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 filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ashraf does not disclose the first region of the microzone-defined area having a relatively greater intensive property than the second region, it is noted that Ashraf discloses in paragraph [0055] that Ashraf teaches that a difference in intensive property of basis weight between first and second regions of three-dimensional features provides for beneficial aesthetic and functional properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to make the basis weight of the first region of the embodiment shown in figure 11 of Ashraf greater than the basis weight of the second region to provide beneficial aesthetic and functional properties.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention directly addressed and overcomes a long-standing problem in the art, it is noted that applicant’s arguments do not replace evidence (see MPEP 716.01(c)(II)). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are not supported by a showing of the existence of a long-standing problem and objective evidence of nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashraf et al. (2017/0027774) in view of O’Brien Stickney et al. (2017/0009401).
With respect to claim 1, Ashraf discloses nonwoven fabric for an absorbent article, as shown in figure 28, comprising a surface, as shown in figure 29. A first zone 110 comprise a first plurality of three-dimensional features, as shown in figure 21. A second zone 120 comprises a second plurality of three-dimensional features, as shown in figure 21, which are different from the first plurality of three-dimensional features, as shown in figure 20. The first zone 110 and second zone 120 do not overlap, as shown in figure 21. The nonwoven fabric comprises a bond skinning effect produced by a film skin of thermally bonded fibers (i.e. melt bonded fibers) on the surface the nonwoven fabric, as disclosed in paragraph [0087] and shown in figure 9. The amount of thermal bonding differs between a first region 80 and a second region 90, as disclosed in paragraph [0093] and shown in figure 11. At least a portion of the first and second plurality of three-dimensional features have a curvilinear shape in at least one direction, as shown in figure 20. A portion of an outer perimeter of the first zone 110 and the second zone 120 has a curvilinear shape, as shown in figure 21. With the portion of the surface, the first plurality of three-dimensional features is fully capable of defining a plurality of microzones, each microzone comprising the first region and the second region, and a total area of the first region within the portion is from about 5% to about 25% of a total area of the portion, with a remaining area of the portion being a total area of the second region.
Ashraf discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first region having a relatively greater first intensive property than the second region wherein the first intensive property is thickness or basis weight, a portion of the surface comprising the pattern of three-dimensional features having a TS7 value in the range of 1-4.5 dB V2 rms and a TS750 value in the range of 6-30 B V2 rms and a D value in the range of about 1-10 mm/N, according to the Emtec test. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first region of Ashraf with a Time to Wick value of about 10-60 seconds and the second region with a Time to Wick region of about 0.5-10 seconds to achieve the predictable result of a topsheet that has fast wicking times to allow body exudates to quickly pass through to the absorbent core.
Ashraf discloses in paragraph [0055] that the first and second regions 20 and 22 differ in a first intensity property wherein the first intensive property is basis weight to provide beneficial aesthetic and functional properties. The first and second regions 20 and 22 as shown in figure 2 are structurally equivalent to the first and second regions 80 and 90 as shown in figure 11. However, Ashraf does not explicitly disclose that the first region has a relatively greater first intensive property than the second region wherein the intensive property is basis weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the basis weight of the first region of Ashraf greater than the thickness of the second region of Ashraf to provide beneficial aesthetic and functional properties, and to achieve the predictable result of varying the intensive properties to produce distinguishable differences between the regions.
O’Brien discloses that a suitable range of a TS7 value for a nonwoven fabric is less than 4 B V2 rms, and a suitable range of a TS750 value is greater than 6 B V2 rms, according to the Emtec test, as disclosed in paragraph [0068]. These TS7 and TS750 values provide the nonwoven with the softness desired by consumers, as disclosed in paragraphs [0006-0010]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearer-facing surface comprising the pattern of three-dimensional features of the nonwoven fabric of Ashraf with a TS7 value in the range of 1-4 dB V2 rms and a TS750 value in the range of 6-30 B V2 rms, according to the Emtec test, as taught by O’Brien, to provide the portion of the nonwoven that contacts a wearer with the softness desired by consumers to achieve a more comfortable material against the skin of the wearer. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wearer-facing surface of Ashraf with a D-value of 1-10 mm/N to achieve the predictable result of a nonwoven having a soft feel to provide improved comfort against the skin of a wearer.
With respect to claim 2, Ashraf discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the wearer-facing surface having a D-value of 3-8 mm/N. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wearer-facing surface of Ashraf with a D-value of 3-8 mm/N to achieve the predictable result of a nonwoven having a soft feel to provide improved comfort against the skin of a wearer.
With respect to claim 3, Ashraf discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the wearer-facing surface having a D-value of 2-6 mm/N. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the wearer-facing surface of Ashraf with a D-value of 2-6 mm/N to achieve the predictable result of a nonwoven having a soft feel to provide improved comfort against the skin of a wearer.
With respect to claims 4-5, Ashraf discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with a portion of the surface comprising having a TS750 value in the range of 6-20, or 6-15, B V2 rms, according to the Emtec test. O’Brien discloses that a suitable range of a a TS750 value is greater than 6 B V2 rms, according to the Emtec test, as disclosed in paragraph [0068]. The TS750 value provides the nonwoven with the softness desired by consumers, as disclosed in paragraphs [0006-0010]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wearer-facing surface comprising the pattern of three-dimensional features of the nonwoven fabric of Ashraf with a TS750 value in the range of 6-15 B V2 rms, according to the Emtec test, as taught by O’Brien, to provide the portion of the nonwoven that contacts a wearer with the softness desired by consumers to achieve a more comfortable material against the skin of the wearer.
With respect to claim 6, Ashraf discloses in paragraph [0061] that the basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is 30 gsm.
With respect to claim 7, Ashraf discloses in paragraph [0060] that the nonwoven fabric comprises bicomponent fibers.
With respect to claim 8, Ashraf discloses an absorbent article comprising the nonwoven fabric, as shown in figure 28.
With respect to claims 9-10, the nonwoven fabric forms a portion of the wearer-facing topsheet of the article, as shown in figure 29.
With respect to claim 11, the absorbent article is a taped diaper, as shown in figure 28.
With respect to claims 12-13, Ashraf discloses a package comprising a plurality of the absorbent articles having an In-Bag Stack Height from 10-110 mm, or less than 110 mm, according to the In Back Stack Height Test, as disclosed in paragraph [0125].
With respect to claim 14, The second plurality of three-dimensional features of Ashraf defines first and second regions having a first region 92 and a second region 94, as shown in figure 18. The first and second regions differ in an intensity property as disclosed in paragraph [0107].
With respect to claim 15, Ashraf discloses in paragraph [0117] that the intensive property is caliper (i.e. thickness). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the first region of Ashraf greater than the thickness of the second region of Ashraf to achieve the predictable result of varying the intensive properties to produce distinguishable differences between the regions.
With respect to claim 16, the intensity property is basis weight, as disclosed in paragraph [0107].
With respect to claim 17, the intensity property is density, as disclosed in paragraph [0107].
With respect to claim 20, the nonwoven fabric of Ashraf is hot-air through bonded, as disclosed in paragraph [0092].
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 LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights