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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 1, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 14-20 are 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.
With reference to claim 14, the scope of the claim is unclear.
The claim requires a disposal patch comprising a plurality of integral hook fasteners integrally formed from a portion of the outer cover nonwoven material and also are not joined with the outer cover nonwoven material. The scope of the claim is unclear because it is not clear how the integral hook fasteners are both integrally formed from a portion of the outer cover nonwoven material and also are not joined with the outer cover nonwoven material.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Samuelsson et al. (US 2008/0103470).
With reference to claim 14, Samuelsson et al. (hereinafter “Samuelsson”) discloses an absorbent article (10) comprising:
a garment-facing surface (figure 1 and annotated figure 6a below);
a wearer-facing surface (figure 1 and annotated figure 6a below);
a front waist region (figure 1);
a back waist region (figure 1);
a crotch region (32) positioned intermediate the front waist region and the back waist region (figure 1);
a first side edge (25);
a second side edge opposite the first side edge (opposite side 25);
a first end edge (see annotated figure 6a below);
a second end edge opposite the first end edge (see annotated figure 6a below);
a liquid permeable topsheet (14) forming a portion of the wearer-facing surface;
a liquid impermeable backsheet (16);
an absorbent core (12) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet, wherein the absorbent core comprises an absorbent material [0024];
an acquisition material positioned intermediate the absorbent core and the topsheet [0027];
an outer cover nonwoven material in a face to face relationship with the backsheet and forming a portion of the garment-facing surface [0023]; and
a disposal patch (20) comprising a plurality of hook fasteners (20) integrally formed from a portion of the outer cover material (22), wherein the plurality of hook fasteners are not joined (but are integrally formed) with the outer cover material [0054], wherein the disposal patch is positioned on the front waist region or the back waist region (figures 1 and 6a-6c), and wherein the disposal patch is configured to engage and hold a portion of the absorbent article as shown in figure 6c.
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 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Samuelsson et al. (US 2008/0103470).
With reference to claim 1, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article (10) comprising:
a garment-facing surface (figure 1 and annotated figure 6a below);
a wearer-facing surface (figure 1 and annotated figure 6a below);
a front waist region (figure 1);
a back waist region (figure 1);
a crotch region (32) positioned intermediate the front waist region and the back waist region (figure 1);
a first side edge (25);
a second side edge opposite the first side edge (opposite side 25);
a first end edge (see annotated figure 6a below);
a second end edge opposite the first end edge (see annotated figure 6a below);
a liquid permeable topsheet (14) forming a portion of the wearer-facing surface;
a liquid impermeable backsheet (16);
an absorbent core (12) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet, wherein the absorbent core comprises an absorbent material [0024];
an acquisition material positioned intermediate the absorbent core and the topsheet [0027];
an outer cover nonwoven material in a face to face relationship with the backsheet and forming a portion of the garment-facing surface [0023]; and
a disposal tape (18) comprising a first end region, a second end region, and a central region (figure 3b), wherein the disposal tape comprises a plurality of hook fasteners (20) in the second end region [0044],
wherein the disposal tape comprises a material (22), and
wherein the plurality of hook fasteners are integrally formed from the material of the disposal tape in the second end region of the disposal tape as set forth in [0054].
PNG
media_image1.png
411
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Samuelsson does not explicitly recite that the plurality of hook fasteners are integrally formed by reconstituting the material of the disposal tape.
Samuelsson does, however, explicitly recite that the plurality of hook fasteners are integrally formed from the material (22) of the disposal tape in the second end region of the disposal tape as set forth in [0054].
The manner by which the fasteners are integrally formed (i.e., by reconstituting the material) is considered as a product by process limitation which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
Additionally, [0037] of the instant application states:
[0037] As used herein, “integral” means configurations whereby an element is created from or created by an article component, or portions thereof, as opposed to being joined to the component. “Integrally formed” means an element is created from an underlying material or portion thereof, by for example molding, shaping and/or reconstituting the material.
In the broadest sense, “integrally formed” means an element is created from an underlying material or portion thereof which is identical to that disclosed by Samuelsson in [0054].
The inclusion of the exemplary claim language (i.e., by reconstitution) does not preclude the broader definition.
At the very least, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute one type of integral formation for another since the general concept of an integral formation has already been set forth by the prior art.
As to claim 2, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article wherein the disposal tape is joined to the garment-facing surface in the back waist region as set forth in [0020].
With reference to claim 3, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article wherein the absorbent article is a pant as set forth in [0002].
Regarding claim 4, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article wherein the disposal tape comprises a nonwoven material [0047] and an elastic material as set forth in [0058].
As to claim 8, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article wherein the first end region of the disposal tape is joined to a portion of the garment-facing surface as shown in the figures, see especially figure 6b.
Regarding claim 9, Samuelsson discloses an absorbent article wherein the second end region comprises a second plurality of hook fasteners, and wherein the second plurality of hook fasteners are integral with a material of the second end region of the disposal tape as set forth in [0044] and [0054].
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsson et al. (US 2008/0103470) and further in view of Schilpp et al. (US 2012/0101464).
With reference to claims 15 and 16, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Samuelsson and claims 15 and 16 is the provision that the absorbent article includes a second disposal patch.
Initially, it is noted that the duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, Schilpp et al. (hereinafter “Schilpp”) teaches an analogous absorbent article comprising a second disposal patch (opposite 202) comprising a second plurality of integral hook fasteners formed from a portion of the outer cover nonwoven material (see [0008] where Schilpp discloses that the article fastening component is integral with one of front or back side panels and [0069] where it is discloses that the side panels are integrally formed with the outer cover),
wherein each disposal patch is positioned in the back waist region (cl. 16) as shown in figure 3, and wherein the disposal patch is configured to engage and hold a portion of the absorbent article as set forth in [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Samuelsson with a second disposal patch as taught by Schilpp to allow for better manipulation of the article without compromising stretch as taught by Schilpp in [0008].
With reference to claim 17, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 17 is the explicit recitation that the disposal patch is positioned in the front waist region and the second disposal patch is positioned in the back waist region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to position the disposal patch in the front waist region and the second disposal patch is positioned in the back waist region as desired because Schilpp recognizes that the disposal patches may be positioned in either the front or back waist region as set forth in [0100-0101].
Additionally, the rearrangement of essential working parts of device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 18, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 18 is the provision that each disposal patch is positioned in the front waist region.
Schilpp teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein each of the disposal patch and the second disposal patch are positioned in the front waist region as set forth in [0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Samuelsson with a second disposal patch as taught by Schilpp to allow for better manipulation of the article without compromising stretch as taught by Schilpp in [0008].
With reference to claim 19, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 19 is the provision that the article includes first and second ears.
Schilpp teaches an analogous absorbent article comprising:
a first ear (134) extending from the back waist region and comprising a first joining portion (204); and
a second ear (34) extending from the front waist region and comprising a second joining portion (84);
wherein the first joining portion of the first ear is configured to be joined to the second joining portion of the second ear (figures 1-2) to form a refastenable side seam (66) as shown in figures 1-2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Samuelsson with the specific first and second ears as taught by Schilpp to allow for better manipulation of the article without compromising stretch as taught by Schilpp in [0008].
With reference to claim 20, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 14.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 20 is the explicit recitation that disposal patch is configured to engage and hold a portion of at least one of the first ear and the second ear.
Schilpp teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the disposal patch is configured to engage and hold a portion of at least one of the first ear and the second ear as shown in figure 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 Samuelsson with the specific first and second ears as taught by Schilpp to allow for better manipulation of the article without compromising stretch as taught by Schilpp in [0008].
Claims 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsson et al. (US 2008/0103470) and further in view of WO 99/17693.
With reference to claims 5 and 6, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Samuelsson and claims 5 and 6 is the provision that the elastic material is provided in a specific form (i.e., a film or a plurality of strands).
Initially, it is noted that Samuelsson provides the general teaching of an elastic material.
The inclusion of an alternate forms of elastic materials would reasonably fall within the scope of the disclosure because the general teaching of elastics has already been set forth.
Alternatively, WO 99/17693 (hereinafter “King”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a disposal tape having elastic film and/or a plurality of elastic strands (cl. 6) as set forth on page 14, lines 31 and on page 15, lines 36 to page 16, line 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the elastic of Samuelsson as film and/or a plurality of strands to allow for the desired amount of extension and stretch as taught by King on page 16, lines 32-34.
With reference to claim 10, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 10 is the provision that the
central region of the disposal tape is joined to a portion of the garment-facing surface.
King teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the central region of the disposal tape is joined to a portion of the garment-facing surface as set forth on page 14, line 31 to page 15, line 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to join the central region of Samuelsson to the garment facing surface in order to allow for a greater range of motion about the folded garment for disposal as taught by King on page 14, line 31 to page 15, line 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelsson et al. (US 2008/0103470) and further in view of WO 2020/029240.
With reference to claim 7, Samuelsson teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Samuelsson and claim 7 is the provision that the absorbent article includes a back belt positioned on the wearer-facing surface in the back waist region, wherein the back belt comprises a nonwoven material and an elastic material.
WO 2020/029240 (hereinafter “Yao”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a back belt (86) positioned on the wearer facing surface in the back waist region (figures 1A and 2), wherein the back belt comprises a nonwoven material and an elastic material as set forth on page 6, lines 13-14, page 7, line 15 to page 8, line 4 and on page 15, lines 2-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Samuelsson with a back belt in order to create fitment forces and to distribute the forces dynamically generated during wear as taught by Yao on page 7, lines 7-9.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilpp et al. (US 2012/0101464).
With reference to claims 11 and 13, Schilpp discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a garment-facing surface (figure 3);
a wearer-facing surface (figure 4);
a front waist region (22);
a back waist region (24);
a crotch region (26) positioned intermediate the front waist region and the back waist region [0066];
a first and second opposite side edges (36);
a first end edge (38);
a second end edge (39) opposite the first end edge (figure 3);
a liquid permeable topsheet (42) forming a portion of the wearer-facing surface;
a liquid impermeable backsheet (40);
an absorbent core (44) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet [0076], wherein the absorbent core comprises an absorbent material [0082];
an acquisition material positioned intermediate the absorbent core and the topsheet as set forth in [0058] through the incorporation of WO 00/37009 (hereinafter “Fletcher”) where Fletcher discloses acquisition materials as set forth on page 17, lines 9-14;
an outer cover nonwoven material in a face to face relationship with the backsheet and forming a portion of the garment-facing surface as also disclosed in Fletcher on page 13, line 39 to page 14, line 25 ;
a first ear (134) extending from the back waist region and comprising a first joining portion (204); and
a second ear (34) extending from the front waist region and comprising a second joining portion (84);
wherein the first joining portion of the first ear is configured to be joined to the second joining portion of the second ear (figures 1-2) to form a refastenable side seam (66);
the first ear or the second ear comprising a disposal tab (202) extending beyond the first or second joining portion (figures 1-2);
the disposal tab comprising a fastener region, the fastener region comprising a plurality of hook fasteners as set forth in [0097].
The difference between Schilpp and claims 11 and 13 is the explicit recitation that hook fasteners are integrally formed with a material of the disposal tab.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include integral hook fasteners because Schilpp recognizes that various attachment techniques including thermal and ultrasonic bonding [0102] that would reasonably result in an integral structure.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Schilpp to provide an integral structure because Schilpp discloses modifications to achieve the desired level of engagement as set forth in [0085].
The manner by which the fasteners are integrally formed (i.e., by reconstituting the material) is considered as a product by process limitation which does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
Additionally, [0037] of the instant application states:
[0037] As used herein, “integral” means configurations whereby an element is created from or created by an article component, or portions thereof, as opposed to being joined to the component. “Integrally formed” means an element is created from an underlying material or portion thereof, by for example molding, shaping and/or reconstituting the material.
In the broadest sense, “integrally formed” means an element is created from an underlying material or portion thereof which is identical to that disclosed by Samuelsson in [0054].
The inclusion of the exemplary claim language (i.e., by reconstitution) does not preclude the broader definition.
At the very least, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute one type of integral formation for another since the general concept of an integral formation has already been set forth by the prior art.
With respect to claim 12, Schilpp discloses an absorbent article comprising:
a third ear (opposite 134) extending from the back waist region and comprising a third joining portion (opposite 204);
a fourth ear (opposite 34) extending from the front waist region and comprising a fourth joining portion (opposite 84);
wherein the third joining portion of the third ear is configured to be joined to the fourth joining portion of the fourth ear to form a second refastenable side seam opposite the first refastenable side seam as shown in figures 1-2.
the third ear or the fourth ear comprising a second disposal tab (opposite 202) extending beyond the third or fourth joining portion (figures 1-2);
the second disposal tab comprising a second fastener region, the second fastener region comprising a plurality of hook fasteners as set forth in [0097].
The difference between Schilpp and claim 12 is the explicit recitation that hook fasteners are integrally formed with a material of the disposal tab.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include integral hook fasteners because Schilpp recognizes that various attachment techniques including thermal and ultrasonic bonding [0102] that would reasonably result in an integral structure.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Schilpp to provide an integral structure because Schilpp discloses modifications to achieve the desired level of engagement as set forth in [0085].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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
Prosecution Insights