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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/15/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-26 are pending in this application. Claims 24-26 are cancelled. Claims 1, 12, and 16-17 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejections of claim 17, the claim amendment of claim 1 overcomes the 112b rejection of record. The 112b rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the prior art of Mishima does not discuss an absorbent barrier that is a distinct element from the topsheet, backsheet, and the absorbent core of independent claims 1, 16, and 19, the argument is not persuasive. The claim limitations of claims 1, 16, and 19 does not require “an absorbent barrier” to be made of a separate or distinct material from the topsheet, backsheet, and absorbent core since there is no claim language that further limits the absorbent barrier to be made of a different and separate material from the topsheet, backsheet, and absorbent core.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the distinct and separate material of the absorbent barrier from the topsheet, backsheet, and absorbent core) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, the absorbent barrier is taught by the front zone 21a of the pleat 8 of Mishima (Paragraph 0019; Figure 1). The folding of the pleat of Mishima forms a structure that has edges where the fold line is located as well as where the material of the pleat ends (Figures 1-2). The securement of the pleat to the topsheet of Mishima is also seen in Figure 1 and 2, where the front zone 21a is attached to the topsheet 2 to hold the folded structure in place (Paragraph 0021) and where the front zone 21a overlaps the core 4 in the thickness direction due to the folded structure. The rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 19 are maintained because the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The newly added claims 24-26 will be addressed in the rejection below.
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(s) 1-2, 5, 6, 9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mishima (Publication No. US 2002/0077615 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mishima discloses an absorbent article (diaper 1; Figure 1; Abstract; Paragraph 0018) comprising:
a front waist region having front waist edge (front waist region 20 with a front waist edge; Paragraph 0018; Figure 1), a rear waist region having a rear waist edge (rear waist region 22 with a rear waist edge; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), and a crotch region extending longitudinally between the front waist region and the rear waist region (crotch region 21; Paragraph 0018);
a liquid pervious topsheet on a skin facing side of the absorbent article (topsheet 2; Paragraph 0020; Figure 1);
a liquid impervious backsheet on a garment facing side of the absorbent article (base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0020);
an absorbent core positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet in a thickness direction (panel 4 between fold lines 11 and are positioned between topsheet 2 and base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), the absorbent core having a front core edge a rear core edge (edge of panel 4 touching pleat 8 at fold line 10; Figure 1) and a pair of side core edges extending between the front core edge and the rear core edge (side edges 5; Paragraph 0017; Figure 1); and
an absorbent barrier (front zone 21a of pleat 8; Paragraph 0019; Figure 1), the absorbent barrier having a front barrier edge (edge 4a; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018) and a rear barrier edge (fold line 10; Paragraph 0020; Figure 1),
the front barrier edge positioned longitudinally forward the front core edge (edge 4a is longitudinally forward than fold line 11 of core; Figure 2),
the rear barrier edge positioned longitudinally rearward the front core edge (fold line 10 is longitudinal rearward the fold line 11 of core; Figure 2), and
the rear barrier edge positioned between the absorbent core and the topsheet in the thickness direction (edge of front zone 21a of pleat 8 at fold line 10 is between core and top sheet 2; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses wherein
the front barrier edge is positioned longitudinally between the front core edge and the front waist edge (edge 4a is between fold line 11 of core and front waist 20 edge; Figure 2), and
the rear barrier edge is positioned longitudinally between the front core edge and the rear core edge (edge of front zone 21a at fold line 10 is between the two fold lines 11 of core; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses wherein absorbent barrier directly abuts the absorbent core (front zone 21a directly abuts/touches the core at fold line 11; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses wherein the absorbent barrier is secured to the topsheet and the absorbent core is secured to the backsheet (front zone 21a is secured to topsheet 2 and core is secured to base sheet 3; Figure 2; Paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 9, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses further comprising a first longitudinally extending barrier leg cuff and a second longitudinally extending barrier leg cuff (leg cuffs 5 are longitudinally extending; Paragraph 0017; Figure 1), the first barrier leg cuff and the second barrier leg cuff laterally spaced apart by a third distance (leg cuffs 5 are spaced apart laterally at a third distance),
wherein the absorbent barrier has a lateral width (pleat 8 has a lateral width; Figure 1); and
the lateral width of the absorbent barrier is greater than the third distance (width of front zone 21a is greater than third distance – border of front zone 21a at edge 4a is wider than the lateral distance of leg cuffs 5; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses further comprising a second absorbent barrier (rear zone 21b; Figure 1-2), the second absorbent barrier having a front barrier edge (edge where fold line 10 of rear zone 21b; Figure 2) and a rear barrier edge (edge 4a of rear zone 21b; Figure 2),
the front barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier positioned longitudinally forward the rear core edge (edge of fold line 10 of rear zone 21b is longitudinally forward from the fold line 11 at the rear edge near the rear waist region 22 of the core; Figure 2),
the rear barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier positioned longitudinally rearward the rear core edge (edge 4a of rear zone 21b is longitudinally rearward the fold line 11 at the rear edge near the rear waist region 22 of the core; Figure 2), and
the front barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier positioned between the absorbent core and the topsheet in the thickness direction (edge of fold line 10 of rear zone 21b is between the core and topsheet 2; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 12. Mishima further discloses wherein
the front barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier is positioned longitudinally between the rear core edge and the front core edge (edge of fold line 10 of rear core edge is between the core edges that extend between fold lines 22; Figure 2), and
the rear barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier is positioned longitudinally between the rear core edge and the rear waist edge (edge 4a of rear zone 21b is between rear core edge and rear waist 22 edge; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 12. Mishima further discloses wherein the rear barrier edge of the absorbent barrier and the front barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier are longitudinally spaced apart (rear barrier edge of front zone 21a and front barrier edge of rear zone 21b are longitudinal spaced apart; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Mishima discloses an absorbent article (diaper 1; Figure 1; Abstract; Paragraph 0018) comprising:
a front waist region having front waist edge (front waist region 20 with a front waist edge; Paragraph 0018; Figure 1), a rear waist region having a rear waist edge (rear waist region 22 with a rear waist edge; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), and a crotch region extending longitudinally between the front waist region and the rear waist region (crotch region 21; Paragraph 0018);
a liquid pervious topsheet on a skin facing side of the absorbent article (topsheet 2; Paragraph 0020; Figure 1);
a liquid impervious backsheet on a garment facing side of the absorbent article (base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0020);
an absorbent core positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet in a thickness direction (panel 4 between fold lines 11 and are positioned between topsheet 2 and base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), the absorbent core having a front core edge, and a rear core edge (edge of panel 4 touching pleat 8 at fold line 10; Figure 1) and a pair of side core edges extending between the front core edge and the rear core edge (side edges 5; Paragraph 0017; Figure 1); and
an absorbent barrier (front zone 21a of pleat 8; Paragraph 0019; Figure 1), the absorbent barrier having a front barrier edge (edge 4a; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), and a rear barrier edge (fold line 10; Paragraph 0020; Figure 1),
the front barrier edge positioned longitudinally forward the rear core edge (edge of fold line 10 of rear zone 21b is longitudinally forward from the fold line 11 at the rear edge near the rear waist region 22 of the core; Figure 2), the rear barrier edge positioned longitudinally rearward the rear core edge (edge 4a of rear zone 21b is longitudinally rearward the fold line 11 at the rear edge near the rear waist region 22 of the core; Figure 2), and
the front barrier edge positioned between the absorbent core and the topsheet in the thickness direction (edge of fold line 10 of rear zone 21b is between the core and topsheet 2; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Mishima discloses a method of manufacturing an absorbent article (method of diaper 1; Figure 1; Abstract; Paragraph 0018)comprising:
providing a topsheet (topsheet 2; Paragraph 0020; Figure 1), a backsheet (base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0020), an absorbent core (panel 4 between fold lines 11 and are positioned between topsheet 2 and base sheet 3; Figure 1; Paragraph 0018), and an absorbent barrier (front zone 21a of pleat 8; Paragraph 0019; Figure 1);
securing the absorbent barrier to the topsheet (front zone 21a is secured to topsheet 2; Figure 2; Paragraph 0017);
securing the absorbent core to the backsheet (core is secured to base sheet 3; Figure 2; Paragraph 0017);
positioning the absorbent barrier so that a first portion of the absorbent barrier overlaps with the absorbent core in a thickness direction (first portion of front zone 21a near the fold line 10 overlaps with core in a thickness direction; Figure 2) and a second portion of the absorbent barrier does not overlap with the absorbent core in the thickness direction (second portion of a front zone 21a near the front waist 20 edge does not overlap with core in a thickness direction; Figure 2); and
securing the topsheet to the backsheet (Paragraph 0017 and 0022).
Regarding claim 20, Mishima discloses the method of claim 19. Mishima further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
providing an elastic waist band (elastic member 14 at front waist region 20; Figure 1-2); and
securing the elastic waistband to at least one of the topsheet and the backsheet (Paragraph 0024-0025).
Regarding claim 21, Mishima discloses the method of claim 19. Mishima further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
providing a second absorbent barrier (rear zone 21b; Figure 1-2);
securing the second absorbent barrier to the topsheet (rear zone 21b is secured to topsheet 2; Figure 2; Paragraph 0017); and
positioning the second absorbent barrier so that a first portion of the second absorbent barrier overlaps with the absorbent core in a thickness direction (first portion of rear zone 21b near the fold line 10 overlaps with core in a thickness direction; Figure 2) and a second portion of the second absorbent barrier does not overlap with the absorbent core in the thickness direction (second portion of a rear zone 21b near the rear waist 22 edge does not overlap with core in a thickness direction; Figure 2),
wherein the absorbent core has a first distal end and a second distal end and the absorbent barrier is positioned at the first distal end of the absorbent core and the second absorbent barrier is positioned at the second distal end of the absorbent core (front zone 21a is at first distal end/fold line 11 near front waist region 20 of absorbent core and a rear zone 21b is at a second distal end/fold line 11 near rear waist region 22; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 22, Mishima discloses the method of claim 19. Mishima further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
providing a second elastic waist band (elastic member 14 at rear waist region 22; Figure 1-2); and
securing the second elastic waist band to at least one of the topsheet and the backsheet (Paragraph 0024-0025);
wherein the absorbent article has a front waist region (front waist region 20; Figure 1-2) and a rear waist region (rear waist region 22; Figure 1-2) and the elastic waist band is secured to the at least one of the topsheet and the backsheet in the front waist region (elastic member 14 at front waist region 20; Figure 1-2; Paragraph 0024-0025) and the second elastic waist band is secured to the at least one of the topsheet and the backsheet in the rear waist region (elastic member 14 at rear waist region 22; Figure 1-2; Paragraph 0024-0025).
Regarding claim 23, Mishima discloses the method of claim 19. Mishima further discloses wherein the method further comprises directly abutting the absorbent barrier with the absorbent core (front zone 21a directly abuts/touches the core at fold line 11; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Mishima discloses the article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses the absorbent barrier further comprising a pair of side barrier edges extending between the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge (side edges of front zone 21a; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 25, Mishima discloses the article of claim 12. Mishima further discloses the second absorbent barrier further comprising a pair of side barrier edges (side edges of rear zone 21b; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 26, Mishima discloses the article of claim 16. Mishima further discloses the absorbent barrier further comprising a pair of side barrier edges (side edges of front zone 21a; Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (Publication No. US 2002/0077615 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima further discloses wherein
the front core edge is longitudinally spaced from the front waist edge by a first distance (fold 11 touching front waist region 20 is at a first distance from front waist 20 edge; Figure 2),
the rear core edge is longitudinally spaced from the rear waist edge by a second distance (fold 11 touching front waist region 20 is at a first distance from front waist 22 edge; Figure 2). Mishima does not expressly teach the first distance is greater than the second distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first distance to be greater than the second distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the first and the second distance and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the first distance being greater than the second distance claimed, since the applicant recites that the first distance “may be” greater than the second distance (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 4, Mishima teaches absorbent article of claim 3. Mishima does not expressly teach wherein the first distance is at least 20 mm greater than the second distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first distance is at least 20 mm greater than the second distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the first and the second distance and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the first distance being greater than the second distance claimed, since the applicant recites that the first distance “may be” and “optionally” greater than the second distance with the claimed range (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 7, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima does not expressly teach wherein the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge are longitudinally equally spaced from the front core edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge are longitudinally equally spaced from the front core edge since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the equal spacing of the front and rear barrier edge and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge claimed, since the applicant recites that the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge “may be” equally spaced (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 8, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima does not expressly teach wherein the front barrier edge is longitudinally spaced between 20mm and 30mm from front waist edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front barrier edge is longitudinally spaced between 20mm and 30mm from front waist edge since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the claimed spacing of the front barrier edge from the front waist edge and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the spacing of the front barrier edge from the front waist edge claimed, since the applicant recites that the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge “may be” and “optionally” equally spaced (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 14, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 12. Mishima does not expressly teach wherein the front barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier and the rear barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier are longitudinally equally spaced from the rear core edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge of the second absorbent barrier are longitudinally equally spaced from the front core edge since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the equal spacing of the front and rear barrier edge and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge claimed, since the applicant recites that the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge “may be” equally spaced (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 17, Mishima teaches the absorbent article of claim 16. Mishima further teaches wherein the rear barrier edge is positioned longitudinally between the rear core edge and the rear waist edge (edge 4a of rear zone 21b is between rear core edge and rear waist 22 edge; Figure 2), and the front barrier edge is positioned longitudinally between the front core edge and the rear core edge (edge of fold line 10 of rear zone 21b is between the core edges that extend between fold lines 22; Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 16. Mishima does not expressly teach wherein the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge are longitudinally equally spaced from the rear core edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front barrier edge and the rear barrier edge are longitudinally equally spaced from the rear core edge since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the absorbent article would not operate differently with the equal spacing of the front and rear barrier edge and the absorbent article of Mishima has similar components and structure resembling the claimed invention and is intended to collect bodily fluids from the user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge claimed, since the applicant recites that the spacing of the front and rear barrier edge “may be” equally spaced (specification of instant application; Paragraph 0022 and 0070).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (Publication No. US 2002/0077615 A1) in view of Coles et al. (Patent No. US 5,868,725 A).
Regarding claim 10, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima does not teach further comprising an acquisition layer positioned between the topsheet and the absorbent core in the thickness direction, the acquisition layer having a front acquisition edge and a rear acquisition edge, each of the front acquisition edge and the rear acquisition edge positioned longitudinally rearward rear barrier edge.
However, Coles teaches further comprising an acquisition layer positioned between the topsheet and the absorbent core in the thickness direction (acquisition layer 69 is between topsheet 24 and the core layer 64; Figure 1 and 16; Column 13, line 6 to Column 14, line 21), the acquisition layer having a front acquisition edge and a rear acquisition edge (acquisition layer 69 has a front edge and rear edge; Figure 16).
Mishima and Coles are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mishima to incorporate the teachings of Coles and have the acquisition layer of Coles between the absorbent core and topsheet of Mishima. This allows for the acquisition layer to absorb a sufficient volume of liquid (Coles; Column 13, line 6 to Column 14, line 21).
The combination of Mishima in view of Coles does not teach each of the front acquisition edge and the rear acquisition edge positioned longitudinally rearward rear barrier edge.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front and rear acquisition edge to be placed longitudinally rearward the rear barrier edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether located longitudinally forward or rearward, with the common function at either locations of collecting bodily fluid of the user, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (Publication No. US 2002/0077615 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0246047 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Mishima discloses the absorbent article of claim 1. Mishima does not teach wherein the absorbent barrier is formed from an airlaid material.
However, Ryu teaches wherein the absorbent core is formed from an airlaid material (Paragraph 0123). Furthermore, the absorbent barrier and core of Mishima is made of the same material (Paragraph 0038-0039).
Mishima and Ryu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mishima to incorporate the teachings of Ryu and have the absorbent core and absorbent material of Mishima be made of the airlaid material, as taught by Ryu. This allows for the absorption of the bodily fluid from the user and into the absorbent article (Ryu; Paragraph 0123).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights