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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2004-329657.
With reference to claim 1, JP 2004-329657 (hereinafter ‘657) discloses an
absorbent article (1) comprising:
a chassis (3) comprising a topsheet (9), a backsheet (10), and an absorbent core (11) positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet [0041],
the chassis further comprising a first end region and a second end region longitudinally separated from the first end region by a crotch region (30);
a first belt (2B) connected with the first end region of the chassis (figure 4);
a second belt (2A) connected with the second end region of the chassis (figure 4), wherein laterally opposing side edges of the second belt are connected with laterally opposing side edges of the first belt to form a waist opening and two leg openings (figure 3);
wherein at least one of the first belt and the second belt comprises:
a distal edge extending along a portion of the waist opening (figure 4);
a proximal edge extending along a portion of each of the leg openings (figure 4);
an inner sheet and an outer sheet, wherein the inner sheet and the outer sheet each comprise a wearer-facing surface and a garment-facing surface; and an elastic material positioned between and connected with the garment-facing surface of the inner sheet and the wearer-facing surface of the outer sheet [0032-0039]; and
two or more (cl. 19) fastening component (26a) comprising a base having first and second opposite surfaces (figure 2), and a plurality of hooks extending from the second surface [0055], wherein the first surface of the base is bonded with the backsheet (figure 2) and wherein the plurality of hooks are covered by the wearer-facing surface of the inner sheet, wherein the plurality of hooks are in direct contact with the wearer-facing surface of the inner sheet such that the hooks are configured to engage the wearer-facing surface of the inner sheet as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 3, ‘657 discloses an absorbent article wherein the plurality of hooks are configured to refastenably engage the wearer-facing surface of the inner sheet as set forth in [0055] where ‘657 discloses that the refastenable attaching means includes hook and loop.
Regarding claim 4, ‘657 discloses an absorbent article wherein the fastening component is positioned adjacent to the proximal edge of at least one of the first belt and the second belt and shown in figures 1 and 3.
As to claim 8, ‘657 discloses an absorbent article wherein the absorbent article comprises a first waist region, a second waist region, and a crotch region positioned intermediate the first waist region and the second waist region, wherein the fastening component is positioned in the second waist region as shown in figure 4.
Regarding claim 18, ‘657 discloses an absorbent article wherein the absorbent article comprises a garment-facing surface (10) and a wearer-facing surface, wherein the fastening component (26A) is visible from the garment-facing surface as shown in figure 2.
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 5-6, 13-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-329657 and further in view of WO 2020/029240.
With reference to claim 5, ‘657 teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 5 is the provision that the base comprises as specific material.
WO 2020/029240 (hereinafter “Yao”) teaches an analogous absorbent article
wherein the base comprises a base material selected from the group consisting of a woven material, a nonwoven material, a plastic material, a polymeric film, a nylon, a composite material, an adhesive, and combinations thereof as set forth on page 10, lines 13-16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of ‘657 with the base as taught by Yao in order to provide a durable structure as taught by Yao on page 10, lines 13-16.
With reference to claim 6, ‘657 modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
The difference between ‘657 modified and claim 6 is the provision that the plurality of hooks are extrusion bonded with the base material.
Yao teaches the plurality of hooks bonded with the base material as shown in figures 3A-3C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to extrusion bond the plurality of hooks with the base material since it has been held that the substitution of one type of bonding method for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 13, ‘657 teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 13 is the provision that the backsheet is a laminate.
Yao discloses an absorbent article wherein the backsheet is a laminate comprising a film and a nonwoven as set forth on page 6, lines 13-14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the backsheet of ‘657 with the laminate as taught by Yao in order to provide the article with a breathable backsheet that retains liquid but allows vapor to escape.
With reference to claims 14-16, ‘657 modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
The difference between ‘657 modified and claims 14-16 is the provision that the fastening component is bonded with specific elements of the backsheet.
Yao discloses that that the component is bonded with the backsheet as shown in figures 3B and 4A-4B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to bond the fastening component to the desired area of the backsheet since Yao has provided the general teaching of bonding the fastening component to the backsheet and Yao also discloses that the backsheet may include a film, a nonwoven or both as set forth on page 6, lines 10-14 and on page 10, lines 20-32.
With reference to claim 17, ‘657 teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 17 is the provision that the article includes indicia.
Yao teaches an absorbent article wherein at least one of the first belt, second belt, or backsheet comprises one or more design elements adapted to indicate the location or function of the fastening component, the one or more design elements comprising at least one of insignia, letters, words, graphics, logos, colors, fonts, shapes, or combinations thereof as set forth on page 14, lines 5-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of ‘657 with indicia as taught by Yao in order to provide the article with information for the consumer as taught by Yao on page 14, lines 5-10.
As to claim 23, see the rejection of claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate color into the disclosed indicia in order to improve visibility of the indicia.
Claims 7, 9-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-329657.
With reference to claim 7, ‘657 discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 7 is the provision that the laterally opposing side edges of the second belt are refastenably connected with laterally opposing side edges of the first belt.
‘657 discloses that laterally opposing side edges of the first and second belt are connected with seams as shown in figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the laterally opposing side edges of ‘657 with a refastenable connection in order to provide a connection that can be checked by the caregiver and/or refastened or adjusted to the wearer as needed to enhance comfort and prevent undesirable leakage.
With reference to claims 9-10, ‘657 discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claims 9-10 is the provision that the fastening component has specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the fastening member as desired since it has been held that a mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 11 is the explicit recitation that the plurality of hooks are integrally formed from the backsheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide integral hooks since it has been held that the process of making two pieces integral that were previously separable is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The hooks of ‘657 are taught as secured to the backsheet thus being considered as integral in a functional sense.
As to claim 21, see the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 21 is the provision that the fastening component is has specific positioning.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the placement of the hooks as desired in order to provide a product capable of supporting difference sizes, shapes and/or expected results.
With reference to claim 22, ‘657 discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between ‘657 and claim 22 is the provision that the hooks have a specific basis weight and height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the basis weight and/or height of the hooks as desired since it has been held that a mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the modification of the basis weight is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to provide the desired product performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-11, 13-19 and 21-23 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