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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 28, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the claims have been amended to recite that:
at least a portion of each back opening edge of the pair of back opening edges is longitudinally closer to the transverse centerline than the back longitudinal end point
at least one front opening edge of the pair of front opening edges is laterally farther from the longitudinal axis the closer the at least one opening edge is to the transverse centerline
at least a portion of at least one of the front opening edges of the pair of front opening edges is longitudinally closer to the transverse centerline than the front longitudinal end point
at least one of the back opening edges of the pair of back opening edges comprises a back opening edge end positioned longitudinally farther from the back end than the back longitudinal end point
These limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant is reminded that:
When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See MPEP 2125.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 19 to include recitations that require specific positioning of elements within the article as previously set forth in the Response to Amendment section. The specific positioning as now recited is not supported by the originally filed specification.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roldan-Posada et al. (US 2022/0233365)
With reference to claim 1, Roldan-Posada et al. (hereinafter “Roldan”) discloses an absorbent body for an absorbent article having a transverse direction, a transverse centerline, a longitudinal direction, a longitudinal axis, a front end, a back end, a front region, a back region, a center region, a garment facing side, and a wearer facing side (figures 2A, 3-4), comprising:
1) a water permeable topsheet (28) comprising a wearer facing side and a garment facing side (figure 3);
2) a water impermeable backsheet (26);
3) an absorbent core (34) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 3);
4) a composite isolation sheet (200,250) bonded to the wearer facing side of the topsheet (figure 3), the composite isolation sheet comprising:
a pair of inner cuffs having a pair of elasticized (68) side edges (see annotated figure 3 below);
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 3 below);
d) a back longitudinal elastic element disposed on the back portion, wherein the longitudinal elastic element extends substantially in the longitudinal direction and does not extend across the transverse center line as set forth [0138] where it is disclosed that the patch may include elastic elements. The patch itself does not extend across the transverse center line so presumably any element that is a part of the patch would also not extend across the transverse center line.
PNG
media_image1.png
940
1407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Roldan and claim 1 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 suitable value for a given absorbent article as taught by Roldan in [0125].
With reference to claim 2, Roldan teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roldan and claim 2 is the provision that a distance represented as B3 is from about 30% to about 85% of a distance represented as B2.
Roldan provides an article with a longitudinal elastic element (68) as well as the inclusion of additional elastic elements in [0138]. 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 B2 and/or B3 as desired in order to provide the desired article that remains in close contact with a wearer without causing skin troubles and/or undesirable leakage.
As to claim 6, Roldan discloses an absorbent body wherein the composite isolation sheet comprises an comprises an inner cuff part for forming the inner cuffs, the inner cuff part comprising an inner cuff part material and a back part for forming the back portion (see annotated 3 above), the back part comprising a back part material and wherein the inner cuff part and the back part are made of the same material (i.e., continuous areas) as shown in the figures, see especially figures 5 and 8.
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roldan-Posada et al. (US 2022/0233365) and further in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2011/0098666).
With reference to claim 3, Roldan teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roldan and claim 3 is the provision that the longitudinal elastic element is an elastic body extending along a longitudinal axis between the back longitudinal end point towards the back end.
Roldan anticipates the use of elastic elements as set forth in [0138].
Nakajima et al. (hereinafter “Nakajima”) teaches an analogous absorbent body wherein the longitudinal elastic element (39) is an elastic body [0065] extending along a longitudinal axis between the back longitudinal end point towards the back end as shown in figures 3-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the elastic elements of Roldan with the placement as taught by Nakajima in order to allow for garment conformity as taught by Nakajima in [0021].
With reference to claim 4, Roldan teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roldan and claim 4 is the provision that there are a specific amount of specifically placed elastic elements.
Roldan anticipates the use of elastic elements as set forth in [0138].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the amount and/or placement of the elastic elements since it has been held that the mere duplication and/or change in location of elements previously set forth in the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Nakajima teaches an analogous absorbent body wherein the back longitudinal elastic element is an even number of elastic bodies/strands (left and right 39) extending parallel to the longitudinal axis and disposed in a line symmetric position about the longitudinal axis as shown in figures 3-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the elastic elements of Roldan with the placement as taught by Nakajima in order to allow for garment conformity as taught by Nakajima in [0021].
With reference to claim 5, Roldan teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roldan and claim 5 is the provision that the elastic elements have a specific density.
Initially, it is noted that a density of 1100 dtex or less would encompass zero, and therefore, would not require the disclosure of a dtex by the prior art.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the density and distance of the elastic bodies of Roldan to provide the desired contractile force of the article in view of [0080-0081] of Nakajima which recognizes that the strength and/or the positioning of the elastic bodies is utilized to control the through holes.
With reference to claim 7, Roldan teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Roldan and claim 7 is the provision that the back portion is includes outer and inner back portion sheets with elastic elements therebetween have a specific density.
Roldan recognizes that the connecting portion may be formed through any desired means as set forth in [0120].
Nakajima teaches an analogous absorbent body wherein the back portion is made by an outer back portion sheet and an inner back portion sheet, and wherein the longitudinal elastic element is sandwiched between the outer back portion sheet and the inner back portion sheet as set forth in [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the elastic elements of Roldan with the placement as taught by Nakajima in order to allow for garment conformity as taught by Nakajima in [0021].
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 2011/0098666).
With reference to claim 8, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body [0054] for an absorbent article having a transverse direction, a transverse centerline, a longitudinal direction, a longitudinal axis, a front end, a back end, a front region, a back region, a center region, a garment facing side, and a wearer facing side (figures 3-4), comprising:
1) a water permeable topsheet (24) comprising a wearer facing side and a garment facing side (figure 2);
2) a water impermeable backsheet (53);
3) an absorbent core (25) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 6);
4) a composite isolation sheet (3) bonded to the wearer facing side of the topsheet (figure 2), the composite isolation sheet comprising:
a pair of inner cuffs (30,31) having a pair of elasticized side edges (see annotated figure 4 above);
a front portion in the front region (7) 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 3 above);
d) a front longitudinal elastic element (39) disposed on the front portion wherein the longitudinal elastic element extends substantially in the longitudinal direction and does not extend across the transverse centerline as set forth in figure 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
748
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
418
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The difference between Nakajima and claim 8 is the provision that the front portion has a longitudinal dimension B1 of from about 5% to about 35% of the longitudinal dimension of the absorbent body, that at least one front opening edge of the pair of front opening edges is laterally farther from the longitudinal axis the closer the at least one opening edge is to the transverse centerline and that the front longitudinal elastic element does not extend longitudinally across the transverse centerline.
Initially, Nakajima provides an article with a front portion (7) serving as a front waist region and defining a front through hole as set forth in [0064].
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 back hole dimension.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the distance/placement of the front opening edge in order to provide the desired level of leakage protection as taught by Nakajima in [0016-0017].
Lastly, it is noted that the Nakajima provides elastic members that run along the longitudinal length of the article [0065]. Portions of the elastic members are in the front region, a section of the elastic members are located in a central area (i.e., near the transverse centerline), and the remaining portion is found in the rear of the article.
It is further noted that the elastic elements are intermittent. Therefore, there is at least some area of the transverse centerline in which the elastic elements do not extend.
From the teachings of Nakajima, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably ascertain that a) a front portion of the elastics do not extend across the transverse centerline because the elastics in the transverse area are not considered as front elastic elements and/or b) a front portion of the elastics do not extend across the transverse centerline because the elastic elements are not continuous and would therefore allow at least a partial area which does not extend across the transverse centerline.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art may have been motivated to exclude the transverse centerline by adjusting the spacing of the elastics in order to provide the desired conformity of the article to the wearer.
With reference to claim 9, Nakajima teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
The difference between Nakajima and claim 9 is the provision that a distance represented as F3 is from about 30% to about 85% of a distance represented as F2.
Nakajima provides an article with a longitudinal elastic element (39). 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 without causing skin troubles and/or undesirable leakage as taught by Nakajima in [0004-0005].
As to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3.
With reference to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 13, Nakajima teaches an absorbent body wherein the composite isolation sheet comprises an comprises an inner cuff part for forming the inner cuffs, the inner cuff part comprising an inner cuff part material and a back part for forming the back portion, the back part comprising a back part material and wherein the inner cuff part and the back part are made of the same material (i.e., continuous areas) as shown in annotated figure 4 above.
With respect to claim 14, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body wherein the front portion is made by an outer front portion sheet and an inner front portion sheet, and wherein the front longitudinal elastic element is sandwiched between the outer back portion sheet and the inner back portion sheet as set forth in [0065].
As to claim 15, Nakajima discloses an absorbent article comprising a back region (8), and wherein the absorbent article comprises a fastener comprising a pair of elongate members (57) each of which transversely protruding from respective left and right side edges of the back region (figure 5) and a receiving member disposed on the front region for accepting the pair of elongate members as set forth in [0086].
Regarding claim 16, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body wherein each of the pair of back opening edges (near element 52) extend transversely from an outer position distal a longitudinal centerline to an inner position proximate the longitudinal centerline as shown in figure 5.
As to claim 17, Nakajima discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Nakajima and claim 17 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent article comprises an elastic belt.
Nakajima provides the article with front and rear elastic waist bands as shown in figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Nakajima with an elastic belt because Nakajima teaches the use of an elastic waistband and also anticipates the inclusion of toilet training pants and incontinent briefs as set forth in [0001]. The inclusion of a belt structure would allow for an improved fit for the pant and brief type articles to accommodate various sized wearers.
As to claim 18, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body wherein each of the pair of front opening edges (near element 51) extend transversely from an outer position distal a longitudinal centerline to an inner position proximate the longitudinal centerline as shown in figure 5.
With reference to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 8. Additionally, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body [0054] for an absorbent article having a transverse direction, a transverse centerline, a longitudinal direction, a longitudinal axis, a front end, a back end, a front region, a back region, a center region, a garment facing side, and a wearer facing side (figures 3-4), comprising:
1) a water permeable topsheet (24) comprising a wearer facing side and a garment facing side (figure 2);
2) a water impermeable backsheet (53);
3) an absorbent core (25) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (figure 6);
4) a composite isolation sheet (3) bonded to the wearer facing side of the topsheet (figure 2), the composite isolation sheet comprising:
a) a front portion in the front region (7) 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 3 above);
b) a front longitudinal elastic element (39) disposed on the front portion wherein the longitudinal elastic element extends substantially in the longitudinal direction and does not extend across the transverse centerline (figure 3);
c) a back portion in the back region (8) 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 3 above);
d) a back longitudinal elastic element (39) disposed on the back portion, wherein the longitudinal elastic element extends substantially in the longitudinal direction and does not extend across the transverse center line as set forth in figure 3.
The difference between Nakajima and claim 19 is the provision that the front and back portions have specific dimensions and that the front portion and the back portion are separate and distinct components that are not attached directly to one another.
Initially, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the front and/or back portions as desired in order to provide the desired waist length and/or back hole dimension.
With respect to the portions being separate and distinct components, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the front and back portions of Nakajima to provide separate and distinct components since it has been held that the mere separation of elements that were previously integral is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 20, Nakajima discloses an absorbent body wherein neither the front longitudinal elastic element nor the back longitudinal elastic element extends across the transverse centerline as shown in figure 3.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. US 18/474,560 (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 and 8 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-2 of the reference application.
The limitations of claims 2 and 9 of the instant application can be found in claim 5 of the reference application.
The limitations of claims 3 and 10 of the instant application can be found in claim 1 of the reference application.
The limitations of claims 6-7 and 13-14of the instant application can be found in claims 12-13 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 claim 15 of the instant application can be found in claim 14 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 1-20 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.
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