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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 7-14, 19, 20, 22-24, and 27-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-14, 19-24, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is obviated by the amendment filed 07/26/2026.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7014, 19-22, 24, and 27-29 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting is obviated with the filing of a terminal disclaimer 07/26/2026.
Claim 21 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 7-14, 19, 20, 22-24, and 27-29 are pending.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a spunbond and/or meltblown layer (para. 0017) or a spunbond and/or carded nonwoven layer comprising synthetic fibers (para. 0020) as an acquisition distribution system (present application US Patent Publication 2024/0041671), does not reasonably provide enablement for a multi-layered acquisition distribution system where a nonwoven is selected from the group consisting of: SM, SMS, SMMS, and combinations thereof (as claimed in claim 2) where the acquisition distribution system does not comprise a meltblown layer as claimed in independent claim 1. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicant defines the term “spunbond meltblown spunbond” (SMS) nonwoven fabric as it refers to a multi-layer composite sheet comprising a web of meltblown fibers sandwiched between and bonded to two spunbond layers. Thus, a SM, SMS, SMMS nonwoven requires a meltblown layer (US Patent Publication 2024/0041671; para. 0143).
Case law holds that applicant's specification must be "commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]" Ex parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1989) otherwise undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant's invention. Although the statute itself does not use the phrase "undue experimentation", it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation as stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and in In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Specifically, in In re Wands the Court set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation would be involved in making and/or using the claimed invention. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(a) the breadth of the claims;
(b) the nature of the invention;
(c) the state of the prior art;
(d) the level of one of ordinary skill;
(e) the level of predictability in the art;
(f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(g) the existence of working examples; and
(h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Based on the amount of direction provided by the inventor (Wands Factor F) and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (Wands Factor D), one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised on how to make the invention as no embodiments with an SM, SMS, SMMS are disclosed in the current specification that do not include a meltblown layer.
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, 2, 7, 10-13, 19, 20, 22-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Richards WO95/10996
As to claim 1, Bianchi teaches an absorbent article 20 (Bianchi Fig. 9) comprising an absorbent core 28 sandwiched between a liquid permeable topsheet 24 and a liquid impermeable backsheet 25 (Bianchi para. 0082), and an acquisition distribution system 54 positioned between the topsheet 24 and the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi Figs. 9 and 10; para. 0081),
wherein the absorbent core 28 comprises absorbent material 60 selected from the group consisting of cellulose fibers, superabsorbent polymers and combinations thereof (Bianchi Fig. 2; para. 0008, 0046, 0048),
wherein the absorbent material 60 is contained within at least one core wrap substrate 16 enclosing the absorbent material 60 (para. 0040-0042), and
wherein a top layer 16 of the core wrap is adhered to a bottom layer 16’ of the core wrap to form one or more channels 26a, 26b substantially free of the absorbent material (Bianchi Fig. 2; para. 0043, 0057-0059),
wherein the channels 26 have a length extending along a longitudinal axis 80 and the absorbent core 28 has a length extending along the longitudinal axis 80 and
wherein the length of the channels 26 is from 10% to 95% of the length of the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0060) and,
wherein the channels 26 each follow a substantially continuous path (Bianchi para. 0057-058; Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 9),
characterized in that the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises at least one spunbond layer and/or at least one carded nonwoven layer (Bianchi para. 0098-0099), and
wherein the acquisition distribution system 54 is positioned between the absorbent core 28 and the topsheet 24 such that at least a substantial portion of the spunbond and/or carded nonwoven layer is in direct contact with the absorbent core 28 and the topsheet 24 – where Bianchi teaches the core wrap 16 is part of the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi para. 0008, 0040), and the acquisition distribution system 54 is positioned at a body-facing side of the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi para. 0095), therefore, the acquisition distribution system 54 is in direct contact with the absorbent core, and
