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 § 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 14 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 14 recites “wherein the plurality of stiffening fibers is greater than the plurality of stiffening fibers”. The claim is unclear as it cannot be ascertained what other element is being compared to the stiffening fibers. Correction is required.
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 1-7 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschino et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0358096 in view of Stone et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0233438.
As to claims 1, 4, and 5, Maschino teaches an absorbent personal hygiene article 100 comprising:
a topsheet 110,150, the topsheet comprising a film layer 140,210 – where Maschino teaches the topsheet 110 and the fluid distribution material 140 may be integrally formed as a fluid management system (para. 0067). Maschino further teaches the fluid distribution material 200, may be used as the fluid distribution material 140 (para. 0068). Additionally, Maschino teaches in an embodiment, the absorbent article may not include a topsheet 110 (para. 0067), in which case the fluid management layer 200, including film 210 would serve as the topsheet.
Maschino is silent as to the dimensions of the apertures in the film. Stone from the same field of endeavor teaches a three-dimensional web for use as a topsheet (Stone para. 0003, 0143) wherein the apertures comprise extended elements 24 and open areas 34 (Stone Fig. 2; para. 0061, 0073). Stone teaches the apertures have an average largest x-y dimension (ar) of about 375 µm to about 550 µm – where Stone teaches a diameter of 50 microns to about 500 microns (Stone para. 0056); wherein the cones have an average height (ch) of about 300 µm to about 500 µm - where Stone teaches a height of at least about 200 microns (para. 0056), and in some embodiments, Stone teaches aperture heights of 270 microns (Stone para. 0183). Stone does not specifically teach the aperture height of 300 µm to about 500 µm. However, Stone teaches the general condition of a film having apertures having a height, width, and density suitable for an absorbent article topsheet (Stone para. 0143). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the apertures with a height in the claimed range since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Maschino with the dimensions of the apertures taught in Stone to develop a more aesthetically pleasing web and add texture, which can improve the feel of the web material (Stone para. 0005-0006).
Maschino/Stone teach the apertures have a numerical density of about 140 to about 500 apertures per cm² x-y plane surface area of the film layer - where Stone teaches the area density of the discrete extended elements 24 comprise from about 4 to about 10,000, which has values in the claimed range (Stone para. 0069). (Stone para. 0069)..
Maschino teaches the film layer 210 comprises polyethylene (PE) (para. 0071). Maschino teaches the film layer comprises a blend of a low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (Maschino para. 0071). However, Maschino does not teach the polyethylene is a homogeneous blend of low density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), wherein the homogeneous blend is at least 50 % by weight LDPE, and LLDPE. Stone also teaches an LLDPE/LDPE film (Stone para. 00863). Stone incorporates by reference (Stone para. 0087, 0194), Lee et al. USPN 6228462 who teaches an apertured, compression-resistant web comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30) as a less rigid layer in the compression-resistant web for the benefit of providing a soft, porous web having improved compression resistance, superior fluid transport, and fluid restraining characteristics (Lee col. 2, lines 49-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE to provide a compression-resistant web for the benefits taught in Lee.
Maschino/Stone teach the film layer has a basis weight of from about 14 gsm to about 24 gsm (Maschino para. 0089),
wherein the film layer 210 comprises a pattern of cones and valleys 226 (Maschino Fig. 2), the cones 216 projecting upwardly from adjacent valleys 226 to rim edges 220 proximate an upper side of the film layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the cones 216 circumscribe and define apertures 226, 222 through the film layer, wherein the aperture is formed at rim edge 220 of the cone (Maschino Fig. 2).
As to claim 2, the film layer 210 has a basis weight of from about 16 gsm to about 20 gsm (Maschino para. 0086).
As to claim 3, the film layer has a basis weight of about 18 gsm (Maschino para. 0086).
As to claim 6, Maschino/Stone teach the apertures have a numerical density of 200 to 300 apertures per cm² x-y plane surface area of the film layer - where Stone teaches the area density of the discrete extended elements 24 comprise from about 4 to about 10,000, which has values in the claimed range (Stone para. 0069). (Stone para. 0069).
As to claim 7, the apertures have a numerical density of about 220 to about 270 apertures per cm² x-y plane surface arca of the film layer – where Stone teaches the area density of the discrete extended elements 24 comprise from about 4 to about 10,000, which has values in the claimed range (Stone para. 0069).
As to claim 20, Maschino teaches an absorbent personal hygiene article 100 comprising:
a topsheet 110,150, the topsheet comprising a film layer 140,210 – where Maschino teaches the topsheet 110 and the fluid distribution material 140 may be integrally formed as a fluid management system (para. 0067). Maschino further teaches the fluid distribution material 200, may be used as the fluid distribution material 140 (para. 0068). Additionally, Maschino teaches in an embodiment, the absorbent article may not include a topsheet 110 (para. 0067), in which case the fluid management layer 200, including film 210 would serve as the topsheet.
Maschino is silent as to the dimensions of the apertures in the film. Stone from the same field of endeavor teaches a three-dimensional web for use as a topsheet (Stone para. 0003, 0143) wherein the apertures comprise extended elements 24 and open areas 34 (Stone Fig. 2; para. 0061, 0073). Stone teaches the apertures have an average largest x-y dimension (ar) of about 375 µm to about 550 µm – where Stone teaches a diameter of 50 microns to about 500 microns (Stone para. 0056); wherein the cones have an average height (ch) of about 300 µm to about 500 µm - where Stone teaches a height of at least about 200 microns (para. 0056), and in some embodiments, Stone teaches aperture heights of 270 microns (Stone para. 0183). Stone does not specifically teach the aperture height of 300 µm to about 500 µm. However, Stone teaches the general condition of a film having apertures having a height, width, and density suitable for an absorbent article topsheet (Stone para. 0143). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the apertures with a height in the claimed range since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Maschino with the dimensions of the apertures taught in Stone to develop a more aesthetically pleasing web and add texture, which can improve the feel of the web material (Stone para. 0005-0006).
Maschino/Stone teach the apertures have a numerical density of about 140 to about 500 apertures per cm² x-y plane surface area of the film layer - where Stone teaches the area density of the discrete extended elements 24 comprise from about 4 to about 10,000, which has values in the claimed range (Stone para. 0069). (Stone para. 0069)..
Maschino teaches the film layer 210 comprises polyethylene (PE) (para. 0071). Maschino teaches the film layer comprises a blend of a low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (Maschino para. 0071). However, Maschino does not teach the polyethylene is a homogeneous blend of low density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), wherein the homogeneous blend is at least 50 % by weight LDPE, and LLDPE. Stone also teaches an LLDPE/LDPE film (Stone para. 00863). Stone incorporates by reference (Stone para. 0087, 0194), Lee et al. USPN 6228462 who teaches an apertured, compression-resistant web comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30) as a less rigid layer in the compression-resistant web for the benefit of providing a soft, porous web having improved compression resistance, superior fluid transport, and fluid restraining characteristics (Lee col. 2, lines 49-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE to provide a compression-resistant web for the benefits taught in Lee.
Maschino/Stone teach the film layer has a basis weight of from about 14 gsm to about 24 gsm (Maschino para. 0089),
wherein the film layer 210 comprises a pattern of cones and valleys 226 (Maschino Fig. 2), the cones 216 projecting upwardly from adjacent valleys 226 to rim edges 220 proximate an upper side of the film layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the cones 216 circumscribe and define apertures 226, 222 through the film layer, wherein the aperture is formed at rim edge 220 of the cone (Maschino Fig. 2).
Maschino/Stone teach an absorbent core disposed directly adjacent to the topsheet – where Maschino teaches the topsheet 110 and the fluid distribution material 140 may be integrally formed as a fluid management system (para. 0067). Maschino further teaches the fluid distribution material 200, may be used as the fluid distribution material 140 (para. 0068). Additionally, Maschino teaches in an embodiment, the absorbent article may not include a topsheet 110 (para. 0067), in which case the fluid management layer 200, including film 210 would serve as the topsheet. The absorbent core layer comprises cellulose fibers, wherein the cellulose fibers comprise pulp fibers - Lee col. 11, lines 57-60, incorporates by reference Thompson e al. USPN 5342334 who teaches an absorbent core layer comprising cellulose fibers, which comprise pulp fibers (Thompson col. 7, lines 25-31).
As to claim 21, Maschino/Stone/Lee teach the film layer comprises no more than 5% by weight high density polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyethylene terephthalate – where Lee teaches an apertured, compression-resistant web comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30).
As to claim 22, wherein the film layer comprises a hydrophilizing agent – where Maschino teaches a surfactant in the formed film (Maschino para. 0071,0086; Stone para. 0059).
As to claim 23, Maschino/Stone/Lee teach the film layer is bonded to the absorbent core layer (Maschino para. 0104; Lee Fig. 7; col. 11, lines 17-22; Thompson col. 14, lines 23-29 ).
Claims 8-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschino et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0358096 in view of Stone et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0233438 and further in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0306099.
As to claim 8, Maschino teaches an absorbent personal hygiene article 100 comprising:
a topsheet 110,150, the topsheet comprising a film layer 140,210 – where Maschino teaches the topsheet 110 and the fluid distribution material 140 may be integrally formed as a fluid management system (para. 0067). Maschino further teaches the fluid distribution material 200, may be used as the fluid distribution material 140 (para. 0068). Additionally, Maschino teaches in an embodiment, the absorbent article may not include a topsheet 110 (para. 0067), in which case the fluid management layer 200, including film 210 would serve as the topsheet.
Maschino is silent as to the dimensions of the apertures in the film. Stone from the same field of endeavor teaches a three-dimensional web for use as a topsheet (Stone para. 0003, 0143) wherein the apertures comprise extended elements 24 and open areas 34 (Stone Fig. 2; para. 0061, 0073). Stone teaches the apertures have an average largest x-y dimension (ar) of about 375 µm to about 550 µm – where Stone teaches a diameter of 50 microns to about 500 microns (Stone para. 0056); wherein the cones have an average height (ch) of about 300 µm to about 500 µm - where Stone teaches a height of at least about 200 microns (para. 0056), and in some embodiments, Stone teaches aperture heights of 270 microns (Stone para. 0183). Stone does not specifically teach the aperture height of 300 µm to about 500 µm. However, Stone teaches the general condition of a film having apertures having a height, width, and density suitable for an absorbent article topsheet (Stone para. 0143). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the apertures with a height in the claimed range since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller et al. 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Maschino with the dimensions of the apertures taught in Stone to develop a more aesthetically pleasing web and add texture, which can improve the feel of the web material (Stone para. 0005-0006).
Maschino/Stone teach the apertures have a numerical density of about 140 to about 500 apertures per cm² x-y plane surface area of the film layer - where Stone teaches the area density of the discrete extended elements 24 comprise from about 4 to about 10,000, which has values in the claimed range (Stone para. 0069). (Stone para. 0069)..
Maschino teaches the film layer 210 comprises polyethylene (PE) (para. 0071). Maschino teaches the film layer comprises a blend of a low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (Maschino para. 0071). However, Maschino does not teach the polyethylene is a homogeneous blend of low density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), wherein the homogeneous blend is at least 50 % by weight LDPE, and LLDPE. Stone also teaches an LLDPE/LDPE film (Stone para. 00863). Stone incorporates by reference (Stone para. 0087, 0194), Lee et al. USPN 6228462 who teaches an apertured, compression-resistant web comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30) as a less rigid layer in the compression-resistant web for the benefit of providing a soft, porous web having improved compression resistance, superior fluid transport, and fluid restraining characteristics (Lee col. 2, lines 49-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE to provide a compression-resistant web for the benefits taught in Lee.
Maschino/Stone teach the film layer has a basis weight of from about 14 gsm to about 24 gsm (Maschino para. 0089),
wherein the film layer 210 comprises a pattern of cones and valleys 226 (Maschino Fig. 2), the cones 216 projecting upwardly from adjacent valleys 226 to rim edges 220 proximate an upper side of the film layer (Fig. 2),
wherein the cones 216 circumscribe and define apertures 226, 222 through the film layer, wherein the aperture is formed at rim edge 220 of the cone (Maschino Fig. 2).
Maschino/Stone teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Maschino/Stone teach a nonwoven film laminate 200 topsheet, but do not teach a fluid management layer disposed directly on a lower side of the film layer 200/210 (Maschino Fig. 2). Viens teaches a fluid management layer 30 of an absorbent article disposed between the topsheet 20 and absorbent core 40 (Viens Fig. 1A; para. 0034). Viens teaches the fluid management layer provides quick fluid acquisition to ensure fluid distribution to the underlying absorbent core (Viens para. 0039). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Maschino/Stone with the fluid management layer of Viens for the benefits taught in Viens.
Maschino/Stone/Viens teach a fluid management layer 30 disposed directly on a lower side of the film layer – where Viens teaches the fluid management layer 30 is disposed beneath the topsheet 20 to provide capillary suction to ‘pull’ fluid through the topsheet (Viens para. 0041)
wherein the fluid management layer 30 comprises fibers (Viens para. 0044). Viens, in para. 0083, incorporates by reference Viens et al. US 2018/0098893 who teaches fluid management webs with bicomponent fibers having fiber diameters of 0.1- 500 microns (Viens ‘893 para. 0096) which includes the claimed diameter of at least 20 microns.
As to claim 9, the fluid management layer is a carded, nonwoven (Viens para. 0032, 0038).
As to claim 10, Maschino/Stone/Viens teach the fluid management layer has a basis weight of from about 40 gsm to about 75 gsm – where Viens teaches the fluid management layer 30 can have a basis weight of up to 120 gsm or in the range of about 40 gsm to about 100 gsm (Viens para. 0042).
As to claim 11, the fibers of the fluid management layer comprise a plurality of absorbent fibers, a plurality of stiffening fibers, and a plurality of resilient fibers (Viens para. 0044, 0047).
As to claim 12, Maschino/Stone/Viens teach the fluid management layer has a caliper factor of at least about 0.16 mm (Viens para 0043).
As to claim 13, Maschino/Stone/Viens does not specifically teach the fluid management layer has a caliper factor of from about 0.13 mm to about 0.3 mm. However, Viens teaches the fluid management layer has a caliper factor of between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm including any values within these ranges and any ranges created thereby. at least about 0.16 mm (Viens para 0043). One having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed would be able to determine the caliper of the fluid management layer through routine experimentation and depending on the desired thickness of the absorbent article.
As to claim 14, as indicated in the rejection under 35 USC 112, second paragraph above, the claim is unclear. Viens teaches a range of the percentage of plurality of stiffening fibers and absorbing fibers in the carded nonwoven webs (Viens para.0054-0059).
As to claim 15, Maschino/Stone/Viens teaches the fibers of the fluid management layer may have any suitable shape including H, Y, X, and T shapes, which all have non-circular cross sections; and including a trilobal shape that can improve wicking and improve masking (Viens para. 0065).
As to claim 17, Maschino/Stone/Lee/Viens teach the film layer is void of high density polyethylene (HDPE) – where Lee teaches an apertured, compression-resistant web comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30).
As to claim 18, Maschino/Stone/Viens teach the fibers comprise bicomponent fibers, wherein the bicomponent fibers have a sheath-core configuration (Viens para. 0068).
As to claim 19, Maschino/Stone/Viens teach the sheath component comprises at least one of polyethylene and polypropylene (Viens para. 0068).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maschino et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0358096 in view of Stone et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0233438 and further in view of Viens et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0306099 and further in view of Cecchetto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0369028.
As to claim 16, Maschino/Stone/Viens do not teach fibers of the fluid management layer have a fiber to fiber distance of at least about 55 microns according to the Fiber to Fiber Distance Measurement. Cecchetto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0369028 from the same field of endeavor teaches a laminate web for an absorbent article. Cecchetto teaches the laminate web can promote fluid transport (para. 0005, 0007) and thus can be used as a fluid management web. Cecchetto teaches the laminate web comprises a nonwoven web having a median distance between to adjacent fiber in a z-direction of above 55 microns (Cecchetto para. 0015). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the fluid management layer of Maschino/Stone/Viens with the claimed median distance between adjacent fibers. Doing so would provide a web that would improve fluid transport and drainage as taught in Cecchetto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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 at 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781