DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the inner cuff portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Van Gompel et al. (US 6,132,410).
With reference to claim 1, Van Gompel et al. (hereinafter “Van Gompel”) discloses an absorbent body for an absorbent article having a transverse direction, a longitudinal direction, a front end, a back end, a front region, a back region, a center region, a garment facing side, and a wearer facing side (figure 1), comprising:
1) a water permeable topsheet (28);
2) a water impermeable backsheet (30);
3) an absorbent core (48) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 1A);
4) a composite isolation sheet (52,53) bonded to the wearer facing side of the topsheet (col. 4, lines 59-67), the composite isolation sheet comprising:
a) a front portion in the front region having a front longitudinal end point and a pair of front opening edges, wherein the pair of front opening edges are not elasticized (see annotated figure 1 below);
b) a center portion in the center region having a pair of side edges which are elasticized (90) in the longitudinal direction (figure 1);
c) a back portion in the back region having a back longitudinal end point and a pair of back opening edges, wherein the pair of back opening edges are not elasticized (see annotated figure 1 below);
d) a longitudinal elastic element (35) disposed on at least one of the front portion and the back portion, wherein the longitudinal elastic element extends substantially in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the longitudinal elastic element does not longitudinally extend across the transverse centerline (figure 1); and
e) an opening defined by the pair of front opening edges, the pair of side edges, and the pair of back opening edges, wherein the opening extends between the pair of front opening edges to the pair of back opening edges, and wherein the opening is configured to accommodate an anal and urethal orifice of a wearer as shown in annotated figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
756
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman discloses an absorbent body wherein the composite isolation sheet comprises an inner cuff part and a continuous part, wherein the pair of elasticized side edges are formed by the inner cuff portion, wherein the continuous part forms the front portion and the back portion, and wherein the continuous part is connected in the longitudinal direction along the inner cuff part as shown in annotated figure 1C below.
PNG
media_image2.png
508
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With reference to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 12.
Additionally, Van Gompel discloses that the front part and the back part are not connected as shown in figure 1.
As to claim 14, Van Gompel discloses fastening members (36) as shown in figure 1.
As to claim 17, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent body wherein each of the pair of front opening edges extend transversely from an outer position distal a longitudinal centerline to an inner position proximate the longitudinal centerline as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 18, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent body wherein each of the pair of back opening edges extend transversely from an outer position distal a longitudinal centerline to an inner position proximate the longitudinal centerline as shown in figure 1.
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 2-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gompel et al. (US 6,132,410).
With reference to claim 2, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 2 is the provision that the front portion has a longitudinal dimension F1 of from about 22% to about 50% of the longitudinal dimension of the absorbent body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the length of the front portion as desired in order to provide the desired waist length and/or front hole dimension.
As to claims 3 and 8, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent body wherein the longitudinal elastic element (35) is disposed on the front portion and the back portion (cl. 8) as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 4, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 4 is the provision that when the front longitudinal elastic element is fully stretched, the opening area in the front region is from about 5% to about 30% of the composite isolation sheet in the front region.
Van Gompel provides an article with a longitudinal elastic element (35). The elastic element would be expected to be capable of fully stretching as it is an elastic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the percentage of the opening area utilizing the elastic elements as desired because the general concept has already been set forth by the prior art and the change in size and/or shape of the element is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With reference to claim 5, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 5 is the provision that a represented as F3 is from about 30% to about 85% of a distance represented as F2.
Van Gompel provides an article with a longitudinal elastic element (35). The elastic element would be expected to be capable of incremental stretching as well as fully stretching as it is an elastic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the relationship between the distances represented as F2 and/or F3 as desired in order to provide the desired article that remains in close contact with a wearer.
With reference to claims 6 and 10, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent body wherein the front longitudinal elastic element is an elastic body extending along a longitudinal axis between the front longitudinal end point towards the front end and between the back longitudinal end point towards the back end (cl. 10) as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 7, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 7 is the provision that the back portion has a longitudinal dimension B1 of from about 5% to about 35% of the longitudinal dimension of the absorbent body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the length of the back portion as desired in order to provide the desired waist length and/or back hole dimension.
With reference to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 11, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent body wherein the back portion is devoid of a longitudinal elastic element at least in the areas designated as end points as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 15, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 15 is the provision that the absorbent article comprising an elastic belt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Van Gompel with a belt since it has been held that the substitution of one type of fastener for another is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. US 18/474,571 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the reference application are directed to an absorbent body including a composite isolation sheet.
The limitations of claims 1-4 of the instant application can be found in claim 8 of the reference application.
The limitations of claim 5 of the instant application can be found in claim 9 of the reference application.
The limitations of claim 6 of the instant application can be found in claim 10 of the reference application.
The limitations of claims 7-8 and 10 of the instant application can be found in claim 1 of the reference application.
The limitations of claim 9 of the instant application can be found in claim 2 of the reference application.
The limitations of claims 12-13 of the instant application can be found in claim 6 of the reference application
The limitations of claim 14 of the instant application can be found in claim 15 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights