DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 6, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanio et al. (US 2004/0249355) and further in view of WO 2016/149601.
With reference to claim 1, Tanio et al. (hereinafter “Tanio”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (3);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (5);
an absorbent core (6) disposed at least partially between the topsheet and the backsheet [0049]; and
a pair of barrier leg cuffs (30), each barrier leg cuff formed from a single web of material [0061] and comprising a backfolded inner cuff comprising:
an inner folded edge (see annotated figure 8),
a backfold folded edge separated from the inner folded edge by an inner face extending between the inner folded edge and the backfold folded edge (see annotated figure 8), wherein the inner face is fully capable to function as claimed because the inner cuff is flexible and intended to move to conform to the wearer,
an inner elastic element (see annotated figure 8), and
a backfold elastic element that is configured to function as claimed (see annotated figure 8 showing outermost backfold elastic element);
wherein the inner elastic element is disposed proximate the inner folded edge (see figure 8), and the backfold elastic element is disposed proximate the backfold folded edge (see figure 8);
wherein the inner elastic element and the backfold elastic element is configured to have a contraction force [0066], and wherein the first contraction force (i.e., inner elastic element) is different than the second contraction force (i.e., backfold elastic element) as shown in figure 8 where the inner elastic element includes one elastic element and the backfold elastic element includes three elastic elements.
Tanio also discloses at least a portion of the backfolded inner cuff being configured to overlap the topsheet (3) when the absorbent article is in a flat, uncontracted configuration as shown in figures 7-8.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Tanio and claim 1 is the provision that the first contraction force is greater than the second contraction force.
WO 2016/149601 (hereinafter “Raycheck”) teaches an analogous absorbent article with a leg gasketing system having a backfolded cuff where a first contraction force can be greater or less than a second contraction force as discussed on pages 49-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the cuff of Tanio with a varied contractive force in allow for a more cost effective design that reduces redundant seals as taught by Raycheck on page 51, lines 13-18.
As to claim 2, Tanio discloses an absorbent article wherein the web of material is folded laterally outward to form the inner folded edge, and wherein the web of material is folded laterally inward to form the backfold folded edge as shown in annotated figure 8 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tanio discloses an absorbent article wherein the inner elastic element comprises a first and a second inner elastic member as shown in annotated figure 8 above.
As to claim 6, Tanio discloses an absorbent article wherein the backfold elastic element comprises a first backfold elastic member as shown in figure 8 above.
With reference to claim 9, Tanio discloses an absorbent article wherein at least a portion of the backfolded inner cuff between the inner folded edge and the backfold folded edge is joined to a portion of the web of material disposed between the backfolded inner cuff and the topsheet as shown in figure 8 above where the area between the inner folded edge and the backfold folded edge overlays a web of material that overlays the topsheet.
As to claim 16, Tanio discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (3);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (5);
an absorbent core (6) disposed at least partially between the topsheet and the backsheet [0049]; and
a pair of barrier leg cuffs (30), each barrier leg cuff formed from a single web of material [0061] and comprising a proximal portion joined to the chassis (see annotated figure 8 above) and an inner distal portion (see annotated figure 8 above), wherein
the web of material is folded laterally outward to form a backfold between the proximal portion and the inner distal portion (shown as lateral outward fold in annotated figure 8 above), forming a backfolded inner cuff (figure 8), the backfolded inner cuff comprising
an inner folded edge,
a backfold folded edge separated from the inner folded edge by an inner face extending between the inner folded edge and the backfold folded edge (see annotated figure 8),
an inner elastic element, and
a backfold elastic element (see annotated figure 8 above); wherein
the inner elastic element is configured to have a first contraction force [0066], wherein the backfold elastic element is configured to have a second contraction force (i.e., backfold elastic elements) as shown in figure 8 where the inner elastic element includes one elastic element and the backfold elastic element includes three elastic elements thereby providing different contraction forces in the scope of having differing amounts of elastics in different areas of the cuff.
The backfold folded edge and backfold elastic element are fully capable of performing the recited function as claimed because the inner cuff is flexible and intended to move to conform to the wearer.
While Tanio, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, provides first and second different contractive forces, Raycheck teaches an analogous absorbent article with a leg gasketing system having a backfolded cuff where a first contraction force can be greater or less than a second contraction force as discussed on pages 49-50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the cuff of Tanio with a varied contractive force in allow for a more cost effective design that reduces redundant seals as taught by Raycheck on page 51, lines 13-18.
Claims 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanio et al. (US 2004/0249355) in view of WO 2016/149601 and further in view of LaVon et al. (US 2013/0211363).
With reference to claims 5 and 7, Tanio teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tanio and claims 5 and 7 is the provision that the elastic strands have a specific linear density.
LaVon et al. (hereinafter “LaVon”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including elastic strands having a linear density within the claimed range as set forth in [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the elastic strands of Tanio modified with the linear density as taught by LaVon and/or to modify the contraction force of the elastic strands (cl. 8) in order to provide the article with the desired force profile as taught by LaVon in [0057].
With respect to claim 17, see the rejection of claims 1 and 16.
Claims 10-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanio et al. (US 2004/0249355) in view of WO 2016/149601 and further in view of Umemoto (US 2015/0216734).
With reference to claims 10-13, Tanio teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tanio and claims 10-13 is the provision that each barrier leg cuff further comprises an outer cuff including specific features.
Umemoto teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the leg barrier cuff further comprises an outer cuff comprising an outer cuff folded edge, an outer cuff material end, and an outer cuff elastic element (16) including a plurality of elastic members (cl. 13) disposed proximate the outer cuff folded edge (cl. 12) as shown in annotated figure 9 below. The web of material is folded laterally inward to form the outer cuff folded edge (cl. 11) as shown in annotated figure 9 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
571
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the leg cuff of Tanio modified with an outer cuff as taught by Umemoto in order to maintain an erection state on a skin side even when a large amount of body fluids is absorbed by the absorbent body to further prevent side leakage of the body fluids as taught by Umemoto in [0011].
Regarding claims 18-20, see the rejection of claims 10-13.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanio et al. (US 2004/0249355) in view of WO 2016/149601 and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2014/0257228).
With reference to claim 14, Tanio teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tanio and claim 14 is the provision that the absorbent article is a disposable insert configured to engage with a reusable outer cover.
Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a disposable insert configured to engage with a reusable outer cover as set forth in the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Tanio modified in the configuration as taught by Wang in order to provide the consumer with the advantages afforded by both disposable and reusable diapers as taught by Wang in [0009].
As to claim 15, Tanio teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tanio and claim 15 is the provision that the absorbent article is a taped-style diaper comprising a secondary fastening system comprising a secondary fastening component and a secondary receiving component.
Wang teaches an analogous absorbent article that is a taped-style diaper comprising a secondary fastening system comprising a secondary fastening component (30) and a secondary receiving component (24) as shown in figures 1C-1D.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Tanio modified in the configuration as taught by Wang in order to provide the consumer with the advantages afforded by both disposable and reusable diapers as taught by Wang in [0009].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the inner elastic element. The annotated figure clearly labels that which is considered as inner elastic elements. The fact that each inner elastic element includes one elastic element also does not preclude the inner elastic elements as a whole to have more than one elastic element.
With respect to the recited “edges’ it is held that the annotated figure clearly denotes edges and applicant is reminded that an edge may be considered as any portion of the area denoted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights