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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Amendments to claim 1, and new claims 7-9, filed on 2/18/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an average length of the second fiber is 0.5 mm or more and 10 mm or less and more.” It is unclear what the upper limit of the length is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chakravarty et al. (US 2007/0224903 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chakravarty teaches an absorbent article comprising a surge management layer comprising a nonwoven web (Abstract). The nonwoven web includes a filler fiber (a first fiber) and a binder fiber (a second fiber) (Abstract). The binder fiber includes a sheath component and a core component (Abstract). The nonwoven webs possess various desirable characteristics such as, for example, bulkiness and resiliency (a cushioning material) ([0020] and [0079]). Additionally, the nonwoven webs possess the desired compressibility to be regenerated after being wetted to preserve void volume capacity for successive insults ([0020] and [0098]). The sheath component generally provides an exposed surface on at least a portion of the binder fiber which will permit thermal bonding of the binder fiber to other fibers which may be the same or different from the binder fiber (e.g., the filler fiber) ([0049]). Suitably, the core component is a biodegradable aliphatic polyester having a higher melting temperature than the melting temperature of the sheath component ([0074]). For example, suitable biodegradable aliphatic polyesters which may be included in the core component include polyesteramides, modified polyethylene terephthalate, polylactic acid (PLA), terpolymers based on polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, polyalkylene carbonates (such as polyethylene carbonate), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), polyhydroxybutyrates (PHB), polyhydroxyvalerates (PHY), and polyhydroxybutyrate-hydroxyvalerate copolymers (PHBV) homopolymers and copolymers thereof, combinations thereof, and the like ([0074]). In one embodiment, the core component includes a polylactic acid polymer ([0075] and [0077]).
As applied above, Chakravarty teaches a cushioning material as claimed.
However, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the nonwoven webs of Chakravarty would be capable of functioning as a cushioning material because Chakravarty teaches that the nonwoven webs possess bulkiness, resiliency and compressibility, where compressibility is a measure of the nonwoven web's ability to return to its original condition following an applied pressure ([0020] and [0098]).
Regarding claims 3-6, Chakravarty teaches that the melting temperature of the sheath component may be at least about 20° C. ([0058]). The melting temperature of the sheath component may be from about 90° C. to about 180° C. (0057]). In one embodiment, the core component includes a polylactic acid polymer ([0075]). Examples of suitable polylactic acid polymers for use in the core component include NatureWorks ® PLA 6201D and 6202D, which have melting temperatures of about 164° C. and 160° C., respectively ([0075]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Chakravarty teaches that man-made fibers which may be utilized in forming the filler fiber include lower alkyl cellulose esters, such as cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB), cellulose acetate propionate (CAP), and triacetate cellulose, as well as wood pulp-based fibers such as rayon, Lyocell, and TenCell (commercially available from a variety of sources) ([0039]). Natural fibers such as plant- or animal-based fibers may also be utilized, such as ramie, kenaf, hemp, pineapple, bamboo, and the like, if suitable ([0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Chakravarty teaches that multicomponent fibers (the second fiber) can be cut into relatively short lengths, such as staple fibers which generally have lengths in the range of about 25 to about 50 millimeters and short-cut fibers which are even shorter and generally have lengths less than about 18 millimeters ([0047]). Chakravarty also teaches that the fibers formed from the “aforementioned polymers” (the first and second fibers) may be short staple length fibers such as are used in the airlaying and the bonding and carding processes or longer more continuous fibers as are formed in, for example, the spunbond process ([0081]). Typical fiber lengths will range between about 6 millimeters and about 74 millimeters ([0081]). The examiner notes that “about 6 millimeters” would overlap with the claimed range of 0.05 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less. In the alternative, the dimensions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty et al. (US 2007/0224903 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Feist et al. (US Patent No. 5,300,054).
Regarding claim 9, Chakravarty remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations, including wherein an average length of the first fiber is 0.05 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less.
In addition, or in the alternative, Feist teaches an absorbent article that comprises a liquid pervious topsheet, a liquid impervious backsheet, and an absorbent core positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (Abstract). The absorbent core comprises a multiple layer absorbent body comprising at least one rapid acquiring acquisition/distribution layer and at least one storage layer positioned subjacent each acquisition layer (Abstract). With reference to FIG. 2, Feist teaches that if the acquisition/distribution layers 46 are fibrous nonwoven webs of material, they can be comprised of fibers of any length (col. 12, lines 55-62). Preferably, however, the fibers used in the acquisition/distribution layers 46 are staple fibers (col. 12, lines 55-62). The terms "staple fibers", or "staple length fibers" refer to fibers that are between about 0.125 inches and about 3.0 inches (about 3 millimeters and about 7.5 centimeters) in length (col. 12, lines 55-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provide the staple fibers in the surge management layer of Chakravarty with lengths ranging from about 3 millimeters and about 7.5 centimeters because Feist teaches that staple fibers of these lengths are preferably used in layers that function to transport liquid exudates in absorbent articles (Feist: col. 12, lines 5- 12 and 55-62; also Chakravarty: [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-9 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ryan et al. (US 6,506,873 B1) teaches a fibrous material which includes a plurality of polylactide containing fibers (Abstract). The fibers may also be advantageously used as binder fibers by binding other fibers, such as in nonwovens, paper, yarns, and the like (col. 3, lines 43-45). The fibers can be used to provide nonwoven fabrics for various types of cushions or paddings (col. 3, lines 4-5, and col. 28, lines 1-33). The fibers may have a sheath-core configuration in which a polylactide of high enantiomeric purity can be used for a thermally stable, and low shrinkage core and polylactide of lower enantiomeric purity (amorphous) could be used to provide a thermally bondable sheath (col. 22, lines 34-52).
Drews et al. (US 10,590,577 B2) teaches a polylactic acid (PLA) spunbond nonwoven fabric (Abstract). In embodiments, the fabric comprises a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond (SMS) fabric in which the spunbond nonwoven layer may comprise bicomponent fibers having a PLA sheath and a PLA core, and a meltblown layer comprising PLA fibers (col. 12, lines 26-34). The fabric may be used in applications such as airline pillows (col. 15, lines 50-59). In the multilayered laminates, both the meltblown and spunbond fibers could have PLA polymer on the surface to insure optimum bonding (col. 16, lines 1-3).
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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789