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
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) is obviated by the amendments to claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues the Office admits that Busam does not specifically teach “the first plurality of apertures has a different pattern than a pattern of the second plurality of apertures”. Applicant argues the Office Action then states that “Busam does teach the apertures can vary in size, shape and pattern (col. 9, lines 22-28; col. 10, lines 1-6)” and that “the topsheet 24 comprises a laminate web 40 constructed of two different and distinct liquid pervious material 42 and 44 (col.7, lines 3-4)”, such that it would have been obvious “to modify the layer with different aperture patterns to provide two distinct layers.” Applicant notes that these portions of Busam relate solely to the patterns formed by apertures 46 and 48, both of which are located in the center of the web, i.e. in the same ‘zone’. Applicant argues these disclosures provide no teaching or suggestion regarding a pattern formed by apertures located in the outer zone 72. 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., outer zone 72 form a different pattern, as compared to apertures in the central zone 70, in which the zones do not overlap are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Applicant further argues that the recitation in claim 1 that “the first Effective Open Area is different than the second Effective Open Area” is rejected in a similar manner. The Office Action again admits that Busam does not teach this feature. Applicant argues that the “first and second apertures” referenced in the Office Action are Busam’s apertures 46 48 that are formed in the center of web 40, i.e., in the same zone, and all disclosures relating to aperture properties relate solely to these apertures 46 48 formed in the same zone. Applicant respectfully submits that these disclosures provide no teaching or suggestion regarding the Effective Open Area of outer zone 72. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 claims a first zone comprising first apertures, first land areas and first embossments where the first zone has a first Effective Open Area; a second zone comprising second apertures, having a different pattern from the first apertures, second land areas, and second embossments where the second zone has a second Effective Open Area; the first zone is free from overlap from the second zone. The claim does not recite a central zone or an outer zone, thus any part of the apertured layer with surrounding land areas can constitute a first and second zone. In this case, the examiner has indicated area 70 as a first zone and area 72 as a second zone. Busam does teach apertures in zone 72 (col. 10, lines 43-44), but does not teach the Effective Open Area. However, Busam teaches the general condition where the apertures in the first and second layers varying in size, shape and pattern, and more specifically being arranged in a systematic, uniform, or random pattern (col, 9, lines 22-28 and col. 10, lines 1-7). While the aforementioned disclosure relates to the apertures 46, 48, it is reasonable to conclude that when Busam states “the portion of the second material 44 which extends beyond the edges of the first material may be apertured as well” (col. 10, lines 34-36) and “however the laminate web 60 may be apertured in the outer zones 72 if desired” (col. 10, lines 43-44), these statements relate to the same description for apertures 46 and 48. In which case, Busam teaches and suggests the Effective Open Area and aperture sizes taught for apertures 46 and 48 also apply to any apertures present in zones extending beyond the edges of the first material or any apertures in the outer zones 72, which provides support and motivation for a prima facie case of obviousness against the limitations of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and since no amendments changing the scope of the claims are made, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busam USPN 7371919 in view of Gibson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0201024.
As to claim 1, Busam teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet 24 comprising a patterned apertured web 40 comprising:
a first layer 42, 62; and
a second layer 44, 64 (Figures 1-2; col. 7, lines 3-5; col. 10, lines 37-44).
first 70 and second 72 zones formed in the first and second layers 62,44 (Figure 3; col. 10, lines 37-44);
the first zone 70 comprising:
a first plurality of apertures 46, 48, wherein at least some apertures of the first plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area in a range of about 0.3mm2 to about 15 mm2 - where Busam teaches an effective aperture size of 0.2 mm2 to 2 mm2 , which has values in the claimed range (Busam col. 7, lines 28-35)
first land areas (unapertured areas around the apertures 46, 48; Figures 1 and 2) surrounding at least some of the first plurality of apertures 46, 48.
Busam teaches the present invention substantially as claimed, but does not teach a first and second plurality of embossments. Gibson teaches an apertured web having embossments for the benefit of adding texture that provides for a tactile impress of softness. Gibson teaches softness is beneficial when the webs are used as topsheet (Gibson paragraph 0094). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Busam with embossments for the benefits taught in Gibson.
wherein the first zone has a first Effective Open Area (col. 7, lines 39-44; (Busam col. 9, lines 49-56)
the second zone 72 comprising:
a second plurality of apertures – where Busam teaches these areas may be apertured (col. 10, lines 34-44),
Busam does not specifically teach the first plurality of apertures 46 have a different pattern than a pattern of the second plurality of apertures 48. However, Busam does teach the apertures can vary in size, shape and pattern (col. 9, lines 22-28; col. 10, lines 1-6). Busam teach the topsheet 24 comprises a laminate web 40 constructed of two different and distinct liquid pervious materials 42 and 44 (col. 7, lines 3-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the layers with different aperture patterns to provide two distinct layers as taught in Busam.
Busam does not teach an Effective Aperture Area and Effective Open Area measured according to the Aperture Test. Busam does teach a method to determine effective aperture size and effective open area (Busam col. 7, lines 45 through col 9, line 21) The method of Busam utilizes an image analysis measurement method used to detect open area regions similar to that of the current invention. Busam teaches as percent open area up to 20% (paragraphs 0088, 0138). Although Busam’s values do not anticipate the claimed values, the values of Busam are obvious since effective aperture areas and the effective open areas taught in Busam does overlap the claimed ranges.
Busam/Gibson teach second land areas (unapertured areas around the apertures 48) surrounding at least some of the second plurality of apertures 48; and
Busam does not specifically teach the first Effective Open Area is different than the second Effective Open Area. However, Busam teaches the first and second apertures can vary in size, shape, and pattern (Busam col. 9, lines 22-27 and col. 10, lines 1-7). One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the ideal levels of aperture size for a particular level of permeability.
Busam teaches the first zone is free from overlap with the second zone (Busam Figures 2 and 3);
wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise carded fibers (Busam col. 7, lines 13-15; col. 11, lines 22-24);
wherein the first plurality of apertures 46 and the second plurality of apertures 48 extend through the first layer 42 and the second layer 44; and
wherein the first layer is joined to the second layer (Busam Figures 2 and 3);
Busam teaches a backsheet 26; and an absorbent core 28 positioned intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet (Busam col. 4, lines 56-61).
As to claim 2, Busam/Gibson teach the absorbent article 20 has a central lateral axis defining a front waist region 27 and a back waist region 29 in the absorbent article (Busam Figure 1), and wherein the first zone of the patterned apertured web is positioned at least partially in the front waist region of the absorbent article – where Busam teaches the laminate web 40, 60, 140 may be apertured only in the front waist region 27, 127 (Busam col. 10, lines 50-56).
As to claim 3, Busam/Gibson teach the second zone of the patterned apertured web is positioned at least partially in a back waist region of the absorbent article (Busam Figure 4) – where Busam teaches the laminate web 40, 60, 140 may be apertured only in the back waist region 29, 129 (Busam col. 10, lines 50-56).
.
As to claim 4, the first layer 42,62 has a different basis weight than the second layer 44, 64 – where Busam teaches the basis weight of the first layer is 5 gsm to 100 gsm (col. 7, lines 23-24 and the basis weight of the second layer is 5 gsm to 100 gsm (col. 9, lines 44-46). Busam does not specifically teach the first and second layers have different basis weights. However, Busam does teach the layers differ in the percentage of bonded area, softness (col. 10, line 57 through col. 11, line 11), and hydrophilicity (col. 10, lines 13-24). One having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed would be motivated to provide the layers to have differences in fiber composition and basis weights in order to provide the differences in bonding percentage, softness, and hydrophilicity as taught in Busam.
As to claim 5, the first layer 42,62 has a different basis weight than the second layer 44, 64 – where Busam teaches the basis weight of the first layer is 5 gsm to 100 gsm (col. 7, lines 23-24 and the basis weight of the second layer is 5 gsm to 100 gsm (col. 9, lines 44-46).
As to claim 6, the first layer 42 comprises first fibers, wherein the second layer 44 comprises second fibers, and wherein the first fibers are different than the second fibers. Busam teaches the first layer 42,62 comprises first fibers (col. 7, lines 9-15, wherein the second layer 44, 64 comprises second fibers (col. 9, lines 31-40). Busam also teaches the first and second layers have different hydrophilicity, different amount of bonding and softness. Busam teaches a factor in determining the softness and strength is fiber type. Busam teaches the first material may be composed of a fiber providing the desired softness and second material may be composed of a fiber providing the desired strength (col. 11, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the first and second layers with different fibers to achieve the desired combination of softness and strength as taught in Busam.
As to claim 7, the first fibers have a different hydrophilicity than the second fibers (Busam col. 10, lines 13-15).
As to claim 8, the first layer comprises first fibers, wherein the second layer comprises second fibers, wherein the first fibers comprise bicomponent fibers, and wherein the second fibers comprise bicomponent fibers (Busam col. 7, lines 9-15).
As to claims 9 and 10, Busam/Gibson teach the first plurality of apertures 46 has an Effective Aperture Area in the range of 0.2 mm2 to 2.0 mm2 (Busam col. 7, lines 28-35) and the second plurality of apertures 48 has an Effective Aperture Area in the range of 0.2 mm2 to 2.0 mm2 (col. 9, lines 49-56). Busam does teach the apertures (and corresponding land areas) have various shapes and sizes (Busam col. 9, lines 22-28; col. 10, lines 1-7) in which case, the Interaperture Distances median and mean would also vary. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to determine through routine experimentation the ideal levels of Effective Aperture Area depending on the desired fluid permeability.
As to claim 11, Busam/Gibson teach at least some of the first land areas have a land area width of at least 4mm, and wherein at least some of the second land areas have a land area width of at least 4mm – where Gibson teaches the tooth spacing (in the aperture formation) can range from 0.0 mm to about 25.5 mm (Gibson paragraph 0082). Thus, the corresponding land areas would be at least 4mm.
As to claim 12, Busam/Gibson does not specifically teach the first plurality of apertures 42, 62 have a first plurality of Interaperture Distances, according to the Aperture Test wherein the first Interaperture Distances have a distribution having a median and a mean, wherein the second plurality of apertures have a plurality of second Interaperture Distances, according to the Aperture Test, and wherein the second Interaperture Distances have a distribution having a median and a mean. Busam does teach the apertures (and corresponding land areas) have various shapes and sizes (Busam col. 9, lines 22-28; col. 10, lines 1-7) in which case, the Interaperture Distances median and mean would also vary. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed values depending on the desired fluid permeability.
As to claim 13, the first layer or the second layer of the patterned apertured web is through-air bonded (Busam col. 7, lines 13-15).
As to claim 15, Busam/Gibson teach the absorbent core comprises superabsorbent polymers (Busam col. 5, lines 48-50). Busam does not specifically teach the absorbent core comprises less than 5% airfelt. However, Busam teaches the absorbent core may have an absorbent capacity compatible with the design loading and intended use of the diaper (Busam col. 5, lines 56-61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the absorbent core with less than 5% airfelt depending on the size and absorbent capacity desired as it is old and well known in the art that superabsorbent materials have a high absorbent capacity and provide a thinner absorbent core as compared to airfelt materials.
As to claim 16, Busam/Gibson teach the apertured web is a laminate (Busam col. 7 line 3, Gibson paragraph 0117). Gibson further teaches an adhesive positioned intermediate the first layer and the second layer of the patterned apertured web (Gibson paragraph 0062 and 0118).
As to claim 18, Busam/Gibson teach the first layer 42 forms a patch joined to the second layer 44 – as the first layer 42 is smaller in size than the second layer 44 (Figures 1 and 2; Busam col. 10, lines 25-31).
As to claim 19, Busam/Gibson teach the first layer 42,62 comprises first fibers (Busam col. 7, lines 9-15, wherein the second layer 44, 64 comprises second fibers (Busam col. 9, lines 31-40), and wherein the first fibers have a different denier than a denier of the second fibers. Busam teaches a denier of the first fibers is between 1 and 18 (col. 7, lines 21-22) and a denier of the second fibers is between about 1 and 18 being preferred (col. 9, lines 42-43). Busam also teaches the first and second layers have different hydrophilicity, different amount of bonding and softness. Busam teaches a factor in determining the softness and strength is fiber type. Busam teaches the first material may be composed of a fiber providing the desired softness and second material may be composed of a fiber providing the desired strength (col. 11, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the first and second layers with different fibers of different deniers to achieve the desired combination of softness and strength as taught in Busam.
As to claim 20, Busam teaches the first layer 42,62 has a different hydrophilicity than the second layer 44,64 (col. 10, lines 13-15).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busam USPN 7371919 in view of Gibson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0201024 and further in in view of Mattingly, III et al. USPN 4690679.
Busam/Gibson teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Busam/Gibson does not specifically teach the first layer has the same color as the second layer. Mattingly, III teaches a patterned apertured web topsheet comprising an upper layer 42 and a lower layer 44 (Mattingly Figure 7). Mattingly III teaches in order to provide the desired coloration for a sanitary napkin cover, some amount of an opacifier is generally added to one or both of the two layers to provide white or any other desired color (Mattingly III; col. 5, lines 29-38), in which case a portion of a wearer-facing surface (cover) has the first layer has the same color as the second layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the layers as the same color for benefits such as providing a clean and fresh appearance and/or to provide stain masking during use. .
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busam USPN 7371919 in view of Gibson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0201024 and further in in view of Hammons et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0036338. Busam/Gibson teach the present invention substantially as claimed. Busam/Gibson do not teach the absorbent core has one or more channels. Hammons teaches an absorbent article having regionalized apertured topsheet and channels. Hammons teaches an embodiment having channels 300 formed by compression molding the topsheet and the absorbent core together leaving an indentation in the body facing surface of the absorbent article for the benefit of resisting fluid transport beyond the channel and providing a boundary for fluids defined by the channel 300 (Hammons Figure 23; paragraph 0152, 0164). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a channel in the absorbent for the benefits taught in Hammons.
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