Bianchi teaches the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises synthetic fibers (Bianchi para. 0098)0098). However, Bianchi does not specifically teach the synthetic fibers are comprised at a level of greater than 80%wt by weight of the acquisition distribution layer. In paragraph 0095, Bianchi cites Richards WO95/10966 as prior art disclosing an acquisition distribution system. Richards teaches a thermally bonded secondary topsheet (acquisition layer) are formed from a mixture of hydrophilic cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material (page 12, lines 23-35), plus any optional components such as hydrophilic synthetic fibers. Richards teaches the thermoplastic material is typically evenly distributed throughout the web or matrix of fibers in each layer, i.e. the composition of each fibrous layer is substantially homogeneous. Richards teaches the mixture comprises from about 10 to about 95% cellulosic fibers and from about 5 to about 90% thermoplastic material (Richards page 15, lines 16-21). Richards teaches the particular amount of cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material within the mixture for each layer depends upon a number of factors, including the degree of thermal bonding desired. Richards teaches thermoplastic fibers are particularly preferred because of their ability to form numerous interfiber bond sites (Richards page 12, lines 11-14). Richards teaches bonding at these fiber intersections increases the overall compressive modulus and strength of the resulting thermally bonded matrix (Richards page 11, lines 32-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide Bianchi with the thermoplastic material of Richards since both are from the same field of endeavor and provide the same solution of providing an acquisition layer in an absorbent article. Additionally, Richards discloses the general condition of a mixture of cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material to form an acquisition layer with a range of the materials having values in the claimed range. Since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233.
Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution layer 54 has a basis weight of from to 15 to 40 g/m² (Bianchi para. 0099).
As to claim 2, Bianchi/Richards teaches the acquisition distribution system 54 is a nonwoven selected from the group consisting of: SM, SMS, SMMS, and combinations thereof (Bianchi para. 0098).
As to claim 7, Bianchi/Richards does not specifically teach at least one of the channels 26 extends both along the longitudinal axis 80’ and along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 90’ (Bianchi Fig. 9) such that a shape is formed that is substantially U-shaped. However, Bianchi does teach channels 26 and 26' may be joined together, for example at their front or back extremities (Bianchi para. 0062), which would form a general U-shape as broadly as claimed.
As to claim 10, Bianchi/Richards do not teach the relative porosity of acquisition distribution system. However, Bianchi/Richards teaches the acquisition distribution layer constructed from the claimed materials as discussed in claims 1 and 2 above. Therefore, since the prior art has met the structural requirements of the claim, Bianchi/Richards obviously includes an acquisition distribution layer capable of achieving the claimed relative porosity. It is further noted: "where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As to claim 11, Bianchi/Richards teaches the second end of at least one channel 26,26a is at a distance from the first end of at least one other channel 26,26b' taken along the longitudinal axis 80,80’ (Bianchi Figures 1 and 9), such that at least two spaced apart channels 26,26,26a,26b' are formed along the longitudinal axis 80,80’ that are offset from a transverse line 90,90’ running perpendicular from the longitudinal axis 80,80’ (Bianchi Figures 1 and 9). Bianchi teaches the channels are spaced apart (Bianchi Figures 1, 5, 7, and 9; paragraph 00062). Bianchi does not specifically teach the channels 26, 26' have a distance taken along the longitudinal axis 80 that is less than 18 mm. Bianchi teaches the smallest spacing distance may be at least 5mm, or at least 10mm, or at least 16 mm, for example (Bianchi paragraph 0062). Bianchi also teaches the channels may be parallel to the longitudinal axis; lateral axis, or curved (Bianchi paragraph 0061). At least in the instance of longitudinally oriented parallel channels, the spaced apart distance has values in the claimed range of less than 18 mm.
As to claim 12, Bianchi/Richards teach the top layer 16 of the core wrap is adhered to a bottom layer 16' of the core wrap along the channels 26 (Bianchi Figures 10 and 11; para. 0057-0058), at a plurality of discrete joining areas 27 (Bianchi para. 0015), wherein the joining areas form a pattern consisting of elongated oblique members 26,26',26a,26b (Bianchi Figures 1, 7, and 9) having an angle a from the longitudinal axis 80 wherein the angle α is greater than 0° and less than 90° (Bianchi paragraph 0061).
As to claim 13, Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution system 54 is adhered to the absorbent core 28 at one or more joining zones that are positioned outboard and/or inboard of the channels 26 such that the joining zones do not substantially overlap the channels 26 - where Bianchi teaches the acquisition distribution system 54 may comprise channel areas free of acquisition/distribution materials (para. 0017) and since the part of the acquisition distribution system 54 is superposed over the channel do not contain acquisition material, the remaining portions of the acquisition distribution system would not substantially overlap the channels 26, 26’.
As to claim 19, Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a basis weight of from 18 to 35 g/m² - where Bianchi teaches the carded web has a basis weight from about 15 gsm to about 120 gsm (Bianchi para. 0099), which has values in the claimed range.
As to claim 20, Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a basis weight of from 20 to 30 g/m² - where Bianchi teaches the carded web has a basis weight from about 15 gsm to about 120 gsm (Bianchi para. 0099), which has values in the claimed range.
As to claim 22, Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises at least one spunbond layer (Bianchi para. 0098).
As to claim 23, Bianchi/Richards teach the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises at least one carded nonwoven layer (Bianchi para. 098-0099).
As to claim 24, Bianchi/Richards teach the core 28 comprises at least four channels (Bianchi para. 0059). Bianchi teaches shorter channel-forming areas substantially free of absorbent material may for example be present in the back region or the front region of the core as illustrated for example in the Figures of [Rosati et al.] WO 2012/170778 (Bianchi para. 0059). Rosati teaches at least four channels as shown in Fig. 3B; and wherein the distance between second and first ends of a first pair of longitudinally displaced channels is different from the distance between second and first ends of a second pair of longitudinally displaced channels wherein the first pair of channels run substantially parallel to the second pair of channels (Rosati Fig. 3B).
As to claim 28, Bianchi/Richards teach an absorbent article according to Claim 1 wherein the acquisition distribution system 54 is the top layer of the core wrap – where Bianchi teaches the core wrap 16 is part of the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi para. 0008, 0040), and the acquisition distribution system 54 is positioned directly under the topsheet and an acquisition layer disposed between the distribution layer and the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0095), therefore, the acquisition distribution system 54 is in direct contact with the absorbent core 28.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Richards WO95/10996 and further in view of Schneider USPN 7786341.
Bianchi/Richards teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Bianchi/Richards do not teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a specific volume of less than 11.4 cm³/g. Bianchi teaches in paragraph 0098, Schneider et al. USPN 7786341 discloses exemplary upper acquisition layers. Schneider teaches a liquid acquisition member having a void volume of 7-11 cm3/g having values in the claimed range of less than 11.4 cm3/g, for the benefit of providing enough void volume for efficient liquid acquisition and transport (Schneider col. 8, line 58 through col. 9, line 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the acquisition distribution system of Bianchi/Richards with the void volume taught in Schneider for the benefits Schneider teaches.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Richards WO95/10996 and further in view of Polat et al. US Patent Application Publication 2007/0232178. Bianchi/Richards do not teach the mean flow pore size of the acquisition distribution system. Polat teaches the acquisition layer, distribution layer, storage layer, core cover, and dusting layer may generally be known as wrap sheets. Polat teaches nonwoven wrap sheet may be fibrous structures which may have the primary functionality of containing materials of the absorbent core therein without detrimentally impacting on the fluid handling properties of the core, even for subsequent gusher. Polat teaches the containment functionality may be achieved by fibrous structures having small mean pore sizes, such as less than 30 µm (Polat para. 0062), which has a value within the claimed range of from 15 µm to 200 µm. Polat teaches the general concept of pore size affecting the liquid distribution and containment functions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to determine through routine experimentation the mean flow pore size needed for a desired flow rate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Richards WO95/10996 and further in view of Miao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0133071. Bianchi/Richards teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Bianchi/Richards do not teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a thickness of less than 0.5mm. Miao teaches an absorbent article 10 having a topsheet 16, surge layers (acquisition layers) 20A, 20B, absorbent layers 20C, 20D, and backsheet layer 18 (Fig. 4; paras. 0082-0085). Miao teaches the article also includes a compressible fluid management layer 22 and the term ‘fluid management’ refers to a layer within an absorbent article which can assist in the channeling or direction of body exudate to a layer beneath it from a layer above it (Miao para. 0057). Miao teaches various thicknesses for the article including the compressible fluid management layer. Miao specifically teaches a height H3, the height of the sanitary pad 10 in the Z direction which includes the topsheet layer 16, the surge, absorbent layers 20 and the backsheet layer 18 where the height H3 is between about 0.5 mm and 15mm (Miao para. 0098). Thus, if all of the aforementioned layers of H3 have a combined height of 0.5 mm, it is reasonable to conclude the surge layers 20A, 20B would have a height/thickness less than 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide Bianchi/Richards with an acquisition distribution system having a thickness of less than 0.5mm since Miao teaches surge layers (acquisition system) having about the same thickness and the prior art references are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of providing an acquisition system for an absorbent article.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Richards WO95/10996 and further in view of Fahrenkrug et al. USPN 5376198. Bianchi/Richards teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Bianchi/Richards do not teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a wetness retention factor of less than 11 as measured according to the Wetness retention factor test method herein. than 11. Bianchi teaches an absorbent article having an acquisition distribution system that functions to quickly acquire fluids and distribute (transfer) it to the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0095). Fahrenkrug teaches a transfer layer comprising synthetic fibers similar to the Bianchi acquisition/distribution system 54 (Fahrenkrug col. 8, line 9-27). Fahrenkrug further teaches the transfer layer preferably has low rewet properties and improved wet resiliency (col. 7, line 65-67). Fahrenkrug teaches a method of decreasing rewet properties is by distancing the liner (topsheet) from the absorbent, and a method of increasing wet resiliency is the use of synthetic fibers (col. 7, line 65 through col. 8, line 2). Although Fahrenkrug does not teach the claimed wetness retention faction, Fahrenkrug does teach the acquisition (transfer) layer does have low rewet, which correlates with a low wetness retention factor. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the acquisition distribution system of Bianchi/Richards with a wet retention factor in the claimed range since Bianchi/Richards/Fahrenkrug comprise acquisition systems with primarily synthetic fibers and are used in the same environment to solve the same problem of low rewet.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi et al. EP 3238676 in view of Fahrenkrug et al. USPN 5376198 and further in view of Richards WO95/10996.
As to claim 29, Bianchi teaches an absorbent article 20 (Bianchi Fig. 9) comprising an absorbent core 28 sandwiched between a liquid permeable topsheet 24 and a liquid impermeable backsheet 25 (Bianchi para. 0082), and an acquisition distribution system 54 positioned between the topsheet 24 and the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi Figs. 9 and 10; para. 0081),
wherein the absorbent core 28 comprises absorbent material 60 selected from the group consisting of cellulose fibers, superabsorbent polymers and combinations thereof (Bianchi Fig. 2; para. 0008, 0046, 0048),
wherein the absorbent material 60 is contained within at least one core wrap substrate 16 enclosing the absorbent material 60 (para. 0040-0042), and
wherein a top layer 16 of the core wrap is adhered to a bottom layer 16’ of the core wrap to form one or more channels 26a, 26b substantially free of the absorbent material (Bianchi Fig. 2; para. 0043, 0057-0059), wherein the channels 26 have a length extending along a longitudinal axis 80 and the absorbent core 28 has a length extending along the longitudinal axis 80 and wherein the length of the channels 26 is from 10% to 95% of the length of the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0060) and,
wherein the channels 26 each follow a substantially continuous path (Bianchi para. 0057-058; Figs. 1, 5, 7, and 9),
characterized in that the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises at least one spunbond layer and/or at least one carded nonwoven layer (Bianchi para. 0098-0099), and
wherein the acquisition distribution system 54 is the top layer of the core wrap and is positioned between the absorbent core 28 and the topsheet 24 such that at least a substantial portion of the spunbond and/or carded nonwoven layer is in direct contact with the absorbent core 28 and the topsheet 24 – where Bianchi teaches the core wrap 16 is part of the absorbent core 28 (Bianchi para. 0008, 0040), and the acquisition distribution system 54 is positioned directly under the topsheet and an acquisition layer disposed between the distribution layer and the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0095), therefore, the acquisition distribution system 54 is in direct contact with the absorbent core 28 and the topsheet.
