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 Interpretation
It is the Office's position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not to the testing method.
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.
Claims 15-19 are 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 15 recites the limitation “a surface of the absorbent article” in both line 6 and line 8. It is unclear if these instances refer to the same surface (i.e., the exterior surface of the absorbent article) or different surfaces (i.e., one could refer to the exterior surface and one could refer to the interior surface). For the purpose of compact prosecution, these limitations are interpreted as referring to the same surface of the absorbent article.
Claims 16-19 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 15.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rane et al (US 2014/0000784).
Regarding Claim 1, Rane discloses an absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
a lateral axis (680, Figs. 1A-B);
a front waist region (636, Figs. 1A-B) on a first side of the lateral axis (680, Figs. 1A-B);
a back waist region (638, Figs. 1A-B) on a second side of the lateral axis (680, Figs. 1A-B);
a liquid permeable topsheet (622, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (624, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]);
an absorbent core (646, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet (622, Figs. 1A-B) and the backsheet (624, Figs. 1A-B);
an outer cover nonwoven material in a facing relationship with the backsheet (624, Figs. 1A-B), wherein the outer cover forms a first portion of a garment-facing surface of the absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0220] indicates the patterned material for the discrete landing zone can be used to make the outer nonwoven layer of a multilayer backsheet); and
a discrete landing zone (644, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0167, 0220] indicates the landing zone can be a discrete structure joined to the backsheet) joined to the front waist region (636, Figs. 1A-B) proximate to a waist edge (650, Figs. 1A-B) of the absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B), wherein the discrete landing zone (644, Figs. 1A-B) forms a second portion of the garment-facing surface of the absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0167, 0220]; since the discrete landing zone is placed on the outer cover nonwoven material, it will form a second portion of the garment-facing surface of the article as seen in Fig. 1A);
wherein the outer cover nonwoven material comprises a first pattern on the first portion of the garment-facing surface (¶ [0220] indicates both the discrete landing zone and the outer cover nonwoven layer can be made of the same, patterned material; ¶ [0084] describes the nonwoven web as patterned and ¶ [0097-0099] describe the pattern seen in Figs. 2B and 3), the first pattern comprising:
a repeating pattern of bonds comprising a plurality of first repeat units (¶ [0084] indicates the pattern is a pattern of bonds; ¶ [0097] describes the unit pattern as the repeating triangle shape seen in Figs. 2B and 3);
wherein a portion of the first pattern within each of the first repeat units is substantially the same (as seen in Figs. 2B and 3, the repeat units repeat and are substantially the same each repeat);
wherein at least some of the first repeat units have a first repeat unit area in the range of 25 mm2 to 100 mm2 (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 10 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 2 mm; 20 mm x 2 mm = 40 mm2 which is within the claimed range); and
wherein the discrete landing zone comprises a second pattern on the second portion of the garment-facing surface (¶ [0220] indicates both the discrete landing zone and the outer cover nonwoven layer can be made of the same, patterned material; ¶ [0084] describes the nonwoven web as patterned and ¶ [0097-0099] describe the pattern seen in Figs. 2B and 3), the second pattern comprising:
a repeating pattern of bonds comprising a plurality of second repeat units (¶ [0084] indicates the pattern is a pattern of bonds; ¶ [0097] describes the unit pattern as the repeating triangle shape seen in Figs. 2B and 3);
wherein a portion of the second pattern within each of the second repeat units is substantially the same (as seen in Figs. 2B and 3, the repeat units repeat and are substantially the same each repeat);
wherein at least some of the second repeat units have a second repeat unit area in the range of 25 mm2 to 100 mm2 (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 10 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 2 mm; 20 mm x 2 mm = 40 mm2 which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 3, Rane discloses at least some of the first repeat units comprising the portion of the first pattern comprise a first design, wherein at least some of the second repeat units comprising the portion of the second pattern comprise a second design, and wherein the first design is substantially similar to the second design (¶ [0220] indicates both the discrete landing zone and the outer cover nonwoven layer can be made of the same, patterned material and therefore the first design would be the same and therefore substantially similar to the second design).
