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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 21-22, 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roe et al. (US 2020/0330290).
With reference to claims 1, 11, 31 and 33, Roe et al. (hereinafter “Roe”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) and method thereof comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24), a liquid impervious backsheet (25) absorbent material (28) positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 2), a bottom layer (71) between the absorbent material and the liquid impervious backsheet [0150], and a top core wrap sheet (16) between the absorbent material and the topsheet (see figures),
wherein the absorbent material comprises superabsorbent particles [0050] and cellulosic fluff pulp [0004] and is arranged such that one or more channels [0042] are formed, wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to an area around the one or more channels (figures 4-5 and 24-25),
wherein the bottom layer is in contact with the absorbent material (figures 24-25) and has an average density as claimed as set forth in [0109].
Roe also discloses a bottom layer that comprises more than 25 weight % of synthetic fibers as set forth in [0106] through the incorporation [0169] of Flohr et al. (US 2007/0118087). Flohr et al. (hereinafter “Flohr”) discloses a bottom layer that comprises more than 25 weight % of synthetic fibers as set forth in [0058-0060].
Roe also discloses that the bottom layer may be attached to the top core wrap sheet at least in a portion of the one more channels as set forth in [0124] where Roe discloses that the channels in the LMS may at least partially overlap, or fully overlap, a channel in the absorbent core to create a deeper recess in the overlapping regions, and that the distribution layer may be bonded to an element of the absorbent core in this region to increase the depth of the combined channel.
Roe also discloses that the absorbent core comprises a core wrap as set forth in [0049]. The core wrap includes the top core wrap sheet as set forth in [0073]. As such, Roe provides the teaching that the bottom layer may be attached to the top core wrap sheet within the channel as required by claims 1 and 11.
With reference to claims 3 and 5, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the bottom layer comprises more than 30% weight of synthetic fibers (i.e., PET) as set forth in [0105] through the incorporation [0169] of Hundorf et al. (US 2008/0312622).
Hundorf et al. (hereinafter “Hundorf”) discloses a bottom layer comprising more than 30% weight of synthetic fibers (i.e., PET) as set forth in [0053].
Regarding claim 6, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the bottom layer has a basis weight within the claimed range as set forth in [0109].
Regarding claim 7, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the bottom layer includes a nonwoven as set forth in [0105] through the incorporation [0169] of Hundorf et al. (US 2008/0312622).
Hundorf discloses a nonwoven bottom layer in [0053].
As to claim 8, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the bottom layer has a thickness between 0.2 and 1mm as set forth in [0103] through the incorporation [0169] of WO 02/067809 (hereinafter “Graef”).
Graef discloses a bottom (i.e., distribution) bottom layer with a thickness between 0.2 and 1mm as set forth on page 29 in Table 8.
With respect to claim 9, Roe discloses an absorbent article further comprising a capillary acceleration sheet (52) between the absorbent material and the topsheet as set forth in [0111] and as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, see the rejection of claim 1 and 11. Additionally, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the bottom layer is glued/sealed via heat and/or pressure (cl. 13) in a regular pattern (cl. 15) – considered to be any pattern -- to the top core wrap sheet in a least a portion of the channel as set forth in [0066] and [0087].
With reference to claim 17, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein only the bottom layer is present between the backsheet and the absorbent material as shown in at least figures 24-25.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Additionally, the disclosure of Roe sets forth that any additional layers “may” be present, and therefore, may not be present. See [0111] for example. The inclusion of the “preferably” language is indicative of the layers being optional and therefore not providing a patentable distinction.
As to claim 21, Roe discloses a bottom layer that consists of a single sheet as shown in figure 2 or 24-25.
With reference to claim 22, Roe discloses an absorbent article wherein the amount of superabsorbent particles is above 300 g/m2 as set forth in [0065].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 2020/0330290) and further in view of Everhart et al. (US 2003/0114071).
With reference to claim 2, Roe teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roe and claim 2 is the provision that the absorbent material includes between 70 g/m2 and 180 g/m2 of cellulosic fluff pulp.
Everhart et al. (hereinafter “Everhart”) teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the absorbent material includes between 70 g/m2 and 180 g/m2 of cellulosic fluff pulp as set forth in [0111].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the absorbent material of Roe with the amount of cellulosic fluff pulp as taught by Everhart in order to provide for a thin absorbent structure [0111] that quickly absorbs several times its weight in water while exhibiting strength and abrasion resistance as taught by Everhart in [0007].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (US 2020/0330290) and further in view of Guevara et al. (US 2001/0003797).
With reference to claim 20, Roe teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roe and claim 2 is the provision that the backsheet has a basis weight between 20 and 80 g/m2.
Guevara et al. (hereinafter “Guevara”) teaches an analogous absorbent article having a backsheet with a basis weight between 20 and 80 g/m2 as set forth in [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the backsheet of Roe with the basis weight as taught by Guevara in order to promote a low cost, ease of fabrication, high wet strength and environmentally friendly article as taught by Guevara in [0016-0020].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 25 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 21-22, 31 and 33 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.
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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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 at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781