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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 10, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Maldonado et al. (US 2004/0122396).
With reference to claim 1, Maldonado et al. (hereinafter “Maldonado”) discloses a feminine hygiene article [0048] comprising a film [0035] having at least a first layer and an optional second layer [0034-0035], the first layer comprising from at least 25 wt. %, to 75% wt.%, based on the total weight of the first layer, of an ethylene acrylate copolymer [0121-0124] and 25 wt. %, to less than 75% wt., based on the total weight of the first layer, of a polyolefin set forth in [0057].
In [0057], Maldonado incorporates Strack et al (US 5,336,552).
Strack et al. (hereinafter “Strack”) specifically discloses the recited amounts of an ethylene acrylate copolymer and polyolefin as set forth in col. 7, lines 48-63.
As to claims 2 and 15, Strack discloses the ethylene acrylate copolymer is an ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer, an ethylene ethyl acrylate copolymer, or an ethylene n-butyl acrylate copolymer as set forth in col. 7, lines 56-59.
With respect to claim 4, Maldonado discloses that the first layer further comprises white pigment (i.e., titanium dioxide) as set forth in [0070].
As to claims 6 and 18, Maldonado discloses a feminine hygiene article wherein the first layer further comprises calcium carbonate as set forth in [0070].
With respect to claim 7, Maldonado discloses at least 5 wt% pigment as set forth in [0070-0071].
As to claim 11, Maldonado discloses a feminine hygiene article further comprising a nonwoven as set forth in [0035].
With reference to claim 12, Maldonado discloses a feminine hygiene article comprising a pad having a topsheet wherein the topsheet comprises the recited film as set forth in [0032].
With reference to claims 13 and 14, Maldonado discloses a feminine hygiene article [0048] comprising a film [0035] having at least a first layer and an optional second layer [0034-0035], the first layer comprising from at least 25 wt. %, to 75% wt.%, based on the total weight of the first layer, of an ethylene acrylate copolymer [0121-0124] and 25 wt. %, to less than 75% wt., based on the total weight of the first layer, of a polyolefin set forth in [0057]. Maldonado discloses at least 5 wt% pigment as set forth in [0070-0071].
In [0057], Maldonado incorporates Strack et al (US 5,336,552).
Strack et al. (hereinafter “Strack”) specifically discloses the recited amounts of an ethylene acrylate copolymer and polyolefin as set forth in col. 7, lines 48-63.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado et al. (US 2004/0122396) and further in view of McCormack et al. (US 6,015,764).
With reference to claim 3, Maldonado teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Maldonado and claim 3 is the provision that the ethylene acrylate copolymer comprises at least 16 wt. % acrylate.
McCormack et al. (hereinafter “McCormack”) teaches an analogous feminine hygiene article (col. 2, lines 45-52) wherein the ethylene acrylate copolymer comprises at least 16 wt. % acrylate, based on the total weight of the ethylene acrylate copolymer as set forth in col. 5, lines 8-16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the ethylene acrylate copolymer of Maldonado with at least 16 wt. % acrylate in order to provide a film with both cloth-like aesthetics and improved fit and comfort as taught by McCormack in col. 2, lines 8-10.
Claims 5, 8-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado et al. (US 2004/0122396) and further in view of Degroot et al. (US 2018/0222171).
With reference to claim 5, Maldonado teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Maldonado discloses the polyolefin as polyethylene in [0040].
The difference between Maldonado and claim 5 is the provision that the polyethylene has a specific density and melt index.
Degroot et al. (hereinafter “Degroot”) teaches an analogous feminine hygiene article wherein the polyolefin is a polyethylene [0118] having a density of 0.925 to 0.950 g/cm3 [0027] and a melt index (I2) of 0.50 to 10.00 g/10 min as set forth in [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the polyethylene of Maldonado with the specific characteristics as taught by Degroot in order to provide the article with improved stretch and fit as taught by Degroot in [0041].
With reference to claim 8, Maldonado teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Maldonado and claim 5 is the provision that the film further comprises a second layer and a third layer, the second layer and third layer each separately comprising a polyethylene composition.
Degroot teaches an analogous feminine hygiene article wherein the film further comprises a second layer and a third layer, the second layer and third layer each separately comprising a polyethylene composition as set forth in [0125-0128].
While the duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Maldonado with second and third layers in order to provide the article with improved stretch and fit as taught by Degroot in [0041].
With reference to claim 9, Maldonado teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Maldonado and claim 9 is the provision that the first layer has a specific gloss percentage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gloss of the layer of Maldonado as desired because Degroot discloses that the article can include a varying degree of antiblock agents, including titanium dioxide as set forth in [0120-0121]. Titanium dioxide is known in the art as an agent that useful to makes stains and reduce gloss.
With reference to claim 10, Maldonado teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Maldonado and claim 10 is the provision that the film has a specific drapability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the drapability of the film of Maldonado to provide the end-user with a comfortable fit as in an article that exhibits good tensile strength and abrasion resistance as taught by Degroot in [0003-0004].
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 5.
With respect to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 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