Bianchi does not teach the acquisition distribution system 54 has a wetness retention factor of less than 11 as measured according to the Wetness retention factor test method herein. than 11. Bianchi teaches an absorbent article having an acquisition distribution system that functions to quickly acquire fluids and distribute (transfer) it to the absorbent core (Bianchi para. 0095). Fahrenkrug teaches a transfer layer comprising synthetic fibers similar to the Bianchi acquisition/distribution system 54 (Fahrenkrug col. 8, line 9-27). Fahrenkrug further teaches the transfer layer preferably has low rewet properties and improved wet resiliency (col. 7, line 65-67). Fahrenkrug teaches a method of decreasing rewet properties is by distancing the liner (topsheet) from the absorbent, and a method of increasing wet resiliency is the use of synthetic fibers (col. 7, line 65 through col. 8, line 2). Although Fahrenkrug does not teach the claimed wetness retention faction, Fahrenkrug does teach the acquisition (transfer) layer does have low rewet, which correlates with a low wetness retention factor. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the acquisition distribution system of Bianchi with a wet retention factor in the claimed range since Bianchi and Fahrenkrug both comprise acquisition systems with primarily synthetic fibers and are used in the same environment to solve the same problem of low rewet.
Bianchi/Fahrenkrug teach the acquisition distribution system 54 comprises synthetic fibers (Bianchi para. 0098). However, Bianchi/Fahrenkrug does not specifically teach the synthetic fibers are comprised at a level of greater than 80%wt by weight of the acquisition distribution layer. In paragraph 0095, Bianchi cites Richards WO95/10966 as prior art disclosing an acquisition distribution system. Richards teaches a thermally bonded secondary topsheet (acquisition layer) are formed from a mixture of hydrophilic cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material (page 12, lines 23-35), plus any optional components such as hydrophilic synthetic fibers. Richards teaches the thermoplastic material is typically evenly distributed throughout the web or matrix of fibers in each layer, i.e. the composition of each fibrous layer is substantially homogeneous. Richards teaches the mixture comprises from about 10 to about 95% cellulosic fibers and from about 5 to about 90% thermoplastic material (Richards page 15, lines 16-21). Richards teaches the particular amount of cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material within the mixture for each layer depends upon a number of factors, including the degree of thermal bonding desired. Richards teaches thermoplastic fibers are particularly preferred because of their ability to form numerous interfiber bond sites (Richards page 12, lines 11-14). Richards teaches bonding at these fiber intersections increases the overall compressive modulus and strength of the resulting thermally bonded matrix (Richards page 11, lines 32-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide Bianchi with the thermoplastic material of Richards since both are from the same field of endeavor and provide the same solution of providing an acquisition layer in an absorbent article. Additionally, Richards discloses the general condition of a mixture of cellulosic fibers and thermoplastic material to form an acquisition layer with a range of the materials having values in the claimed range. Since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233.
Bianchi/Fahrenkrug/Richards teach the acquisition distribution layer 54 has a basis weight of from to 15 to 40 g/m² (Bianchi para. 0099).
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 JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights