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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The present description of the instant application appears to lack essential steps to determine (calculate) the recited test parameters. As such, it appears that certain features such as the intake layer and the absorbent layer providing an integrated material including an interface between the intake layer and the absorbent layer, the interface including at least some fibers of the intake layer mixed with at least some fibers of the absorbent layer and/or having certain amount of binder fibers are the necessary parameters to provide the recited characteristics including saturation capacity, intake time, wet thickness, etc. and the claims will be interpreted in this manner.
See for example page 36, lines 5-18 which supports the inclusion of a specific amount of superabsorbent material (SAM) to achieve the desired saturation capacity and the inclusion of a specific basis weight and/or amount of binder fibers to influence the rewet value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 12 and 18 recite specific properties/characteristics of the material including a "a saturation capacity greater than 125 grams", "a second intake time of less than 50 seconds", "a rewet of less than or equal to 0.14 grams", "a dry thickness of less than 8.0 mm", a wet thickness of less than 12.5 mm" and "a wet thickness of less than 17 mm", which define the subject matter in terms of desired results without defining the technical features essential to achieve and/or calculate(determine) the results.
Therefore, Claims 1-23 are considered as unsupported by the current written description.
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 03/053321 in view of Mehawej (US 2003/0149414) and further in view of WO 2016/115181.
With reference to claims 1 and 3-5, WO 03/053321 (hereinafter “Ruman” discloses an absorbent material (page 2, lines 26-29) comprising:
an intake layer (page 19, lines 6-17); and
an absorbent layer (44) as set forth in on page 16, lines 3-6.
Ruman also discloses a pad having a saturation (absorbent) capacity of greater than 125 grams and more than 150 grams (cl. 3) as set forth on page 3, lines 1-2. Additionally, Ruman provides an intake time of less than 50 seconds as set forth on page 9, lines 22-25 and a thickness of less than 17mm as set forth on page 16, lines 11-17.
The difference between Ruman and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the intake time is a second intake time and that the thickness is a wet thickness according to the Modified Fluid Intake Under Pressure Test.
It is noted that Ruman recognizes the association between the absorbent capacity and the intake time as set forth on page 16, lines 18-24. Ruman also anticipates at least two insults as set forth on page 2, lines 13-16.
Ruman is also concerned with providing a thin absorbent pad as set forth on page 2, lines 26-29.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parameters of Ruman to provide the desired second intake time and/or wet thickness in order to provide a more discreet garment with a garment-like appearance as taught by Ruman on page 2, lines 24-29.
Additionally, with respect to the wet thickness, Mehawej teaches an analogous absorbent article having a wet thickness of less than 17mm, and less than 14mm (cl. 5) as set forth in Table 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ruman with the specific wet thickness as taught by Mehawej for the benefit of maintaining strength and integrity when wet as taught by Mehawej in [0037].
Additionally, with respect to the second intake time, WO 2016/115181 (hereinafter “Dutkiewicz”) teaches an analogous multi-layered absorbent article including a second intake time of less than 50 seconds and a third intake time of less than 85 seconds (cl. 4) as set forth in figure 33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ruman with the specific second and third intake time(s) as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to provide the article with improved fluid acquisition and dryness profile as well as added retention properties as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 1, lines 18-21.
With reference to claim 2, Ruman teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Ruman and claim 2 is the provision that that the intake layer and the absorbent layer provide an integrated material including an interface between the intake layer and the absorbent layer, the interface including at least some fibers of the intake layer mixed with at least some fibers of the absorbent layer.
Dutkiewicz teaches an analogous multi-layered nonwoven absorbent article where at least two of the disclosed layers are joined together as set forth on page 20, lines 24-26. Dutkiewicz also defines a “nonwoven” as having the layers joined via mechanical interlocking as set forth on page 8, lines 10-18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate the layers of Ruman as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to significantly reduce absorbent mass with the ability to achieve improved overall absorbency performance as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 20, lines 17-20.
As to claim 6, Rumer discloses an absorbent material further comprising a dry thickness less than 8.0 mm as set forth on page 16, lines 11-15.
With reference to claim 7, Ruman teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Ruman and claim 7 is the explicit recitation that the material has a rewet less than or equal to 0.14 grams.
Initially, it is noted that a rewet less than 0.14 grams encompasses zero and is therefore not necessarily required to be present.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parameters of Ruman to provide the desired rewet in order to provide a more discreet garment with a garment-like appearance as taught by Ruman on page 2, lines 24-29.
With respect to claims 8-9, Ruman discloses an absorbent material wherein the intake layer comprises synthetic fibers and binder fibers, including 40% of a polyester (binder) fiber (cl. 9) as set forth on page 19, lines 6-17.
As to claim 10, Ruman discloses an absorbent material wherein the absorbent layer comprises absorbent fibers, binder fibers, and superabsorbent material as set forth on page 17, line 32 to page 18, line 6.
Ruman does not explicitly and wherein the binder fibers comprise less than 30% of the absorbent layer (by total weight of the intake layer).
Dutkiewicz teaches an analogous multi-layered nonwoven absorbent article wherein the binder fibers comprise less than 30% of the absorbent layer as set forth on page 47, lines 6-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention adjust the amount of binder fibers of Ruman as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to significantly reduce absorbent mass with the ability to achieve improved overall absorbency performance as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 20, lines 17-20.
With reference to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 10.
Dutkiewicz teaches a multi-layered structure where any of the layers can further include a binder as set forth on page 4, lines 3-23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the amount of binder utilized within the layers to produce the desired product because Dutkiewicz teaches that the binder may be applied as desired on page 19, lines 10-14.
With reference to claims 12 and 14, Ruman discloses an absorbent material (page 2, lines 26-29) comprising:
an intake layer (page 19, lines 6-17); and
an absorbent layer (44) as set forth in on page 16, lines 3-6.
Ruman discloses the absorbent material further comprising a dry thickness less than 8.0 mm and less than 7.0mm (cl. 14) as set forth on page 16, lines 11-15.
The difference between Ruman and claim 12 is the explicit recitation that the thickness is a wet thickness and the material has a rewet less than or equal to 0.14 grams according to the Modified Fluid Intake Under Pressure Test.
Initially, it is noted that a rewet less than 0.14 grams encompasses zero and is therefore not necessarily required to be present.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parameters of Ruman to provide the desired rewet in order to provide a more discreet garment with a garment-like appearance as taught by Ruman on page 2, lines 24-29.
With respect to the wet thickness, Mehawej teaches an analogous absorbent article having a wet thickness of less than 12.5mm as set forth in Table 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ruman with the specific wet thickness as taught by Mehawej for the benefit of maintaining strength and integrity when wet as taught by Mehawej in [0037].
Regarding claims 13 and 19, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, Ruman discloses an absorbent material wherein the intake layer comprises synthetic fibers, binder fibers and a basis weight of between 20 - 120 gsm as set forth on page 19, lines 6-17.
As to claim 17, Ruman discloses an absorbent material wherein the absorbent layer comprises absorbent fibers, binder fibers, and superabsorbent material as set forth on page 17, line 32 to page 18, line 6.
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Ruman discloses an absorbent material (page 2, lines 26-29) comprising:
an intake layer (page 19, lines 6-17); and
an absorbent layer (44) as set forth in on page 16, lines 3-6.
Ruman also discloses a pad having a saturation (absorbent) capacity of greater than 125 grams as set forth on page 3, lines 1-2. Additionally, Ruman provides a thickness of less than 17mm as set forth on page 16, lines 11-17.
The difference between Ruman and claims 18 and 22 is the explicit recitation that the thickness is a wet thickness and/or that the material has a rewet less than or equal to 0.14 grams according to the Modified Fluid Intake Under Pressure Test.
Initially, it is noted that a rewet less than 0.14 grams encompasses zero and is therefore not necessarily required to be present.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the parameters of Ruman to provide the desired rewet in order to provide a more discreet garment with a garment-like appearance as taught by Ruman on page 2, lines 24-29.
With respect to the wet thickness, Mehawej teaches an analogous absorbent article having a wet thickness of less than 17mm (cl. 18) and a wet thickness of less than 12.5mm (cl. 22) as set forth in Table 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ruman with the specific wet thickness as taught by Mehawej for the benefit of maintaining strength and integrity when wet as taught by Mehawej in [0037].
With reference to claims 20 and 21, Ruman teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
The difference between Ruman and claims 20 and 21 is the provision that the material has a second intake time of less than 50 seconds (cl. 20) and a third intake time of less than 85 seconds (cl. 21).
Dutkiewicz teaches an analogous multi-layered absorbent article including a second intake time of less than 50 seconds (cl. 20) and a third intake time of less than 85 seconds (cl. 21) as set forth in figure 33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Ruman with the specific second and third intake time(s) as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to provide the article with improved fluid acquisition and dryness profile as well as added retention properties as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 1, lines 18-21.
With reference to claim 23, Ruman discloses the absorbent material further comprising a dry thickness less than 8.0 mm as set forth on page 16, lines 11-15.
As to claim 24, Ruman discloses an absorbent material (page 2, lines 26-29) comprising:
an intake layer (page 19, lines 6-17), the intake layer comprising synthetic fibers, binder fibers and a basis weight of about (which would reasonably include) less than 50 gsm as set forth on page 19, lines 6-17; and
an absorbent layer (44), the absorbent layer comprising superabsorbent material, cellulosic fibers and binder fibers as set forth on page 17, line 32 to page 18, line 6.
The difference between Ruman and claim 24 is the provision that the binder fibers comprise less than 30% of the absorbent layer (by total weight of the intake layer) and that the intake layer and the absorbent layer provide an integrated material including an interface between the intake layer and the absorbent layer, the interface including at least some fibers of the intake layer with at least some fibers of the absorbent layer.
Dutkiewicz teaches an analogous multi-layered nonwoven absorbent article wherein the binder fibers comprise less than 30% of the absorbent layer as set forth on page 47, lines 6-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention adjust the amount of binder fibers of Ruman as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to significantly reduce absorbent mass with the ability to achieve improved overall absorbency performance as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 20, lines 17-20.
Additionally, Dutkiewicz teaches an analogous multi-layered nonwoven absorbent article where at least two of the disclosed layers are joined together as set forth on page 20, lines 24-26. Dutkiewicz also defines a “nonwoven” as having the layers joined via mechanical interlocking as set forth on page 8, lines 10-18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate the layers of Ruman as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to significantly reduce absorbent mass with the ability to achieve improved overall absorbency performance as taught by Dutkiewicz on page 20, lines 17-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holmes et al. (US 2002/0115971) discloses a thin, high capacity multi-layered absorbent core.
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