Regarding Claim 5, Rane discloses the back waist region (638, Figs. 1A-B) comprises a waistband (second waist member 604, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0170]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rane discloses the at least some of the first repeat units have a width in the range of 5 mm to 30 mm (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm) and wherein the at least some of the first repeat units have a first length in the range of 1 mm to 10 mm (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 10 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 2 mm which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Rane discloses the at least some of the second repeat units have a second width in the range of 5 mm to 30 mm (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm) and wherein the at least some of the second repeat units have a second length in the range of 1 mm to 10 mm (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 10 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 2 mm which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, Rane discloses the repeating pattern of bonds comprising the plurality of first repeat units forms a herringbone pattern (the pattern shown in Figs. 2B and 3 can be interpreted as a herringbone pattern).
Regarding Claim 10, Rane discloses the repeating pattern of bonds comprising the plurality of second repeat units forms a herringbone pattern (the pattern shown in Figs. 2B and 3 can be interpreted as a herringbone pattern).
Regarding Claim 11, Rane discloses the at least some of the first repeat units comprise discontinuous bonds (¶ [0130] indicates the bond line can be discontinuous rather than continuous as shown in the figures).
Regarding Claim 12, Rane discloses the at least some of the second repeat units comprise discontinuous bonds (¶ [0130] indicates the bond line can be discontinuous rather than continuous as shown in the figures).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane et al (US 2014/0000784).
Regarding Claim 15, Rane discloses an absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (622, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]);
a liquid impermeable backsheet (624, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]);
an absorbent core (646, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0046]) positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet (622, Figs. 1A-B) and the backsheet (624, Figs. 1A-B);
a first nonwoven component (outer nonwoven layer of multi-layer backsheet; ¶ [0220]) forming a first portion of a surface of the absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0220] indicates the patterned material for the discrete landing zone can be used to make the outer nonwoven layer of a multilayer backsheet); and
a second nonwoven component (discrete landing zone 644, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0167, 0220] indicates the landing zone can be a discrete structure joined to the backsheet) forming a second portion of a surface of the absorbent article (600, Figs. 1A-B; ¶ [0167, 0220]; since the discrete landing zone is placed on the outer cover nonwoven material, it will form a second portion of the garment-facing surface of the article as seen in Fig. 1A);
wherein the first nonwoven component comprises a first pattern (¶ [0220] indicates both the discrete landing zone and the outer cover nonwoven layer can be made of the same, patterned material; ¶ [0084] describes the nonwoven web as patterned and ¶ [0097-0099] describe the pattern seen in Figs. 2B and 3) comprising:
a repeating pattern of bonds comprising a plurality of first repeat units (¶ [0084] indicates the pattern is a pattern of bonds; ¶ [0097] describes the unit pattern as the repeating triangle shape seen in Figs. 2B and 3);
wherein a portion of the first pattern within each of the first repeat units is substantially the same (as seen in Figs. 2B and 3, the repeat units repeat and are substantially the same each repeat);
wherein at least some of the first repeat units have a first repeat unit area in the range of 25 mm2 to 100 mm2 (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 5 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 4 mm; 20 mm x 4 mm = 80 mm2 which is within the claimed range); and
wherein the second nonwoven component comprises a second pattern (¶ [0220] indicates both the discrete landing zone and the outer cover nonwoven layer can be made of the same, patterned material; ¶ [0084] describes the nonwoven web as patterned and ¶ [0097-0099] describe the pattern seen in Figs. 2B and 3) comprising:
a repeating pattern of bonds comprising a plurality of second repeat units (¶ [0084] indicates the pattern is a pattern of bonds; ¶ [0097] describes the unit pattern as the repeating triangle shape seen in Figs. 2B and 3);
wherein a portion of the second pattern within each of the second repeat units is substantially the same (as seen in Figs. 2B and 3, the repeat units repeat and are substantially the same each repeat);
wherein at least some of the second repeat units have a second repeat unit area in the range of 25 mm2 to 75 mm2 (¶ [0099] indicates W1 can be in the range of 5-20mm and that the ratio of W1/W2 can be in the range of 0.1-10; using 20 mm as W1 and 10 as the ratio, W2 is calculated as 2 mm; 20 mm x 2 mm = 40 mm2 which is within the claimed range).
Rane does not specifically indicate the second repeat unit area is different than the first repeat unit area.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the repeat unit area of either the first or second pattern to be different than the other repeat unit area, as this would allow the second nonwoven component to stand out against the first nonwoven component as the patterns would not be the same size and would not be able to blend into each other as easily. This would be beneficial for forming a discrete landing zone, which is intended to be easily recognizable by a caregiver when they are applying a diaper on a newborn or toddler so they can quickly apply the diaper without having to look for the correct location to attach the waist to the landing zone.
Regarding Claim 16, Rane further discloses the repeating pattern of bonds comprising the plurality of first repeat units forms a herringbone pattern (the pattern shown in Figs. 2B and 3 can be interpreted as a herringbone pattern), and wherein the repeating pattern of bonds comprising the plurality of second repeat units forms a herringbone pattern (the pattern shown in Figs. 2B and 3 can be interpreted as a herringbone pattern).
Regarding Claim 17, Rane further discloses the at least some of the first repeat units comprise discontinuous bonds (¶ [0130] indicates the bond line can be discontinuous rather than continuous as shown in the figures), and wherein the at least some of the second repeat units comprise discontinuous bonds (¶ [0130] indicates the bond line can be discontinuous rather than continuous as shown in the figures).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane et al (US 2014/0000784) in view of Bianchi (US 2017/0151103).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Rane is silent whether the first pattern and the second pattern are different, and wherein the first repeat unit area is different than the second repeat unit area.
Bianchi teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a bonding pattern (Figs. 5 and 6, ¶ [0018-0019, 0064]) with first, second, third, and fourth discontinuous lines (each column of large bonds 310 can be considered a discontinuous line, Fig. 6) that comprise two elements (bonds 310 and 330, Fig. 6), wherein the two elements (310, 330, Fig. 6) have a different size (¶ [0064], Fig. 6). This bonding pattern reduces fuzz on the surface of the nonwoven (¶ [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first or second pattern of Rane to have the pattern of Bianchi, as the bonding pattern of Bianchi reduces fuzz on the surface of the nonwoven (¶ [0061]) which in turn provides a better visual effect of the nonwoven. With one of the first and second patterns being the pattern of Bianchi, the first and second patterns will be different and the first repeat unit area will be different than the second repeat unit area.
Regarding Claims 13, 14, 18, and 19, Rane is silent whether the discontinuous bonds in the at least some of the repeat units comprise a first discontinuous line, a second discontinuous line, a third discontinuous line, and a fourth discontinuous line, wherein at least some of the first, second, third, and fourth discontinuous lines comprise two elements, and wherein the two elements have a different size, shape, and/or dimension.
Bianchi teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a bonding pattern (Figs. 5 and 6, ¶ [0018-0019, 0064]) with first, second, third, and fourth discontinuous lines (each column of large bonds 310 can be considered a discontinuous line, Fig. 6) that comprise two elements (bonds 310 and 330, Fig. 6), wherein the two elements (310, 330, Fig. 6) have a different size (¶ [0064], Fig. 6). This bonding pattern reduces fuzz on the surface of the nonwoven (¶ [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bonding pattern of Rane to include two elements, wherein the two elements have a different size as taught by Bianchi (Fig. 6). The bonding pattern of Bianchi reduces fuzz on the surface of the nonwoven (¶ [0061]) which in turn provides a better visual effect of the nonwoven.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rane et al (US 2014/0000784) in view of Schmitz (US 5797896).
Regarding Claim 6, Rane is silent whether the discrete landing zone comprises a first piece and a second piece, wherein the first piece is positioned a distance from the second piece, and wherein the first piece does not overlap or contact the second piece.
Schmitz teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the discrete landing zone comprises a first piece (99, Fig. 8) and a second piece (102, Fig. 8), wherein the first piece (99, Fig. 8) is positioned a distance from the second piece (102, Fig. 8), and wherein the first piece (99, Fig. 8) does not overlap or contact the second piece (102, Fig. 8). Having multiple separate landing zones allows the liquid impermeable properties of the backsheet to be maintained to the largest possible extent when the diaper is repositioned (Col. 14 lines 23-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the discrete landing zone of Rane to comprise a first piece and a second piece, wherein the first piece is positioned a distance from the second piece, and wherein the first piece does not overlap or contact the second piece, as taught by Schmitz (Fig. 8). Having multiple separate landing zones allows the liquid impermeable properties of the backsheet to be maintained to the largest possible extent when the diaper is repositioned (Col. 14 lines 23-29).
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, 2, 7, 8, and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,918,442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claim is merely broader than the patented claim, as pending Claim 1 does not require the claimed repeat unit width, repeat unit length, or the discontinuous bonds in the repeat units which is present within patented Claim 6. Since it has been held that the species anticipates the genus, the patented Claim 6 anticipates pending Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 11-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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 on 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781