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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on April 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 12-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Bishop et al. (US 5,486,166).
With reference to claim 1, Bishop et al. (hereinafter “Bishop”) discloses an absorbent article (col. 2, lines 28-32) comprising:
a body side liner, an outer cover, and an absorbent structure positioned between the body side liner and the outer cover (col. 2, lines 34-38); and
a surge layer positioned between the body side liner and the absorbent structure (col. 3, lines 31-33),
the surge layer comprising a nonwoven web comprising a blend of binder fibers and structure fibers (col. 6, Iines 30-47, polyethylene/polypropylene as structure fibers and polypropylene as binder fibers), the structure fibers comprising multicomponent fibers (col. 5, line 45 to col. 6, line 52), the structure fibers having a cross section and wherein the cross section of the structure fibers includes at least a first polymer component zone comprising a first polymer component and a second polymer component zone comprising a second polymer component, wherein the first polymer component has a lower melting temperature than the second polymer component (col. 6, lines 30-39), the binder fibers forming bond sites within the surge layer as set forth in col. 6, Iines 30-41 and in col. 14 lines 33-38.
As to claim 3, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the first polymer component comprising a first polyester polymer and the second polymer component comprising a second polyester polymer as set forth in col. 6, lines 30-52 where bicomponent fibers are taught include polyethylene/polypropylene and/or polyethylene/polyester.
Regarding claim 4, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the first and second polymer component both comprise polyethylene terephthalate polymers as set forth in col. 6, lines 41-47 where Bishop discloses that the web may be made entirely from a bicomponent or single component fiber including polyester. Polyethylene terephthalate is a species of polyester. Therefore, the disclosure of the genus anticipates the species. See MPEP 2132.02.
With reference to claim 6, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the structure fibers comprise hollow fibers as set forth in col. 6, lines 16-24.
Regarding claim 8, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the structure fibers are present in the nonwoven web in an amount from about 20% to about 60% by weight as set forth in col. 6, lines 48-51.
As to claims 9 and 10, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the binder fibers comprise bicomponent fibers which may include polyolefin polymers (cl. 10) as set forth in col. 6, lines 42-47.
Regarding claim 12, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web has a basis weight of from about 20 gsm to about 120 gsm as set forth in col . 6, lines 59-61.
With respect to claim 13, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web comprises a carded and through-air bonded web as set forth in col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 3.
With reference to claim 14, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the binder fibers and the structure fibers have an average fiber length of from about 30 mm to about 65 mm as set forth in col. 6, lines 3-5.
As to claim 15, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the binder fibers comprise first binder fibers and second binder fibers (col. 6, lines 42-47) with any binder fiber used having a denier of from about 3 to about 10 as set forth in col. 6, lines 9-11.
Regarding claim 21, Bishop discloses an absorbent article wherein the surge layer further comprises a hydrophilic finish applied to fibers contained in the nonwoven web as set forth in col. 14, lines 45-47.
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 2, 5, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 5,486,166).
With reference to claim 2, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 2 is the provision that the structure fibers include a plurality of first polymer component zones that are separated by one or more second polymer component zones.
Bishop discloses first and second polymer zones as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Bishop also recognizes that the web may be made from multiple polymers that including bicomponent or multicomponent fibers as set forth in col. 6, lines 18-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a plurality of first polymer component zones that are separated by one or more second polymer component zones to provide the desired product in view of the teachings of Bishop which anticipate multiple polymer zones as set forth in col. 6, lines 18-22.
With reference to claim 5, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 5 is the provision that the crimped fibers include from about 1 to about 10 crimps per inch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the number of crimps provided in the crimped fiber of Bishop in order to achieve the desired level of loft and openness as taught by Bishop in col. 6, lines 12-14.
With reference to claim 11, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
The difference between Bishop and claim 11 is the provision that the bicomponent fibers include the sheath layer comprising a polyethylene polymer, the core comprising a polypropylene polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the bicomponent fibers of Bishop as recited because Bishop anticipates the use of both polymers in a bicomponent form (col. 6, lines 30-42) and also provides the exact configuration with respect to the nonwoven web as set forth in col. 15, lines 1-4.
With reference to claim 16, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
The difference between Bishop and claim 16 is the provision that the first and second binder fibers are present in specific amounts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the percentages of the fibers in order to provide the web with the desired structural rigidity and openness as taught by Bishop in col. 6, liens 30-39.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 5,486,166) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0108831).
With reference to claim 7, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 7 is the provision that the structure fibers contain filler particles.
Wu et al. (hereinafter “Wu”) teaches an analogous absorbent article (i.e., wound dressing as disclosed in [0003]) wherein the structure fibers contain filler particles as set forth in [0179].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Bishop with filler particles in order to reduce the weight and/or cost of the resulting fiber and layer, adjust viscosity, or modify the thermal properties of the fiber as taught by Wu in [0180].
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 5,486,166) and further in view of Ruschel et al. (US 2022/0064850).
With reference to claim 17, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 17 is the provision that the nonwoven web has an air permeability of greater than about 500 cfm/ft2 and less than about 1500 cfm/ft2.
Ruschel et al. (hereinafter “Ruschel”) teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web has an air permeability of greater than about 500 cfm/ft2 and less than about 1500 cfm/ft2 as shown in Table 2 on page 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the nonwoven web of Bishop with the air permeability as taught by Ruschel in order to provide the article with the desired properties with respect to fluid transport, comfort, softness, and drape while maintaining good mechanical properties, such as tensile strength and elongation as taught by Ruschel in [0006].
With reference to claim 18, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 18 is the provision that the nonwoven web has a machine direction tensile strength of greater than about 5000 gf and less than about 12,000 gf.
Ruschel teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web has a machine direction tensile strength of greater than about 5000 gf and less than about 12,000 gf as set forth in [0198-0199].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the nonwoven web of Bishop with the machine direction tensile strength as taught by Ruschel in order to provide the article with the desired properties with respect to fluid transport, comfort, softness, and drape while maintaining good mechanical properties, such as tensile strength and elongation as taught by Ruschel in [0006].
With reference to claim 19, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 19 is the provision that the nonwoven web has a machine direction elongation of less than about 50% and greater than about 20%.
Ruschel teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web has a machine direction elongation of less than about 50% and greater than about 20% as set forth on page 16 in Table 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the nonwoven web of Bishop with the machine direction elongation as taught by Ruschel in order to provide the article with the desired properties with respect to fluid transport, comfort, softness, and drape while maintaining good mechanical properties, such as tensile strength and elongation as taught by Ruschel in [0006].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 5,486,166) and further in view of Fell (US 2003/0187413).
With reference to claim 20, Bishop teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Bishop and claim 17 is the provision that the nonwoven web has a thickness of from about 2.5 mm to about 5.5 mm.
Fell teaches an analogous absorbent article wherein the nonwoven web has an has a thickness of from about 2.5 mm to about 5.5 mm as set forth in [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the nonwoven web of Bishop with the thickness as taught by Fell is order to provide the article with the desired properties to quickly take up and temporarily hold the urine until the absorbent core has adequate time to absorb the urine as taught by Fell in [0024].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights