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 arguments filed 25 September 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 September 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blomstrom et al. (WO 2019/039976).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomstrom et al. (WO 2019/008091; herein after Blomstrom ‘091) in view of Blomstrom et al. (WO 2019/039976; herein after Blomstrom ‘976).
With respect to claim 1, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses a disposable hygiene article, as shown in figure 1, having a transverse direction X, longitudinal direction, a longitudinal centerline Y, a front portion, a crotch portion, and a rear portion. The article comprises a liquid permeable topsheet 3, a liquid impermeable backsheet 4, and an absorbent core 5, as shown in figure 2. The topsheet 3 and backsheet 4 extend beyond the absorbent core 5 to provide an outer boundary region that surrounds the absorbent core, as shown in figures 1 and 2. The outer contour of the absorbent core 5 is defined by mutually symmetrical mirror-imaged portions arranged symmetrically about the longitudinal center line and defined by left and right core edge lines extending between a core front edge and a core rear edge, as shown in figure 1. The article further comprises at least one asymmetrical wing 9, 10, as shown in figure 1, comprising an outer edge 14, 15 extending in an outward direction from the outer periphery and meeting the outer periphery at front and rear wing junctions connected by a wing junction line 26a. The claimed distance points do not appear to be arbitrarily set and not defined in relation to any feature of the wings other than the junction line, and therefore the wings 9, 10 can be defined as having a front wind distance point and a rear wing distance point which are spaced from the junction line by 3 mm.
Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent core comprising a neck region at which a transverse width between the left and right core edge lines is smaller than a transverse width of the core forward and rearward of the neck region defining a head region and a body portion, the front wing distance point being spaced from the neck region by a first longitudinal distance of between 5-30 mm, and the transverse width of the neck region being a minimum width of the core wherein the neck region is positioned forward of a minimum width of the article forward of the wings. Blomstrom ‘976 discloses a hygiene article 100 having an absorbent core 110 with a neck region having a width that is smaller than the width of a head portion and body portion of the core forward and rearward of the neck region and positioned forward of a minimum width of the article forward of a pair of wings 112, as shown in figure 1. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the absorbent core of Blomstrom ‘091 with a neck region at which a transverse width between the left and right core edge lines is smaller than a transverse width of the core forward and rearward of the neck region defining a head region and a body portion and positioned forward of a minimum width of the article and of the wings, as taught by Blomstrom ‘976, to achieve the predictable result of an article that fits more firmly between the legs of the wearer and reduces shifting of the article. It would further have been obvious to space the front wing distance point of modified Blomstrom ‘091 from the neck in a rearward direction by a first longitudinal distance of 5-30 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 2, the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 is formed with an outer edge, as shown in figure 1A, comprising a wing positioning profiled formed from a wave starting from the front wing junction and extending outwards, the wave consisting of a concave curve having a trough and a convex curve having a peak, and ending at a wing positioning profile end point where the wave no longer coincides with the outer edge, as shown in the annotated figure 1A below. The wave has a baseline and a longitudinal axis, as shown in the annotated figure 1A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Blomstrom ‘091 disclseos a wing junction line 26a corresponding to a wing length, as shown in figure 1. Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the wing length being between 50-110 mm. It would have been obvious to make the wing length of Blomstrom ‘091 between 50-110 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 4, Blomstrom ‘091, as modified by Blomstrom ‘976 to include a neck region, discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the width between left and right core edge lines in the neck region being between 30-60 mm. It would have been obvious to make the width of the neck region of modified Blomstrom ‘091 between 30-60 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 5, Blomstrom ‘091 shows in figure 1 that there is a front wing junction width between the left and right front wing junctions, but remains silent as to the width being between 75-95 mm. It would have been obvious to make the front wing junction width of Blomstrom ‘091 between 75-95 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proprotions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 6, Blomstrom ‘091 shows in figure 1 that there is a front wing junction width between the left and right rear wing junctions, but remains silent as to the width being between 85-95 mm. It would have been obvious to make the rear wing junction width of Blomstrom ‘091 between 85-95 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 7, the peak of Blomstrom ‘091 is located forward of the trough, as shown in the annotated figure 1A above.
With respect to claim 8, the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 has a baseline that is placed perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline, as shown in the annotated figure 1A above.
With respect to claim 9, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the distance between the front wing distance point and the peak of the convex curve of the wing being between 8-30 mm. It would have been obvious to make the distance between the front wing distance point and the peak of the convex curve of the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 between 8-30 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 10, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the distance between the front wing distance point and the wing positioning profile end point being between 13-35 mm. It would have been obvious to make the distance between the front wing distance point and the wing positioning profile end point of Blomstrom ‘091 between 13-35 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 11, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the height between the trough and the peak of the wave being 1-5 mm. It would have been obvious to make the height between the trough and the peak of the wave of Blomstrom ‘091 between 1-5 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 12, an imaginary straight line N can be drawn on the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 starting from the trough and extending outboard. Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the straight line N defining an angle with respect to a line parallel to the baseline having a magnitude of +5 to +25 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the angle between the imaginary straight line and a line parallel to the baseline of Blomstrom ‘091 to have a magnitude of +5 to +25 degrees, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 13, an imaginary straight line N can be drawn on the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 starting from the front wing distance point and extending outboard. Blomstrom ‘091 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the straight line N defining an angle with respect to a line parallel to the baseline having a magnitude of -5 to -25 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the angle between the imaginary straight line and a line parallel to the baseline of Blomstrom ‘091 to have a magnitude of -5 to -25 degrees, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 14, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses the outer edge of the wing comprises a rounded section formed with an arc extending between a first point and a second point along the outer edge, as shown in figure 1A, the arc having a radius r of 40-500 mm, as disclosed on page 7, lines 24-30.
With respect to claim 15, Blomstrom ‘091 discloses the wing comprises two rounded sections 31a and 31b, as shown in figure 5, defining a first radius ra and a second radius rb, but Blomstrom ‘091 remains silent as to the first radius having an interval of 40-500 mm and the second radius having an interval of 40-500 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second radii of Blomstrom ‘091 to have an interval of 40-500 mm, since where the only difference between the claimed device and the prior art is a recitation of relative dimensions or proportions, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claim 16, Blomstrom ‘091 shows in figure 4 the outer edge includes at least one straight section.
With respect to claims 17-18, the wing of Blomstrom ‘091 defines a lower straight line 20 along a lower edge section that defines an angle with respect to the transverse axis X1, as shown in figure 4. The straight line 20, transverse axis X1, and wing junction line form a right triangle, as shown in figure 4, with the angle between the straight line 20 and the wing junction line shown as α2. The angle α2 has a magnitude between 10-65 degrees, as disclosed on page 9, line 18. Therefore the angle between the straight line and the transverse axis has a magnitude in the range of 25-80 degrees. Since this range overlaps both claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
With respect to claim 19, the article of Blomstrom ‘091 comprises a second asymmetrical wing that is asymmetrical with respect to the first wing, as shown in figure 1.
With respect to claim 20, Blomstrom ‘976 teaches the neck region of the absorbent core 110 is forward of a transition between the front portion and crotch portion of the article, as shown in figure 1.
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 LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights