DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed March 25, 2026.
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-17 and 20-25 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 18 and 19 are cancelled, and claims 21-25 are newly added as of the March 25, 2026 amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 6, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
3. Claim 10 is amended to correct the minor informality; accordingly, the previously applied claim objection are withdrawn.
Applicant has also amended the claims to reduce the use of relative terms where deemed proper, and examiner agrees with applicant’s amendment; accordingly, the previously applied 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-17 and 20-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Hammons et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0258651) which was previously cited in the conclusion section of the most recent Office action is being introduced as a secondary reference of rejection herein for curing the deficiencies of Rosati, in view of the present claim amendments.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0240084 A1) in view of Hammons et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0258651).
6. With regard to claim 1, Rosati discloses a nonwoven substrate ([0075-0078]; abstract; Figs. 12-16; [0365-0366]), the nonwoven substrate comprising: a top surface (first surface, 3), an opposite bottom surface (second surface, 11; [0226]), and a plurality of apertures (5; [0230-0232]) and a plurality of discrete non-aperture areas (land areas, 8, 12; Fig. 4a; [0236]); wherein the top surface (3) of the nonwoven substrate (24) has a first contact angle of no lower than 90 degrees as measured according to Contact Angle Test (“more than 95° up to 130°”; [0096]; [0024]; [0052]; [0383-0385]), wherein the bottom surface (11) of the nonwoven substrate (24) has a second contact angle of lower than 90 degrees as measured according to Contact Angle Test (“less than or equal to 70°”; [0345]; [0024]; [0051]; [0383-0385]), wherein the nonwoven substrate comprises a first layer (1) forming the top surface (3) of the nonwoven substrate and a second layer (2) forming the bottom surface (11) of the nonwoven substrate (24; Fig. 4a; [0226]); and wherein the first layer (1) and the second layer (2) are intermixed at a boundary region (Fig. 4a; [0056]; [0227]; [0239-0242]); and wherein the plurality of apertures (5) comprise at least one aperture (5) having at least three adjacent apertures that are spaced apart from by an edge-to-edge space no greater than about 2.5mm (“at least 0.5 mm, or at least 1.5 mm”; [0135]).
However, Rosati is silent in regard to each of the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas being defined by a periphery formed by a continuous line of apertures.
Within the same field of endeavor, Hammon discloses a nonwoven substrate (material webs, 10; abstract; Figs. 6A-6D; Fig. 31) having a first (first stratum, 20) and second layer (second stratum, 30) forming top and bottom surfaces ([0058]), respectfully, and having a plurality of apertures (pattern array of apertures, 1110A, 1110B) and a plurality of discrete non-aperture areas (semi-continuous land areas, 1004; [0146]); wherein each of the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas (1004) are defined by a periphery formed by a continuous line of apertures (1110A, 1110B; Fig. 32; [0146-0148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pattern of aperture and non-aperture areas disclosed by Rosati so that each of the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas is defined by a periphery formed by a continuous line of apertures, similar to that disclosed by Hammon, in order to aid in fluid acquisition/distribution during use, as suggested by Hammon in paragraph [0147].
7. With regard to claims 4-5 and 22, Rosati discloses that the first layer (1) consists essentially of hydrophobic fibers ([0050]; [0052]; [0105-0107]); and the second layer (2) consists essentially of hydrophilic fibers ([0050]; [0051]; [0416-0421]).
8. With regard to claims 6, Rosati discloses that the difference between the first contact angle (“more than 95° up to 130°”; [0096]) and the second angle (“less than or equal to 70°”; [0345]) is at least 10 degrees (at least 25 degrees).
9. With regard to claim 8, Rosati discloses that the non-aperture zones (8, 12) are in a repeated pattern (“generally continuous grid”: [0236]). Hammon also discloses that the non-aperture zones (8, 12) are in a repeated pattern
10. With regard to claim 9, Rosati discloses that the first layer comprises hydrophobic fibers ([0050]; [0052]; [0105-0107]; [0416-0421]).
18. With regard to claims 10 and 23, Rosati and Hammon fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrophobic fibers have a linear density less than 2.0 denier or less; and that the hydrophilic fibers have a linear density of no greater than 6 denier.
However, Rosati specifically suggests that the fibers may have any suitable denier or denier range and/or fiber length ([0091]; [0217]), while also providing top sheet examples using a 50/50 mix of 6 and 9 denier fibers ([0378]; [0418]), top sheet examples wherein the second layer includes 2 denier fibers ([0420]), and suggestions for the use of low density synthetic or cellulosic fibers in alternate layers of the absorbent article (20; [0375]). Further, Hammon discloses denier ranges overlapping claimed ranges ([0080]; [0267]; [0328]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers disclosed by Rosati in view of Hammon to have a linear density less than 2.0 denier or less and a linear density of no greater than 6 denier, respectively, since it has been held that 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the examples provided by Rosati in paragraphs [0378], [0418], [0420], as well as the suggestion in paragraphs [0091] and [0217] that the fibers may have any suitable denier or denier range, and recognize that a desired linear density can be determined through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Namely, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower linear density of fibers will enhance comfort and breathability of the article.
19. With regard to claims 11 and 24, Rosati and Hammon fails to explicitly disclose that the first layer has a basis weight no greater than of 15gsm; and that the second layer has a basis weight from about 5 gsm to about 70 gsm.
However, Rosati discloses that the first layer (1; Fig. 4a) has a basis weight between 8 gsm and 40 gsm ([0079-0080]; [0416-0421]). Further, Hammon discloses that the first layer has a basis weight of about 12.5 gsm ([0249]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of the first and second layer disclosed by Rosati in view of Hammon to be no greater than of about 15gsm and from about 5 gsm to about 70 gsm, respectively, since it has been held that 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the examples and suggestions provided by Rosati in paragraphs [0079-0080] and [0416-0421], and recognize that a desired basis weight range of any layer can be determined through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Namely, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower basis weight of the first layer will enhance comfort, breathability and flexibility of the article.
11. With regard to claim 12, Rosati discloses that at least one of the first layer (1) and the second layer (2) comprises fibers comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polytrimethylene terephthalate, polybutylene, polyethylene terephthalate copolymer, poly(tetramethylene ether) glycol, and combinations thereof ([0067-0071]; [0077]; [0087]).
13. With regard to claim 13, Rosati discloses that the first layer (1) further comprises absorbent fibers (cotton fiber, etc.; [0061]; [0073-0074]; [0090]; [0092-0093]; [0216]; [0416-0421]).
14. With regard to claim 14, Rosati discloses that the nonwoven substrate (24) is a carded air through nonwoven ([0075-0076]; [0085]; [0117]; [0124]; [0240]; [0378]; [0418]; [0420-0421]).
15. With regard to claim 15, Rosati discloses that the hydrophobic fibers and the hydrophilic fibers are staple fibers ([0056]; [0119]; [0378]).
16. With regard to claim 21, Rosati discloses that the boundary region is substantially free of adhesive ([0284]; ‘spots of adhesive’ or ‘substantially free of adhesive’; [0334]).
17. With regard to claim 25, Rosati and Hammon fail to explicitly disclose that the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas have an area ratio of at least 60%, as measured by the Non-Aperture Zone Area/Size and Area Ratio Test.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the area ratio of the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas disclosed by Rosati in view of Hammon be at least 60%, since it has been held that 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the examples and suggestions provided by Hammon in Figures 19-32 and paragraph [0146], as well as ratio suggestions in paragraphs [0091], [0095] and [0416-0421], and recognize that a desired area ratio of the plurality of discrete non-aperture areas can be determined through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Namely, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a higher area ratio will enhance comfort, absorbability and flexibility of the article.
18. Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosati.
19. With regard to claim 16, Rosati discloses an absorbent article (abstract; Figs. 12-16; [0365-0366]) comprising: a wearer facing surface (surface with liquid pervious topsheet, 24); a garment facing surface (side with backsheet, 26); a liquid permeable topsheet (liquid pervious topsheet, 24); a liquid impermeable backsheet (liquid impervious backsheet, 26; [0367]); and an absorbent core (absorbent core, 28) disposed between the topsheet (24) and the backsheet (26; Fig. 13), wherein the topsheet (24; Figs. 4a, 4b) comprises a nonwoven substrate ([0075-0078]), the nonwoven substrate comprising: a top surface (first surface, 3), an opposite bottom surface (second surface, 11; [0226]), and a plurality of apertures (5; [0230-0232]); wherein the top surface (3) of the nonwoven substrate (24) has a first contact angle of no lower than 90 degrees as measured according to Contact Angle Test (“more than 95° up to 130°”; [0096]; [0024]; [0052]; [0383-0385]), wherein the bottom surface (11) of the nonwoven substrate (24) has a second contact angle of lower than 90 degrees as measured according to Contact Angle Test (“less than or equal to 70°”; [0345]; [0024]; [0051]; [0383-0385]), wherein the nonwoven substrate comprises a first layer (1) forming the top surface (3) of the nonwoven substrate and a second layer (2) forming the bottom surface (11) of the nonwoven substrate (24; Fig. 4a; [0226]); and wherein the first layer (1) and the second layer (2) are intermixed at a boundary region (Fig. 4a; [0056]; [0227]; [0239-0242]); wherein the plurality of apertures (5) comprise at least one aperture (5) having at least three adjacent apertures that are spaced apart from by an edge-to-edge space no greater than about 2.5mm (“at least 0.5 mm, or at least 1.5 mm”; [0135]); and wherein the top surface (3) of the nonwoven substrate (24) is the wearer facing surface (24) of the absorbent article (20; Figs. 12-16; [0367]).
However, while Rosati suggests that the fibers may have any suitable denier or denier range and/or fiber length ([0091]; [0217]), while also providing top sheet examples using a 50/50 mix of 6 and 9 denier fibers ([0378]; [0418]), top sheet examples wherein the second layer includes 2 denier fibers ([0420]), and suggestions for the use of low density synthetic or cellulosic fibers in alternate layers of the absorbent article (20; [0375]), Rosati fails to explicitly disclose that fibers of the first layer comprise a denier no greater than a denier of fibers of the second layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of the first layer disclosed by Rosati in view of Hammon to have a denier no greater than a denier of fibers of the second layer, since it has been held that 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the examples provided by Rosati in paragraphs [0378], [0418], [0420], as well as the suggestion in paragraphs [0091] and [0217] that the fibers may have any suitable denier or denier range, and recognize that a desired linear density can be determined through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. Namely, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lower linear density of fibers will enhance comfort and breathability of the article.
20. With regard to claim 17, Rosati further discloses a fluid distribution layer (distribution layer, 54) between the topsheet (24) and the absorbent core (60; Fig. 13; [0371]; [0373]).
21. With regard to claim 20, Rosati discloses that the difference between the first contact angle (“more than 95° up to 130°”; [0096]) and the second angle (“less than or equal to 70°”; [0345]) is at least about 10 degrees (at least 25 degrees).
Conclusion
22. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights