds over the absorbent (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 12, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Schneider fails to explicitly teach further comprising a crimp seal comprising the topsheet, the backsheet, and at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article comprising a crimp seal (102 and 104) comprising the topsheet, the backsheet, and at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer (figure 1A and 1B) (Paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have a crimp seal similar to Carlin, as a combination of adhesive and crimp sealing can provide sufficient bond strength to the absorbent article (as motivated by Carlin, paragraph [0034])
Regarding Claim 13, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 12. Schneider fails to explicitly wherein the crimp seal is positioned in at least one of the front end region and the back end region. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein the crimp seal is positioned in at least one of the front end region and the back end region (figure 1A and 1B) (Paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have a crimp seal similar to Carlin, as a combination of adhesive and crimp sealing can provide sufficient bond strength to the absorbent article (as motivated by Carlin, paragraph [0034].
Regarding Claim 14, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 12. Schneider fails to explicitly wherein the crimp seal is substantially free of the liquid absorbent material. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches wherein the crimp seal is substantially free of the liquid absorbent material (figure 1A and 1B) (Paragraph [0030: topsheet and backsheet are not absorbent]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have a crimp seal similar to Carlin, as a combination of adhesive and crimp sealing can provide sufficient bond strength to the absorbent article (as motivated by Carlin, paragraph [0034].
Claim(s) 16-21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20050043694 A1) in view of Mishima (US 20050107761 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article (20) comprising:
a front end region (36), a middle region (37), and a back end region (38);
a topsheet (24);
a backsheet (26); and
an absorbent core (28) structure disposed between the topsheet (24) and backsheet (26) (figure 2), wherein the absorbent core structure comprises:
an upper nonwoven layer comprising polymer fibers and having a basis weight of from about 30 gsm to about 65 gsm (paragraph [0077 and 0079]);
wherein the upper nonwoven layer comprises a first side region and a laterally opposing second side region (figure 1);
a lower nonwoven (58) layer comprising polymer fibers and having a basis weight of from about 10 gsm to about 40 gsm (paragraph [0077 and 0079]);
wherein the lower nonwoven layer comprises a first side region and a laterally opposing second side region (paragraph [0046])(figure 2);
an inner core layer (60) comprising a first side edge and a laterally opposing second side edge and having a longitudinal inner core length (figure 1);
wherein the inner core layer (60) is positioned between the upper nonwoven layer (56) and the lower nonwoven layer (58) (figure 2); and
wherein the inner core layer comprises a liquid absorbent material comprising a cellulosic fiber and a superabsorbent particle (paragraph [0040]),
an adhesive zone disposed intermediate a portion of at least one of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer and the inner core layer (paragraph [0048] The top layer 56 and the bottom layer 58 may also be joined to each other, preferably along their periphery. In one preferred option both layers are joined along their longitudinal peripheries, in other embodiments they are joined along the transversal peripheries, or along the longitudinal and the transversal peripheries. The joining can be achieved by multiple means well known in the art, eg. by adhesive means, using a continuous or a discontinuous pattern, and preferably a linear or curvilinear pattern.);
wherein the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer substantially surrounds the adhesive zone and the inner core layer (paragraph [0048]);
wherein a portion of the adhesive zone extends laterally outboard of the first and second side edges of the inner core layer and bonds the upper nonwoven layer to the lower nonwoven layer at a lateral perimeter seal (paragraph [0048] The top layer 56 and the bottom layer 58 may also be joined to each other, preferably along their periphery. In one preferred option both layers are joined along their longitudinal peripheries, in other embodiments they are joined along the transversal peripheries, or along the longitudinal and the transversal peripheries. The joining can be achieved by multiple means well known in the art, eg. by adhesive means, using a continuous or a discontinuous pattern, and preferably a linear or curvilinear pattern.);
Schneider fails to teach wherein a portion of the inner core layer extends laterally outboard of the adhesive zone to define an unsealed portion; wherein the unsealed portion is positioned longitudinally outboard of the lateral perimeter seal.
Mishima further teaches a disposable diaper wherein a portion of the inner core layer extends laterally outboard of the adhesive zone to define an unsealed portion (paragraph [0017-0018][0054]) (figure 1-3); wherein the unsealed portion (49) is positioned longitudinally outboard of the lateral perimeter seal (figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have an unsealed portion in order to change the absorbent core.
Both Schneider and Mishima fail to teach wherein the absorbent core structure has an average density of between about 0.045g/cm3 and about 0.15g/cm3;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the absorbent core structure has an average density of between about 0.045g/cm3 and about 0.15g/cm3 as these dimensions are non-critical and the wide range shows that the diaper would be just as effective depending how it is manufactured. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see pages 3-4 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 17, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 16. The combination further teaches wherein the lateral perimeter seal is positioned in the middle region (Mishima, paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have an unsealed portion in order to change the absorbent core.
Regarding Claim 18, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 16. The combination fails to teach wherein the unsealed portion has an unsealed longitudinal length that is about 5% to about 30% of the longitudinal inner core length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to unsealed portion has an unsealed longitudinal length that is about 5% to about 30% of the longitudinal inner core length as dependent on the method of manufacturing being done since this claimed dimension of the core length is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 6 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 19, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 16. The combination further teaches wherein the unsealed portion is positioned in the back end region (Mishima, paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seal of Schneider to have an unsealed portion in order to change the absorbent core.
Regarding Claim 20, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 16. The combination fails to teach wherein a second portion of the shaped inner core layer extends laterally outboard of the adhesive zone to define a second unsealed region and wherein the second unsealed region is positioned longitudinally outboard of the perimeter seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to wherein a second portion of the shaped inner core layer extends laterally outboard of the adhesive zone to define a second unsealed region and wherein the second unsealed region is positioned longitudinally outboard of the perimeter seal since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 21, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 16. The combination further teaches the inner core layer has a first inner core layer lateral width, a second inner core layer lateral width, and a third inner core layer lateral width disposed therebetween (Schneider, figure 1).
Regarding Claim 24, Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 21. Schneider further teaches wherein the adhesive zone has an adhesive zone lateral width, and wherein the adhesive zone lateral width is greater than the first inner core layer lateral width (paragraph [0048]: adhesive is outside of the inner core layer).
Regarding Claim 25 (second 23), Schneider in view of Mishima teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 21. Schneider further teaches wherein the adhesive zone has an adhesive zone lateral width (paragraph [0048]), and wherein the first inner core layer lateral width and the adhesive zone lateral width are substantially the same (figure 1).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20050043694 A1) in view of Mishima (US 20050107761 A1) in view of Carlin (US 20200375810 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 21. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the third inner core layer lateral width is less than the first inner core layer lateral width and the second inner core layer lateral width. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein one of the inner core layers has a width larger than the other (paragraph [0088] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Schneider to have the wherein the third inner core layer lateral width is less than the first inner core layer lateral width and the second inner core layer lateral width similar to Carlin so the larger layer folds over the absorbent (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 23, Schneider teaches a disposable absorbent article of claim 22. Schneider fails to explicitly teach wherein the second inner core layer lateral width is greater than the first inner core layer lateral width and the third inner core layer lateral width.. In the same field of endeavor, Carlin teaches an absorbent article wherein one of the inner core layers has a width larger than the other (paragraph [0088] and [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Schneider to have the wherein the third inner core layer lateral width is less than the first inner core layer lateral width and the second inner core layer lateral width similar to Carlin so the larger layer folds over the absorbent (paragraph [0088]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781