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 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues – while Applicant agrees that Hammons teaches that the structural features defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits, Applicant asserts that this broad statement does not constitute a clear teaching or motivation to deliberately design the first and second zones to have quantifiably different Effective Open Areas Applicant argues a general desire for “different performance benefits” does not inherently lead one skilled in the art to choose a precise differentiation in “Effective Open Area” as a design parameter between the two distinct zones. Applicant argues the claim [claim 1] specifies that the first Effective Open Area is different than the second Effective Open Area, implying a specific design choice to create this difference, not merely a potential outcome of generally different patterns. Neither Hammons nor Busam suggest that actively pursing a difference in Effective Open Area between functionally distinct zones is a desired outcome or provides a particular advantage not already achieved by their individual disclosures. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hammons taken in context with the figures as discussed below, teaches different zones with different sized apertures corresponding to the zones. Hammons teaches a topsheet comprising a first portion 60 and a second portion 70 having structurally modified zones 81,82, 83, and 84. The first 60 and second 70 portions have a different structure (Hammons para 0030) and have different sized apertures as seen in Figure 3 and taught in Hammons where Hammons teaches the first apertures 90, in first portion 60 have a different diameter than the second apertures 100 in second portions 70 (para 0048) – different diameters equate to different aperture area sizes as taught in para. 0048. Hammons teaches the second apertures 100 defining the structurally modified zones 70, 81-84 can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (para. 0039). Hammons further teaches different benefits to skin health and fluid acquisition can be targeted to different portions of the wearer’s body as the fluid acquisition and retention the absorbent article may affect the health of the skin (para. 0041). Hammons further teaches the topsheet having small apertures may feel softer and be less abrasive to the wearer’s skin than a topsheet having large apertures. Hammons also discusses how the first and second portions have different shaped apertures and the shape of apertures in a material can affect how smooth a material is perceived to be (para. 0050). Thus, Hammons makes a correlation between the size and shape of the apertures and the how fluid acquisition and perceived texture of the topsheet is contributed to the aperture size, including the aperture area and perceived benefits. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ) are withdrawn due to the amendments to claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammons US Patent Application Publication 2011/0196330 in view of Busam USPN 7371919.
As to claims 1 and 7, Hammons teaches an absorbent article 10 comprising:
a topsheet 20 – Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones and the first portion 60 can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship, for example, as in a laminate (para. 0038) - the topsheet is a first layer and the patterned apertured web having structurally modified zones is second layer;
a patterned apertured web joined to or positioned on the topsheet as discussed above (Hammons para. 0038)
first and second zones 81, 82 formed in the patterned apertured web (Figure 3);
the first zone 81 comprising:
a first plurality of apertures 100. Hammons teaches the apertures can have an areas between about 0.1mm2 and about 4mm2 (paragraph 0048). However, Hammons does not specifically the first plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area. Busam teaches an absorbent article that allows greater handling of urine and low-viscosity fecal material with an apertured laminate web having an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 (col. 7, lines 28-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Hammons with the effective open aperture range taught in Busam since both are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of transferring fluids to the absorbent core.
Hammons/Busam teaches first land areas 650 (Hammons Figure 3; paragraph 0044-0046) surrounding at least some of the first plurality of apertures 100; and a first plurality of embossments – where Hammons teaches aberrations 2 can be bumps, embossments, holes, or the like (Hammons paragraph 0070);
wherein the first zone has a first Effective Open Area, according to an Aperture Test (Busam col. 7; line 28 through col. 9, line 11);
the second zone 82 comprising:
a second plurality of apertures 100, wherein the first plurality of apertures have a different pattern than a pattern of the second plurality of apertures – where Hammons teaches the second apertures 100 defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons paragraph 0039), and
wherein at least some apertures of the second plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area in a range of about 0.3mm2 to about 15 mm2, according to an Aperture Test - where Busam teaches an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 (Busam col. 7, lines 28-35);
second land areas surrounding at least some of the second plurality of apertures 100; and a second plurality of embossments where Hammons teaches aberrations 2 can be bumps, embossments, holes, or the like (Hammons paragraph 0070);
Hammons teaches the apertures can have an areas between about 0.1mm2 and about 4mm2 (paragraph 0048). However, Hammons does not specifically the second plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area. Busam teaches an absorbent article that allows greater handling of urine and low-viscosity fecal material with an apertured laminate web having an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 (col. 7, lines 28-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Hammons with the effective open aperture range taught in Busam since both are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of transferring fluids to the absorbent core.
Hammons/Busam do not specifically teach the first Effective Open Area is different than the second Effective Open Area. However, Hammons teaches the apertures 100 defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the effective open area in the first and second zones to provide a desired level of fluid transport;
wherein the first zone 81 is free from overlap with the second zone 82 (Hammons Figs. 1 and 3);
wherein the patterned apertured web comprises carded fibers (Hammons paras. 0025,0061,0073,0074; Busam col. 7, lines 9-15); and
wherein the patterned apertured web forms a patch joined to the topsheet where Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones and the portion 60 of the topsheet 20 can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship (Hammons para. 0038);
a backsheet 30;
an absorbent core positioned intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet 40 (Hammons paragraph 0026); and
a central lateral axis T defining a front waist region and a back waist region in the absorbent article (Hammons Figure 3),
wherein the first zone 81 of the patterned apertured web is positioned at least partially in the front waist region of the absorbent article (Hammons Figure 3), and
wherein the second zone 82 of the patterned apertured web is positioned at least partially in a back waist region of the absorbent article (Hammons Figure 3).
As to claims 2 and 3, the first layer has a different or the same basis weight than the second layer – where Hammons teaches the nonwoven precursor web 25 may be a multilayer material with a first layer of spunbonded polypropylene having a basis weight of from about 0.2 to about 8 oz/yd2 or a layer of meltblown polypropylene having a basis weight of from about 0.2 to about 4 oz/yd2; and the second layer of spunbonded polypropylene having a basis weight from about 0.2 to about 8 oz/yd2 (Hammons paragraph 0074).
As to claim 4, the first layer comprises first fibers, wherein the second layer comprises second fibers, and wherein the first fibers are different than the second fibers – where Hammons teaches the web may be a multiayer material or laminate having a web joined to a film and/or Busam teaches the laminate made of different materials (Hammons paragraphs 0075 and 0081, 0084, and 0085; Busam col. 7, lines 3-26 and col. 9, lines 29-43)
As to claim 5, Hammons/Busam teaches the first fibers have a different hydrophilicity than the second fibers – where Busam teaches the first topsheet may be hydrophobic and more resilient when wetted than the secondary topsheet in order to pass fluids through the first topsheet to the secondary topsheet (col. 1, lines 29-34; col. 3, lines 53-55). Busam teaches the second material 44 preferably has a hydrophilicity which is greater than the hydrophilicity of the first material 42 and the first material 42 is a relatively hydrophobic material (col. 10, lines 13-19).
As to claim 6, 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 - Hammons teaches the precursor web 25 (forming the patterned web) can comprise bicomponent fibers (Hammons paragraph 0061; Busam col. 7, lines 9-15).
As to claim 8, Hammons/Busam teaches an absorbent article that allows greater handling of urine and low-viscosity fecal material with an apertured laminate web having an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 , which has values in the claimed range for the first and second plurality of apertures (Busam col. 7, lines 28-35).
As to claim 9, Hammons/Busam does Busam does not specifically 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. Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones need not all be the same. For instance, the structures defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons para. 0039). Busam also teaches the apertures (and corresponding land areas) have various shapes and sizes (col. 9, lines 22-28; col. 10, lines 1-7) in which case the size of the land areas would also vary. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed land area distances since Hammons teaches different sizes and/or patterns deliver different performance benefit, such as comfort to different portions of the body.
As to claim 10, Hammons/Busam also do not specifically teach the first plurality of apertures have a plurality of first 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. However, Hammons teaches the apertures defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons paragraph 0039). Busam further teaches the apertures (and corresponding land areas) have various shapes and sizes (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 Hammons/Busam with the claimed values depending on the desired fluid permeability of the webs.
As to claim 11, Hammons/Busam teaches the patterned apertured web is through-air bonded (Busam col. 7, line 15).
As to claim 12, Hammons/Busam teaches the patterned apertured web comprises a portion of a wearer-facing surface of the absorbent article – where Hammons teaches the patterned web has structurally modified zones (81-84) and the portion 60 [of the topsheet] can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship, for example as in a laminate (Hammons paragraph 0038) and where Hammons teaches the topsheet has a body facing surface 23, that can actually be a body contacting surface (Hammons paragraph 0028).
As to claim 13, Hammons/Busam teaches the first layer has the same color as the second layer – where Hammons teaches the first 60 and second 70 portions (portions 70 contain the modified zones 81-84) can be composed of the same precursor material or materials (Hammons paragraph 0030).
As to claim 14, Hammons/Busam teaches the absorbent core comprises superabsorbent polymers (Hammons para. 0104; Busam col. 5, lines 37-50). Hammons/Busam do not specifically teach the absorbent core comprises less than 5% airfelt. However, Hammons teaches the absorbent core 40 can be relatively thin, less than 5mm in thickness and as little as 1mm in thickness (Hammons para. 0105). It is old and well known in the art that absorbent cores having low amounts of airfelt and high amounts of superabsorbent material provide a relatively thinner core. Hammons teaches the thinner core can comprise absorbent gelling materials, including AGM fibers, as is known in the art (Hammons para. 0105).
As to claim 15, Hammons/Busam teaches the absorbent core comprises one or more channels – where Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones can have a boundary wherein at least part of the boundary is defined by a channel 300 (Hammons Figure 13A). Hammons teaches the channel 300 can be formed by compression molding in which the topsheet 20 and the absorbent core 40 are compressed leaving an indentation in the body facing surface of the absorbent article (Hammons Figure 13A; paragraph 0101).
As to claim 16, Hammons/Busam teaches the first layer comprises first fibers, wherein the second layer comprises second fibers, and wherein the first fibers have a different denier than a denier of the second fibers – where Busam teaches both layers 42 and 44 have fibers of different size. Busam teaches both layers have fibers with a denier between about 1 and 18 (Busam col. 7, lines 21-23;col. 9, lines 42-44). Busam does teach the laminate web 40 is constructed of two different and distinct liquid pervious materials 42 and 44 (col. 7, lines 3-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to have the first and second layers with fibers of different deniers to provide the distinct webs as taught in Busam, one first layer for providing softness and a second layer for providing the desired strength (Busam col. 11, lines 7-11).
As to claim 17, Hammons/Busam teaches the first layer has a different hydrophilicity than the second layer – where Busam teaches the first topsheet may be hydrophobic and more resilient when wetted than the secondary topsheet in order to pass fluids through the first topsheet to the secondary topsheet (col. 1, lines 29-34; col. 3, lines 53-55). Busam teaches the second material 44 preferably has a hydrophilicity which is greater than the hydrophilicity of the first material 42 and the first material 42 is a relatively hydrophobic material (col. 10, lines 13-19).
As to claim 18, Hammons/Busam teaches the first layer is hydrophobic - where Busam teaches the first topsheet may be hydrophobic and more resilient when wetted than the secondary topsheet in order to pass fluids through the first topsheet to the secondary topsheet (col. 1, lines 29-34; col. 3, lines 53-55)..
As to claims 19 and 20, Hammons teaches an absorbent article 10 comprising:
a topsheet 20;
a patterned apertured web joined to or positioned on the topsheet – where Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones and the portion 60 of the topsheet 20 can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship, for example as in a laminate (Hammons para. 0038) and comprising:
first and second zones 81, 82 formed in the patterned apertured web (Figure 3);
the first zone 81 comprising:
a first plurality of apertures 100. Hammons teaches the apertures can have an areas between about 0.1mm2 and about 4mm2 (paragraph 0048). However, Hammons does not specifically the first plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area. Busam teaches an absorbent article that allows greater handling of urine and low-viscosity fecal material with an apertured laminate web having an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 (col. 7, lines 28-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Hammons with the effective open aperture range taught in Busam since both are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of transferring fluids to the absorbent core.
Hammons/Busam teaches first land areas 650 (Hammons Figure 3; paragraph 0044-0046) surrounding at least some of the first plurality of apertures 100; and a first plurality of embossments – where Hammons teaches aberrations 2 can be bumps, embossments, holes, or the like (Hammons paragraph 0070);
wherein the first zone has a first Effective Open Area, according to an Aperture Test (Busam col. 7; line 28 through col. 9, line 11)
the second zone 82 comprising:
a second plurality of apertures 100, wherein the first plurality of apertures have a different pattern than a pattern of the second plurality of apertures – where Hammons teaches the second apertures 100 defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons paragraph 0039), and
wherein at least some apertures of the second plurality of apertures have an Effective Aperture Area in a range of about 0.3mm2 to about 15 mm2, according to an Aperture Test - where Busam teaches an effective aperture area of at least 0.2 mm and up to at least 2.0 mm2 (Busam col. 7, lines 28-35).
second land areas surrounding at least some of the second plurality of apertures 100; and a second plurality of embossments where Hammons teaches aberrations 2 can be bumps, embossments, holes, or the like (Hammons paragraph 0070);
Hammons/Busam do not specifically teach the first Effective Open Area is different than the second Effective Open Area. However, Hammons teaches the apertures 100 defining the structurally modified zones can have different sizes and/or be arranged in a different pattern to deliver different performance benefits (Hammons paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the effective open area in the first and second zones to provide a desired level of fluid transport.
wherein the patterned apertured web is through-air bonded (Busam col. 7, line 15);
wherein the first zone 81 is free from overlap with the second zone 82 (Hammons Figs. 1 and 3);
wherein the patterned apertured web comprises carded fibers (Hammons paras. 0025,0061,0073,0074; Busam col. 7, lines 9-15);
wherein the patterned apertured web forms a patch joined to the topsheet where Hammons teaches the structurally modified zones and the portion 60 of the topsheet 20 can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship (Hammons para. 0038); and
wherein the patterned apertured web comprises a portion of a wearer-facing surface of the absorbent article – where Hammons teaches the patterned web has structurally modified zones (81-84) and the portion 60 of the topsheet can be comprised of two or more layers engaged with one another in a layered relationship, for example as in a laminate (Hammons paragraph 0038) and where Hammons teaches the topsheet has a body facing surface 23, that can actually be a body contacting surface (Hammons paragraph 0028);
a backsheet 30;
an absorbent core positioned intermediate the topsheet and the backsheet 40 (Hammons paragraph 0026).
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