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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is obviated by the cancellation of claim 14.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1-7 and 20-23 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Maschino, US 2019/0358096 in view of Stone, US 2010/0233438, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues the combination depends on rebuilding Maschino’s film from a polyethylene blend Maschino does not use. Clam 1 recites that “the polyethylene is a homogenous 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”. Applicant argues the Office Action characterizes Maschino para. 0071 as teaching a blend of low density polyethylene and linear low-density polyethylene and Maschino para. 0071 does not expressly teach that specific blend. Applicant argues that passage identifies an open-ended set of candidate polyolefins, one or more of which may be used, and supplies no reason a person having ordinary skill in the art would have selected low density polyethylene and linear low-density polyethylene, and combined them as the recited homogeneous bled of at least 50% by weight, in preference to the other listed candidates. The application, moreover, identifies a specific benefit discovered for this selection. With respect to the argument that Maschino/Stone does not provide any reason to combine the elements as presently claimed, the examiner disagrees. Maschino does in fact list a limited number of elements including the claimed elements for combining to produce a formed film layer as taught in paragraph 0071. It is obvious to try to combine the elements choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions according to known methods to yield predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to choose from a finite number of predictable polyolefins with a reasonable expectation of success of a formed film layer. Suggestion, teaching or motivation does not have to be explicit and “may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole or the nature of the problem itself”, Dystar Textilfarben GMBH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That fact that the prior art teaches a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious particularly since the prior art composition and the claimed composition are intended to be used in the same environment and for the same purpose.
Additionally, Applicant argues a specific blend of LDPE/LLDPE at 50% or more by weight. However, “50%” or more by weight is open-ended and includes values that are not supported by the present disclosure. There is not enough guidance in the disclosure to maintain that the prior art Maschino does not teach a “specific blend”. For example, is the blend 50% of LDPE combined with 50% of LLDPE? Is the film of the present invention an LDPE/LLDPE blend at 50% or more in combination with other polyolefins?, or is some amount of HDPE also permitted as taught in the instant specification page 6, lines 25-30? Maschino teaches a finite number of predictable polyolefins known in the art for fluid distribution materials. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is obvious to choose from among known solutions to a problem: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictablesolutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.
Applicant argues the Office Action acknowledges that Maschino does not disclose the recited homogenous LDPE/LLDPE blend at 50% or more by weight, and reaches the recited ratio and homogeneity through Lee USPN 6,228,462 incorporated by reference into Stone. In response to applicant's argument that “importing only Lee’s LDPE/LLDPE blend into Maschino – without Lee’s rigid polystyrene/polypropylene layer – imports the part Lee calls “substantially less rigid” and leaves behind the part Lee identifies as supplying the rigidity”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the examiner relied on Lee for a teaching of a substantially less rigid film layer comprising a 50/50 blend of low density polyethylene and linear low density polyethylene (i.e., 50% LDPE, 50% LLDPE) (Lee col. 9, lines 27-30). Applicant points to Fig. 5 of Lee to show a multi-layer film 120 having a rigid layer 103 and less rigid layer 101 comprising the LDPE/LLDPE materials. From the teachings of Lee, the 50/50 blend of LDPE/LLDPE meets the limitation of “blend of at least 50%” as broadly as claimed. Even if the ‘at least 50% by weight’ is intended to mean a blend in combination with other polyolefins, Fig. 5 shows the layer 101 comprising the LDPE/LLDPE is at least 50% by weight of the film 120 in that the layer 101 comprises the majority of the multi-layered film.
In response to applicant's argument that claim 21 recites that the “the film layer comprises no more than 5% by weight high density polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyethylene terephthalate”, yet completing the Lee structure that the cited benefits actually depend on would require adding Lee’s polystyrene/polypropylene rigid layer”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues claim 17 recites that “the film layer is void of high density polyethylene (HDPE),” whereas the only film composition Maschino actually forms contains high density polyethylene (Maschino para. 0086). However, Maschino is not relied on to teach a film layer void of high density polyethylene. Rather Lee is relied on to teach a film layer void of HDPE where Lee teaches the less rigid layer 101 comprises a 50/50 blend of LDPE/LLDPE.
Applicant further argues the recited cone height is treated as routine optimization without the necessary predicate. Claim 1 recites “wherein the cones have an average height (ch) of about 300 µm to about 500 µm”. Applicant argues the Office Action presents this dimension as a matter of routine experimentation. Routine optimization presupposes that the prior art recognizes the dimension as a variable that achieves a particular, identified result, so that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to optimize it. Applicant argues the Office Action identifies no such recognition in the cited art for cone or aperture height in the recited range. Applicant argues that by contrast, the application identifies a specific purpose served by the recited range: cones with “an average height (ch) … of about 300 µm to about 500 µm or about 400 µm, for purposes of soft, cloth-like skin feel and resistance to sticking” (Specification, page 8). Applicant argues the cited art reaches for different purposes – Stone identifies softness arising from thinned wall portions that “offer little resistance to compression or shear when touched” (Stone para. 0064), and aesthetic or textural effects (Stone paras. 0005-0006). Applicant argues the recited 300-500 µm is not a tunable dimension drawn from the cited art’s purpose; it is a specific geometry tied to a purpose the cited art does not identify. A bare invocation of routine experimentation, untethered to an identified result-effective variable in the cited art and unanchored to the application’s own stated purpose for the recited range, does not supply the recited dimension. Applicant argues to the extent the Office Action relies on Stone’s disclosure of a height “of at least about 200 microns” (Stone para. 0056), that open-ended lower bond identifies no particular value and provides no direction to the recited 300-500 µm
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 8 of the instant specification and relied on to support Applicant’s argument states “The film layer comprises cones and it is preferred that the cones 22 be created in the film to have an average height ch, from the lowest portions of their surrounding valleys 24, of about 300 µm to about 500 µm or about 400 µm, for purposes of soft, cloth-like skin feel and resistance to sticking”.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) MPEP 2144 [R-01.2024] IV.
Stone teaches the general condition of cone heights of 200 µm. "[W]here 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Also, Stone provides motivation to vary the height of the cones where Stone teaches the actual height may vary to create different colors or hues (para. 0060). Additionally, Stone teaches the thinning can be beneficial from a softness standpoint as the thinned portions offer little resistance to compression or shear when touched. Stone teaches this lack of resistance relates to a feeling of softness, much like the feeling of a velour fabric (para. 0064). Although Stone has a different reason for optimizing the cone height, Stone teaches the general condition of varying the cone height (Stone Figs. 23-24) to provide unique visual effects in the multi-layer web (Stone paras. 0059-0060).
Applicant argues claim 1 recites apertures with “a numerical density of about 140 to about 500 apertures per cm2. The Office Action relies on Stone para. 0069, which states that the area density of Stone’s discrete extended elements “can be optimized and the colored web will typically comprise from about 4 to about 10,000 …discrete extended elements per square centimeter”. Applicant argues Stone’s range spans more than three orders of magnitude and the narrowest of the narrower ranges begins at about 500 to about 700 per square centimeter, at or above the upper bound of the recited 140 to 500 range and well above the still narrower bands recited in claims 6 and 7. Applicant argues Stone ties no sub-range to any particular property of the web, and its narrower ranges point away from, rather than toward, the recited density values. Applicant argues the application, in contrast, identifies the recited density and its preferred narrower bands as tied to specific purposed (Specification, page 8, identifying numerical densities of 140 to 500, 200 to 300, and 220 to 270 apertures per cm2 as preferred for softness, appearance, skin, feel, resistance to sticking, and fluid acquisition). Applicant’s arguments regarding the numerical densities is not persuasive. Although Stone teaches an upper limit outside of the claimed range, Stone does in fact teach values within the claimed range, and thus meets the claim limitation.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments above regarding the criticality of the claimed ranges, Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 III.A [R-01.2024] and MPEP § 716.02-§716.02(g).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
With regard to claims 12 and 13, and in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. caliper factor is a ratio - millimeters of caliper divided by basis weight) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to claim 8 and 16, and in response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant has added new claim 24 and indicated it is allowable for at least the reasons given for claim 8. Independent new claim 24 is examined on the merits below.
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 8-13, 15, 17-19, and 24 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 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 having a film layer 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).
As to claim 24, Maschino/Stone/Lee/Viens teaches 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 having a film layer comprising a 50/50 blend of LDPE and LLDPE (Lee Abstract, col. 9, lines 27-30).
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 two 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights