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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-9, 14-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado (US 20170360983 A1) in view of Fields (US 20210353814 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Maldonado teaches a breathable film (backsheet, 26), comprising: a vapor-permeable and liquid impermeable (VPLI) film (paragraph [0057]) comprising a microporous film comprising a plurality of micropores (paragraph [0006]), wherein the microporous film includes (a) a first outermost surface (paragraph [0064]), (b) a second outermost surface(paragraph [0064]), (c) a thickness extending between the first outermost surface and the second outermost surface(paragraph [0064]), and (d) at least one odorous compound sequestering agent (OCSA) dispersed throughout the thickness of the film (paragraph [0064]),
Maldonado fails to teach wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic. Fields teaches a film comprising an odorous compound sequestering agent wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic (paragraph [0099]). 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 film of Maldonado wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic, similar to Fields, as the neutralizing agent.
Regarding Claim 2, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises a transition metal and/or a post-transition metal. Fields teaches wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises a transition metal and/or a post-transition metal (paragraph [0099]). 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 film of Maldonado wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic, similar to Fields, as the neutralizing agent.
Regarding Claim 3, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises zinc ricinoleate. Fields teaches wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises zinc ricinoleate (paragraph [0095]). 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 film of Maldonado wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises zinc ricinoleate, similar to Fields, as the neutralizing agent.
Regarding Claim 4, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises from about 0.0001 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the microporous film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the one or more salts of ricinoleic acid comprises from about 0.0001 wt. % to about 40 wt. % of the microporous film in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the ricinoleic acid percentage 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 paragraphs 0069 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 5, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado further teaches wherein the microporous film comprises a single-layer film (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 6, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado further teaches wherein the microporous film comprises a multi-layer film (paragraph [0060]) comprising from 2 to about 10 individual microporous film layers bonded together (paragraph [0093: a minimum of 2 layers film is best for absorbing odor])(figure 5) (paragraph [0066].
Regarding Claim 7, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado further teaches wherein the thickness of the microporous film comprises from about 10 to about 500 microns (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado further teaches wherein the microporous film comprises a polymer component and an additive component, wherein the additive component comprises (i) one or more zeolites (paragraph [0073]) and (ii) a pore- forming filler material comprising a plurality of filler-particles (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 9, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado further teaches wherein the polymer component of the microporous film comprises a polyolefin (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 14, Maldonado teaches a method of forming a breathable film (paragraph [0064]), comprising:
(i) forming a polymer melt (paragraph [0057]);
(ii) adding a pore-forming filler material to the polymer melt (paragraph [0057]);
(iii) adding a dry masterbatch to the polymer melt (paragraph [0064]),
(iv) admixing the pore-forming filler material and the dry masterbatch into the polymer melt (paragraph [0064]);
(v) melt extruding the polymer melt including the pore-forming filler material and at least one OCSA to form an intermediate film (paragraph [0064]);
(vi) incrementally stretching the intermediate film in a machine-direction and/or a cross- direction to form the breathable film (paragraph [0064]).
Maldonado fails to teach wherein the dry masterbatch comprising one or more salts of ricinolein acid Fields teaches a film comprising an odorous compound sequestering agent wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic (paragraph [0099]). 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 film of Maldonado wherein the at least one OCSA comprises (i) one or more salts of ricinoleic, similar to Fields, as the neutralizing agent.
Regarding Claim 15, Maldonado teaches the method of forming a breathable film of claim 14. Maldonado further teaches wherein the dry masterbatch includes a polymer matrix component and the at least one OCSA is dispersed throughout the polymer matrix (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 16, Maldonado teaches the method of forming a breathable film of claim 15. Maldonado further teaches wherein the polymer matrix comprises a matrix polymer corresponding to a polymer component of the polymer melt (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 17, Maldonado teaches an absorbent article, comprising: (i) a liquid permeable topsheet (LPTS) (liquid permeable topsheet 24); (ii) a backsheet comprising a breathable film (backsheet, 26) according to claim 1; (iii) an absorbent core (absorbent core 28), wherein the absorbent core is located directly or indirectly between the LPTS and the backsheet (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 18, Maldonado teaches the absorbent article of claim 17. Maldonado further comprising an acquisition distribution layer (ADL) located directly or indirectly between the LPTS and the absorbent core (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 19, Maldonado teaches a method of making an absorbent article, comprising:
(i) providing or forming a liquid permeable topsheet (LPTS) (liquid permeable topsheet 24);
(ii) providing or forming a backsheet (backsheet, 26) comprising a breathable film according to claim 1;
(iii) providing or forming an absorbent core (absorbent core 28), wherein the absorbent core is located directly or indirectly between the LPTS and the backsheet (paragraph [0034]); and
(iv) bonding the backsheet directly or indirectly to the absorbent core (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 21, Maldonado teaches the absorbent article of claim 17. Maldonado further comprising wherein the at least one OCSA further comprises one or more cucurbituril compounds, and/or one or more zeolites (paragraph [0073].
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado (US 20170360983 A1) in view of Fields (US 20210353814 A1) in view of Hauser (WO 2014116187 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach wherein the at least one OCSA further comprises one or cucurbituril compounds that are present in an uncomplexed form. Hauser teaches film production wherein the at least one OCSA further comprises one or cucurbituril compounds that are present in an uncomplexed form (page 53). 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 OSCA of Maldonado to comprise one or cucurbituril compounds, similar to Hauser to serve as a strong bonding material for the desired ions.
Regarding Claim 11, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach wherein the at least one OCSA further comprises one or more cucurbituril compounds are selected from CB[5], CB[6], CB[7], CB[8], or any mixture thereof. Hauser teaches film production wherein wherein the at least one OCSA further comprises one or more cucurbituril compounds are selected from CB[5], CB[6], CB[7], CB[8], or any mixture thereof (page 53). 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 OSCA of Maldonado to comprise one or cucurbituril compounds, similar to Hauser to serve as a strong bonding material for the desired ions.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado (US 20170360983 A1) in view of Fields (US 20210353814 A1) in view of Colegrove (US 20230248585 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to explicitly teach wherein the microporous film has a MVTR from 200 to 20,000 g/m2/24 hours as determined according to WSP 70.4(08). In the same field of endeavor, namely absorbent articles, Colegrove teaches wherein the microporous film has a MVTR from 200 to 20,000 g/m2/24 hours (paragraphs[0063-0064]) as determined according to WSP 70.4(08) (paragraph [0081]). 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 film of Maldonado to have a has a MVTR from 200 to 20,000 g/m2/24 hours as determined according to WSP 70.4(08), similar to Colegrove, to ensure the system is working correctly.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado (US 20170360983 A1) in view of Fields (US 20210353814 A1) in view of Chen (CN 112807475 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Maldonado teaches a breathable film of claim 1. Maldonado fails to teach a coating adjacent the first outermost surface, the second outermost surface, or both;
wherein the coating comprising at least one OCSA comprising one or more salts of ricinoleic acid dispersed throughout the coating and/or one or more halo active aromatic sulfonamide compounds dispersed throughout the coating and/or one or more cucurbituril compounds dispersed throughout the coating. In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches a wound dressing a coating adjacent the first outermost surface, the second outermost surface wherein the coating comprising at least one OCSA comprising or one or more cucurbituril compounds dispersed throughout the coating (page 6, paragraph 1). 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 film of Maldonado so the wound dressing would have a coating comprising cucurbituril compounds dispersed throughout the coating, similar to Chen, so improve the viscosity of the agent (as motivated by Chen, page 6, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado (US 20170360983 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Maldonado teaches the method of making an absorbent article claim 19. Maldonado further comprising wherein the step of directly or indirectly bonding the backsheet to the absorbent core comprises directly bonding the backsheet to the absorbent core via the formation of one or more bonds between the backsheet to the absorbent core (paragraph [0067]).
Maldonado fails to teach specifically that the bonds between the backsheet and absorbent core are thermal bonds via melt- extruding a precursor film directly onto the absorbent core either before or after incrementally stretching the precursor film to form a microporous film, or via melt-extruding the film directly onto the absorbent core. However does teach that a seal may be created between the front and back side via thermal bond (paragraph [0040]) and that hot-melt adhesives may be used (paragraph [0049]). 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 Maldonado to include thermal bonding, since that method of bonding is disclosed, and the disclosure mentions that alternative types of bonding and adhesives may be used.
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 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
Prosecution Insights