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, see p. 7, filed 25MAR2026, with respect to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 25MAR2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teachings of Hammons in view of Chandrasekaran as they relate to Claims 1 and 2, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. While Chandrasekaran teaches a different device which different intended uses, these features are not claimed. Hammons in view of Chandrasekaran is considered to teach the amended structure, as detailed below.
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) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran in view of US 20170258651 A1 (Hammons et al.) US 20220079821 A1 (Chandrasekaran et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Chandrasekaran teaches a polyolefinic [0030] seepage protection layer for hygiene products [0002], the polyolefinic seepage protection layer comprising:
a layer (62) having cavities [0057]; and
the layer includes a first area (microporous region [0004] and at least one further area (nonporous region [0040]), whereas said first area has a higher volume fraction of cavities than said at least one further area (the porous region necessarily having more cavities than the nonporous region, with [0030] describing the process wherein different areas are formed to possess differing numbers of pores).
Chandrasekaran teaches a first area having cavities (as described in Claim 1) and at least one further area wherein the pores are destroyed (to create the nonporous region), but fails to explicitly teach the volume fractions of the cavities in the areas.
Hammons teaches a polyolefinic [0068] seepage protection layer (a backsheet [0274]) comprising a layered construction corresponding to that of Chandrasekaran (the first and second stratum, 20 and 30 respectively, corresponding to the porous and nonporous regions of Chandrasekaran). Hammons further teaches changing void volume fraction affects porosity [0134].
Given that Chandrasekaran teaches varying porosity [0030] to achieve the desired characteristics of each layer [0038, 0049, 0050, and 0090], it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity (and therefore volume fraction of the cavities) of the first area and at least one further area of Chandrasekaran with the varied volume fraction as taught by Hammons in order to create regions with differing physical characteristics as desired by both Chandrasekaran and Hammons.
The combined device is therefore considered to fulfill the claim requirements of Claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Chandrasekaran further teaches the layer comprises a β-nucleated layer [0030-0031].
Regarding Claim 6, Chandrasekaran further teaches the layer comprises a filler (copolymers described in [0031]), a proportion of inorganic filler being more than 20% by weight and less than 90% by weight (50% by weight [0031]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chandrasekaran further teaches the layer does not include any inorganic filler (teaching the use of organic cavitating agents for formation of pore [0040], wherein the filler as claimed is the agent used to create cavities as noted in Specification p. 5, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 8, Chandrasekaran further teaches the layer comprises a stretched layer [0036, 0038].
Regarding Claim 10, Chandrasekaran further teaches at least one of the layer or a further layer has a proportion of coloured pigments (teaching both layers may have a color [0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Chandrasekaran further teaches the areas are arranged in a pattern, said patterns comprising at least one of motifs, symbols, numbers, or letters [0073].
Regarding Claim 16, Chandrasekaran further teaches the use of heat to create nonporous regions [0053], where the heating is carried out by laser radiation [0054]. As the difference in appearance of the porous and nonporous areas forms patterns of Chandrasekaran [0073], the reference is considered to teach the areas have a marking by at least one of laser radiation or ultrasound.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran.
Regarding Claim 13, Chandrasekaran teaches the use of multiple forms of polypropylene [0030], recognizing that the melting point varies based on composition of the polymer, as well as the ability to control the weight percentages of each constituent material, but fails to specify material weight by melting point.
As Chandrasekaran teaches component weight percentages of at least 30% (50-90% [0031]) for one element of the copolymer, and up to 10% for the other component, it is considered reasonable to arrive at the claimed proportions wherein the layer has at least 30% by weight of a lower melting point polypropylene with a DSC melting point between 135 and 145°C, and has at least 8% by weight of a higher melting point polypropylene with a DSC melting point between 155 and 165°C.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran in view of US 20180178486 A1 (Mecl et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Chandrasekaran teaches a desire to control vapor permeability [0141], but fails to explicitly teach a water column according to EDANA WSP 80.6 is more than 200 mm.
Mecl teaches a backsheet [0081] wherein the measured water column is greater than 200 mm in order to reduce seepage (Examples 1-4, Table p. 10) [0005, 0090].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed water column measurement of Chandrasekaran with that disclosed by Mecl to reduce seepage [Mecl 0005].
It is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite [a water column according to EDANA WSP 80.6 is more than 200 mm] to read on the claim language.
Further, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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.” See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 12, Chandrasekaran fails to teach the material basis weight.
Mecl a basis weight of the seepage protection layer is more than 6 g/m2 and less than 80 g/m2 in order to reduce product weight (namely 12 g/m2 [0056], [0082]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basis weight of Chandrasekaran with that taught by Mecl to minimize product weight [0082].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran in view of US 4822350 A (Ito et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Chandrasekaran fails to teach the seepage protection layer has a water vapour permeability of more than 500 g/m2 in 24 h according to ASTM D6701-01.
Ito teaches a seepage protection layer (leakproof sheet) wherein the seepage protection layer has a water vapour permeability of more than 500 g/m2 in 24 h to reduce rashes ([Abstract], Col. 5: ll. 1-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed water vapor permeability of Chandrasekaran with the permeability taught by Ito to reduce rashes (Col. 5: ll. 1-4).
It is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite [a water vapour permeability of more than 500 g/m2 in 24 h according to ASTM D6701-01] to read on the claim language.
Further, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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.” See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran in view of US 20210369511 A1 (Giovanni et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Chandrasekaran fails to teach a print is arranged behind the layer.
Giovanni teaches an absorbent article (10) wherein a print is arranged behind an outer layer (corresponding to the layer of Chandrasekaran) [0056] in order to improve the visibility of the graphics [0003].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement of layers as taught by Chandrasekaran where a print is arranged over an opaque background to incorporate the teachings of Giovanni to provide a print behind the layer to have the design visible through an outer layer with improved clarity [Giovanni 0003].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrasekaran in view of US 20220008893 A1 (Heitsch et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Chandrasekaran further teaches the use of LDPE [0031], as well as various weight percentages of the copolymer ingredients, but fails to explicitly teach the layer comprises at least 3% by weight of an LDPE.
Heitsch teaches the formation of a backsheet layer corresponding to the polyolefinic seepage protection layer of Chandrasekaran wherein the layer comprises at least 3% by weight of an LDPE (up to 10% [0006]) in order to reduce cost [0004].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the undisclosed LDPE composition of Chandrasekaran with the composition taught by Heitsch to improve the balance of properties, allowing reduced cost and energy consumption during manufacturing [Heitsch 0004].
Conclusion
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 HANS KALIHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:00-05:00 MT.
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.
/HANS KALIHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights