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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2107232.7, filed on 11/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 22-27, 29-31, 33-35, and 55-62 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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.
Claim(s) 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140243771) in view of Takuro (JP 2017213073).
Regarding Claim 22, Konishi teaches a method of bonding a fibrous material (41) and a polyvinyl alcohol film (Fig 3 and Para 0065, water-insoluble resin layer 42 is leakproof), comprising applying a polyvinyl alcohol solution to a surface of the polyvinyl alcohol film and/or a surface of the fibrous material 1(Fig 3 and Para 0065, and 0052 applying resin to fibrous materials) and
contacting the surface of the polyvinyl alcohol with the surface of the fibrous material such that the applied polyvinyl alcohol solution is positioned between the polyvinyl alcohol film and the fibrous material.
Konishi does not disclose the exact method by which the leakproof layer, top layer, and bottom layer are bonded together. Takuro discloses the leakproof layer (Takuro, Fig 1, semi-decomposable polyvinyl alcohol film 25) is bonded to the top layer (Takuro, Fig 1, topsheet 10) and the bottom layer (Takuro, Fig 1, backsheet 30) by ultrasonic welding (Takuro, Para 0030, semi-decomposable polyvinyl alcohol film 25 is sandwiched between the topsheet 10 and the backsheet 30, which are fixed using ultrasonic embossing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water-dispersible sanitary pad as disclosed by Konishi by ensuring the leakproof layer, top layer, and bottom layer is bonded by ultrasonic welding as disclosed by Takuro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the water-dispersible sanitary pad as disclosed by Konishi with the ultrasonic bonding method as disclosed by Takuro as it is a conventionally known method (Takuro, Para 0030).
Regarding Claim 23, Konishi in view of Takuro method according to claim 22. Takuro further comprising compressing the contacted polyvinyl alcohol film and fibrous material together, in the absence of heating (Takuro, Para 0030, semi-decomposable polyvinyl alcohol film 25 is sandwiched between the topsheet 10 and the backsheet 30, which are fixed using ultrasonic embossing).
Regarding Claim 24, Konishi teaches the method of claim 22 wherein the polyvinyl alcohol solution is applied at less than 5 gsm (paragraph [0085].
Regarding Claim 25, Konishi teaches the method according to claim 24. Konishi further teaches wherein the fibrous material and the polyvinyl alcohol film at least partially form a bottom sheet of a sanitary pad (panty liner 1).
Regarding Claim 26, Konishi teaches the method according to claim 22. Konishi further teaches 22 wherein the polyvinyl alcohol solution is 1 gsm (paragraph [0085]) or 15 gsm (paragraph [0083]). However, Konishi fails to explicitly teach wherein the polyvinyl alcohol solution is applied to form a film of more than 1 gsm (dry); and/or less than 15 gsm (dry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polyvinyl alcohol solution is applied to form a film of more than 1 gsm (dry); and/or less than 15 gsm (dry in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the weight of the solution is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3, paragraph 7 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 27, Konishi teaches the method according to claim 26. Konishi further teaches wherein the fibrous material (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0050, absorber 4 comprises a water-disintegratable absorbent layer 41) at least partially forms an absorbent core of a sanitary pad, and the polyvinyl alcohol film at least partially forms a bottom sheet of the sanitary pad (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0065, water-insoluble resin layer 42 is leakproof).
Claim(s) 29-30, 33-35, 55-58, and 61-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140243771) in view of Cassoni (US 20200254803 A1)
Regarding Claim 29, Konishi teaches a method of manufacturing a bottom layer of a sanitary pad, the method comprising
Konishi fails to teach the method comprising priming a non-woven cellulosic fabric for application of an adhesive by applying an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose; and
drying the primed non-woven cellulosic fabric.
Cassoni teaches manufacturing an article comprising priming a non-woven cellulosic fabric for application of an adhesive by applying an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph [0158]); and
drying the primed non-woven cellulosic fabric (paragraph [0158]);.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing of Konishi to include priming a non-woven cellulosic fabric for application of an adhesive by applying an aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose; and drying the primed non-woven cellulosic fabric, similar to Cassoni, so that the design is maintained without stretching during the process (Cassoni, paragraph [0158]).
Regarding Claim 30, Konishi in view of Cassoni teaches the method according to claim 29. Konishi further teaches wherein the aqueous solution is about 0.1-5% by weight polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose in water (paragraph [0059: water-soluble resins such as carboxymethyl cellulose sodium (CMC) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) do not qualify as water-insoluble resins]).
Regarding Claim 33, Konishi in view of Cassoni teaches the method according to claim 29. Konishi fails to teach wherein the primed non-woven cellulosic fabric comprises a coating of polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose that is less than 1 μm thick and/or less than 1 gsm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating of polyvinyl alcohol or carboxymethyl cellulose that is less than 1 μm thick and/or less than 1 gsm in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the coating thickness is not critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 4, paragraph 5 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding Claim 34, Konishi in view of Cassoni teaches the method according to claim 29. Konishi further teaches contacting a pressure sensitive adhesive (resin) to a surface of the primed non-woven cellulosic fabric (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 35, Konishi in view of Cassoni teaches the method according to claim 29. Konishi further teaches extruding or laminating or otherwise bonding a layer of polyvinyl alcohol onto an opposite surface of the non-woven cellulosic fabric (paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 55, Konishi teaches a sanitary pad comprising:
an absorbent core (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0050, absorber 4 comprises a water-disintegratable absorbent layer 41);
a bottom layer comprising a non-woven fabric and a polyvinyl alcohol film (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0065, water-insoluble resin layer 42 is leakproof); and
a sublayer arranged between the absorbent core and the bottom layer, the sublayer comprising a polyvinyl alcohol film and optionally a non-woven fabric (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0050, absorber 4 comprises a water-disintegratable absorbent layer 41).
Regarding Claim 56, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 55. Konishi further teaches wherein the absorbent core comprises a non-woven fabric and the polyvinyl alcohol film of the sublayer is provided adjacent to the non-woven fabric of the absorbent core (Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 57, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 55. Konishi further teaches wherein the polyvinyl alcohol film of the sublayer is between 10 and 30 μm thick (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 58, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 55. Konishi further wherein the non-woven fabric of the sublayer and/or the non-woven fabric of the bottom layer is formed of a non-woven wet laid cellulosic fibre material (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0065, water-insoluble resin layer 42 is leakproof), having around 60 gsm weight (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 61, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 55. Konishi teaches wherein the sublayer is a bonding sublayer formed by application of a polyvinyl alcohol solution to the polyvinyl alcohol film of the bottom layer (Konishi, Fig 3 and Para 0050, absorber 4 comprises a water-disintegratable absorbent layer 41).
Regarding Claim 62, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 61. Konishi further wherein the polyvinyl alcohol film of the sublayer has a dry weight of more than 1 gsm, and less than 12 gsm (paragraph [0060]).
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140243771)
Regarding Claim 59, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 55. Konishi teaches wherein the polyvinyl alcohol film of the bottom layer is between 0.2 to 0.4 mm (paragraph [0049]) but fails to teach wherein the polyvinyl alcohol film of the bottom layer is between 10 and 80 μm thick. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the polyvinyl alcohol film of Konishi from between .2 to .4 mm to between 10 and 80 μm thick as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Specification, Page 3, Lines 3-8) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140243771) in view of Duncker-Rakow (US 20170002511 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Konishi teaches the method according to claim 29. Konishi wherein the aqueous solution comprises a high hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol, with a degree of hydrolysis of over 80 mol %. Duncker-Rakow teaches a method for producing fibers wherein the aqueous solution comprises a high hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol, with a degree of hydrolysis of over 80 mol % (paragraph [0044][0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solution of Konishi wherein the aqueous solution comprises a high hydrolysis polyvinyl alcohol, with a degree of hydrolysis of over 80 mol %, similar to Duncker-Rakow to have the intended solubility.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140243771) in view of JP 2022519610 A.
Regarding Claim 60, Konishi teaches the sanitary pad of claim 61. Konishi fails to teach comprising two or more sublayers arranged between the absorbent core and the bottom layer. JP 2022519610 A teaches an absorbent comprising two or more sublayers arranged between the absorbent core and the bottom layer (page 6, paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent of Konishi to have 2 sublayers, similar to JP 2022519610 A, so the fluid may be absorbed more quicky (as motivated by JP 2022519610 A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20210077314 A1, US 4576597 A, US 4094319 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781