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 Amendment
The amendment filed 03/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6, 11 and 14 have been amended. Claim 15 is new. Claims 1-15 remain pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to claim 14 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC §112(b) and such rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Chandrasekaran alone for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran.
Regarding the claim limitations of the carrier layer basis weight, applicant argues that Chandrasekaran does not disclose the ranges with respect to the same carrier as recited in claim 1. However, as discussed in the rejection below, Toro discloses the carrier of claim 1. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the carrier of Toro with the carrier of Chandrasekaran.
Regarding the claimed opacity, applicant argues that the DIN 53416 mentioned in the specification is a specific measurement standard and the assertion that the value is inherently greater than 45% is insufficient to establish inherency. However, as discussed in the rejection below, Chandrasekaran teaches an opacity of up to 100% which falls within the claimed range of more than 45 %. Further, since the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran is identical to the carrier layer of the claimed invention, such feature of the opacity according to DIN 53416 of more than 45% is inherent to the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran. As discussed below, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. Applicant has not provided such evidence.
Claim 13 remains anticipated by Chandrasekaran and applicant has not provided any argument with respect to why Chandrasekaran does not anticipate claim 13.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that Persson is not in the field of endeavor and is non-analogous. However, as discussed in the rejection below, Toro relates to a release sheet that is used as a packaging material for a hygiene article. Persson is directed to a moisture-impervious packaging. Thus, Persson is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 6, a new grounds of rejection is made over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran and further in view of Koshy.
Regarding claim 10, Kinoshita is cited to teach the arrangement comprising a print. Applicant argues that Kinoshita is functionally and structurally different. However, the arrangement of Kinoshita is for peeling off a layer from an adhesive layer, and thus in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that there is no reason to transplant Hao’s technology on to Chandrasekaran. a new grounds of rejection is made over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran and further in view of Hao.
Regarding claim 14, Kinoshita is no longer relied upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandrasekaran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0029991 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Chandrasekaran discloses a method of manufacturing an arrangement (release tape 379) comprising the following steps:
Preparing a composition (¶ 0058);
Extruding the composition as a carrier layer (¶ 0075);
Stretching the carrier layer (¶ 0071); and
Coating the carrier layer with a separation layer (¶ 0094).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toro et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0202029 A1) in view of Chandrasekaran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0029991 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toro discloses (fig. 1, 4) a hygiene article (catamenial pad 10 and wrapper 40) comprising:
A top sheet (topsheet portion 28), a back sheet (backsheet portion 36) (¶ 0034), and an arrangement for peeling off a layer (wrapper 40/flexible release sheet material 54, ¶ 0043) from an adhesive layer (adhesive element 52, ¶ 0039), the arrangement comprising
A carrier layer (second layer 56) and
A separation layer (first layer 58),
Wherein the carrier layer comprises at least one polyolefinic layer (¶ 0123),
The separation layer comprises a polysiloxane (¶ 0123),
The adhesive layer is on the back sheet (¶ 0037), and
The arrangement is removably attached to the hygiene article through the adhesive layer (¶ 0039).
Toro fails to disclose wherein the carrier layer comprises at least one beta-nucleated stretched, olefinic layer with a microporous structure for generating an opacity, and the carrier layer has a basis weight of less than 35 g/m2.
Chandrasekaran teaches (fig. 5) an arrangement (fig. 5) for use in a hygiene article (¶ 0088) and thus in the same field of endeavor, the arrangement comprising:
A carrier layer (fibrous web 100), wherein the carrier layer comprises at least one beta-nucleated, stretched polyolefinic layer (¶ 0014, ¶ 0058) with a microporous structure (second region 109) for generating an opacity (¶ 0078), and the carrier layer has a basis weight of 12 gsm to 30 gsm (¶ 0077) which falls within the claimed range of less than 35 g/m2, in order to provide a see-through region that can illustrate a company name, logo, brand name, or trademark picture if desired (¶ 0078).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier layer of Toro such that it comprises at least one beta-nucleated stretched, olefinic layer with a microporous structure for generating an opacity, and the carrier layer has a basis weight of less than 35 g/m2, as taught by Chandrasekaran, in order to provide a see-through region that can illustrate a company name, logo, brand name, or trademark picture if desired (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0078).
Regarding claim 2, Toro discloses wherein the layer comprises a polypropylene component (¶ 0044).
Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose wherein a proportion of polypropylene is more than 90% by weight.
However, Toro discloses wherein a proportion of polypropylene is from 75% to 98% by weight (¶ 0044) which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 90% by weight.
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above in claim 1, Chandrasekaran teaches the carrier layer comprising at least one beta-nucleated, stretched polyolefinic layer. Toro in view of Chandrasekaran further disclose wherein the layer comprises a proportion of beta-spherulite nucleating agent (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0061).
Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose wherein a proportion of beta spherulite nucleating agent is more than 1 ppm and less than 1000 ppm.
However, Chandrasekaran teaches wherein a proportion of beta-spherulite nucleating agent is between 100 to 20,000 ppm (¶ 0063) which overlaps with the claimed range of more than 1 ppm and less than 1000 ppm.
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 5, Toro in view of Chandrasekaran disclose wherein the basis weight is between 12 gsm to 30 gsm (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0077) which falls within the claimed range of more than 10 g/m2.
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 7, Toro discloses wherein the layer has no titanium dioxide, no white pigment, and no inorganic filler (¶ 0123).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above in claim 1, Chandrasekaran teaches generating an opacity. Toro in view of Chandrasekaran further disclose wherein the arrangement has no titanium dioxide, no white pigment, and no inorganic filler for producing opacity (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0014, ¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above in claim 1, Chandrasekaran teaches generating an opacity. Toro in view of Chandrasekaran discloses wherein the carrier layer has an opacity of up to 100% (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0111) which falls within the claimed range of more than 45%.
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding the limitation of the carrier layer having “an opacity according to DIN 53416 of more than 45%”, the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran is substantially the same as the carrier layer of the claimed invention, and thus, the carrier layer having “an opacity according to DIN 53416 of more than 45%” is inherent to the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran.
It is further noted: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above in claim 1, Chandrasekaran teaches a microporous structure. Toro in view of Chandrasekaran disclose wherein the carrier layer has a change in a pore structure (Chandrasekaran second region 109) achieved by at least one of laser radiation (Chandrasekaran ¶ 0114-¶ 0115) or ultrasound for marking.
Regarding claim 14, Toro discloses wherein the arrangement comprises a release liner for peeling off of the adhesive layer (abstract, ¶ 0039).
Regarding claim 15, Toro discloses an absorbent core (absorbent pad 12) between the top sheet and the back sheet (fig. 1, ¶ 0032).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Persson et al. (Pat. No.: US 6,854,600 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose the carrier layer comprising at least one layer having a water vapor permeability of less than 100 g/m2 in 24h according to ASTM D6701-01.
Persson teaches (fig. 2) a hygiene article (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor comprising an arrangement comprising at least one layer having a water vapor permeability of at most 6 g/m2 in 24 h (col. 3, ln. 53-59) which falls within the claimed range of less than 100 g/m2 in 24h, in order to obtain an essentially impermeable arrangement (col. 3, ln. 53-59).
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran such that it comprises at least one layer having a water vapor permeability of less than 100 g/m2 in 24h, as taught by Persson, in order to allow the arrangement to essentially impermeable (Persson, col. 3, ln. 53-59) such that the adhesive layer remains uncompromised upon exposure to moisture.
Regarding the limitation of the carrier layer comprising “at least one layer having a water vapor permeability of less than 100 g/m2 in 24h according to ASTM D6701-01”, the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran and further in view of Persson is substantially the same as the carrier layer of the claimed invention, and thus, the carrier layer comprising “at least one layer having a water vapor permeability of less than 100 g/m2 in 24h according to ASTM D6701-01” is inherent to the carrier layer of Chandrasekaran in view of Persson.
It is further noted: “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshy et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0238131 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose a basis weight of the separation layer is less than 0.6 g/m2.
Koshy teaches (fig. 1) a hygiene article (sanitary pad 100) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising an arrangement having a carrier layer and a separation layer (¶ 0023), wherein the separation layer comprises a polysiloxane (i.e., silicone, ¶ 0023) and a basis weight of the separation layer is between 0.01 to 5 g/m2 (¶ 0023) which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.6 g/m2, in order to allow for effective release of the arrangement (¶ 0023).
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separation layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran such that it has a basis weight of the separation layer is less than 0.6 g/m2, as taught by Koshy, in order to allow for effective release of the arrangement (Koshy, ¶ 0023).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0165888 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose wherein the arrangement comprises a print.
Kinoshita teaches (fig. 5-7) a hygiene article (absorbent article 1) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising: an arrangement for peeling off a layer (release sheet 21a) from an adhesive layer (¶ 0076), wherein the arrangement comprises a print (¶ 0055, fig. 5) in order to indicate to a user how to use the arrangement (¶ 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran such that it comprises a print, as taught by Kinoshita, in order to indicate to a user how to use the arrangement (Kinoshita, ¶ 0089).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toro in view of Chandrasekaran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hao et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0177643 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Toro in view of Chandrasekaran fail to disclose wherein at least one side of the carrier layer which is facing the separation layer has an embossed structure with an average embossing height of more than 5 micrometers.
Hao teaches (fig. 1A) a hygiene article (abstract) and thus in the same field of endeavor, comprising a carrier layer (first layer 20) and a separation layer (second layer 40), wherein at least one side of the carrier layer which is facing the separation layer has an embossed structure (embossments 23) with an average embossing height of between 0.2 and 20 mm (¶ 0048) which overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 5 micrometers, the height of the embossments configured to maintain a more three-dimensional nature even after subjected to compressive forces (¶ 0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carrier layer of Toro in view of Chandrasekaran such that the side facing the separation layer has an embossed structure with an average embossing height of no more 5 micrometers, as taught by Hao, in order to maintain a more three-dimensional nature even after subjected to compressive forces (¶ 0003).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lakso et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0257616 A1) discloses an arrangement for peeling a layer from an adhesive layer.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights