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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected because the language “one a primer, a release agent, and a sealing aid” should read “one of a primer, a release agent, and a sealing aid”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an opening force of greater than about 0.5 N to about 3.0 N.” It is unclear if this limitation indicates that the opening force should be within the range of 0.5 N to 3.0 N or if the opening force should be greater than 0.5 N or greater than 3.0 N. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as the opening force should be within the range of 0.5 N to 3.0 N.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2009/0221981) in view of Yoshiba (US 2023/0036459).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Cohen discloses an individually packaged absorbent article (¶ [0002, 0008-0010]) comprising:
an absorbent article (5, Fig. 2) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (6, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]; the topsheet of an absorbent article is inherently liquid permeable), a liquid impermeable backsheet (8, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019] the backsheet of an absorbent article is inherently liquid impermeable), and an absorbent layer (7, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed between the topsheet (6, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (8, Fig. 2), wherein the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (8, Fig. 2) has an adhesive (9, Fig. 2) disposed thereon; and
a wrapper (1, Fig. 2) overlaying the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (8, Fig. 2) and releasably affixed to the adhesive (9, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed thereon,
wherein the individually packaged absorbent article is provided in a folded configuration, the absorbent article (5, Fig. 2) and the wrapper (1, Fig. 2) folded together about at least one fold line (¶ [0019]; “When the absorbent pad 5 is folded into the wrapper 1…” indicates the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded together about at least one fold line into a folded configuration).
Cohen is silent whether the wrapper comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm, wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers and has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees.
Yoshiba teaches an individually packaged absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the wrapper (10, Fig. 1) comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm (¶ [0030-0033]; the basis weight of the paper can be “less than or equal to 50 gsm” and 50 gsm is fully within the claimed range), wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers (¶ [0030-0033]; preferably the paper can contain 80% or more of plant, and therefore natural, fibers; this is fully within the claimed range), and has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees (as seen in Fig. 4, fold lines L1 and L2 are straight and therefore the fold angles can be considered to be 90 degrees). Using paper for the wrapper reduces the environmental load of the absorbent article at the time of disposal and can also provide a unique texture to the packaged absorbent article (¶ [0031]).
Therefore, 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 wrapper of Cohen to comprise a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm, wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers and has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees, as taught by Yoshiba. Using paper for the wrapper reduces the environmental load of the absorbent article at the time of disposal and can also provide a unique texture to the packaged absorbent article (¶ [0031]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cohen further discloses a release agent (4, Fig. 2) is deposited on the inner surface (2, Fig. 2) of the wrapper (1, Fig. 2) in a region that contacts the adhesive (9, Fig. 2) disposed on the backsheet (8, Fig. 2) of the absorbent article (5, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cohen further discloses a sealing aid is deposited on the inner surface of the longitudinal side edges of the wrapper (1, Fig. 3; side seals 10 and 11 can be formed using adhesives, which can be considered a sealing aid deposited on the inner surface of the longitudinal side edges of the wrapper).
Regarding Claim 7, Cohen further discloses the inner surfaces of the longitudinal side edges of the wrapper (1, Fig. 3) are substantially free of release agent (¶ [0019-0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cohen further discloses the longitudinal side edges of the wrapper are heat and pressure sealed (¶ [0020]).
Regarding Claims 9, 12, and 13, Cohen/Yoshiba discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claims 1 and 10.
The combination of Cohen/Yoshiba further discloses the sheet material comprises creped paper, as the wrapper sheet material of Yoshiba is a creped paper (¶ [0030-0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition 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). See MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, since the combination of Cohen/Yoshiba discloses the structure of Claim 14, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to the combination of Cohen/Yoshiba.
Regarding Claim 16, Cohen discloses an individually packaged absorbent article (¶ [0002, 0008-0010]) comprising:
an absorbent article (5, Fig. 2) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (6, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]; the topsheet of an absorbent article is inherently liquid permeable), a liquid impermeable backsheet (8, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019] the backsheet of an absorbent article is inherently liquid impermeable), and an absorbent layer (7, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]) disposed between the topsheet (6, Fig. 2) and the backsheet (8, Fig. 2), wherein the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (8, Fig. 2) has an adhesive (9, Fig. 2) disposed thereon; and
a wrapper (1, Fig. 2) overlaying the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (8, Fig. 2),
wherein the individually packaged absorbent article is provided in a folded configuration (¶ [0019]; “When the absorbent pad 5 is folded into the wrapper 1…” indicates the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded together about at least one fold line into a folded configuration).
Cohen is silent whether the wrapper comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm, wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers and has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees, and wherein the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded together about at least two fold lines forming a front section and a rear section.
Yoshiba teaches an individually packaged absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the wrapper (10, Fig. 1) comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm (¶ [0030-0033]; the basis weight of the paper can be “less than or equal to 50 gsm” and 50 gsm is fully within the claimed range), wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers (¶ [0030-0033]; preferably the paper can contain 80% or more of plant, and therefore natural, fibers; this is fully within the claimed range), and has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees (as seen in Fig. 4, fold lines L1 and L2 are straight and therefore the fold angles can be considered to be 90 degrees), wherein the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded together about at least two fold lines forming a front section and a rear section (as seen in Fig. 4, two fold lines L1 and L2 form a front section R1 and a rear section R2; ¶ [0019]). Using paper for the wrapper reduces the environmental load of the absorbent article at the time of disposal and can also provide a unique texture to the packaged absorbent article (¶ [0031]).
Therefore, 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 wrapper of Cohen to comprise a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm, wherein the sheet material comprises about 70% to about 100% natural fibers, has a folding angle of about 45 to about 90 degrees, and wherein the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded together about at least two fold lines forming a front section and a rear section, as taught by Yoshiba. Using paper for the wrapper reduces the environmental load of the absorbent article at the time of disposal and can also provide a unique texture to the packaged absorbent article (¶ [0031]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cohen further discloses a release agent (4, Fig. 2) is disposed on at least one of the front section, a mid section between the front section and the rear section, and the rear section of the wrapper (1, Fig. 2; ¶ [0019]).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, the combination of Cohen/Yoshiba discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 16.
The combination of Cohen/Yoshiba further discloses a primer and a sealing aid is disposed on the front section, wherein the primer is positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper, and wherein a primer and a sealing aid is disposed on the rear section, and wherein the primer is positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper. The wrapper of Yoshiba can be a laminated sheet, where a resin film can be laminated onto a paper sheet (¶ [0036]). The resin film can be considered a primer, as the resin film will reduce the porosity of the paper. Yoshiba also teaches an adhesive sealing aid (15, Fig. 1), which would necessarily be positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper when the absorbent article is in a folded and packaged configuration. The primer and sealing aids would both be present in the wrong and rear section due to the structure of the absorbent article of Cohen/Yoshiba.
Regarding Claim 20, Cohen is silent whether the absorbent article and the wrapper are folded about three fold lines forming a front section, a front-mid section, a rear-mid section, and a rear section, and wherein at least one of the front section, the front-mid section, the rear-mid section, and the rear section include at least one of a primer and a sealing aid.
Yoshiba teaches an absorbent article that can be folded about three fold lines, thus forming a front section, a front-mid section, a rear-mid section, and a rear section (¶ [0029]). This provides an additional folding structure appropriate for longer absorbent articles (¶ [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent article of Cohen/Yoshiba to be folded about three fold lines forming a front section, a front-mid section, a rear-mid section, and a rear section, to provide an additional folding structure appropriate for longer absorbent articles (as motivated by Yoshiba ¶ [0029]).
The combination of Cohen/Yoshiba further discloses a primer and a sealing aid is disposed on the front section, wherein the primer is positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper, and wherein a primer and a sealing aid is disposed on the rear section, and wherein the primer is positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper. The wrapper of Yoshiba can be a laminated sheet, where a resin film can be laminated onto a paper sheet (¶ [0036]). The resin film can be considered a primer, as the resin film will reduce the porosity of the paper. Yoshiba also teaches an adhesive sealing aid (15, Fig. 1), which would necessarily be positioned between the sealing aid and a surface of the wrapper when the absorbent article is in a folded and packaged configuration. The primer and sealing aids would both be present in the wrong and rear section due to the structure of the absorbent article of Cohen/Yoshiba.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2009/0221981) in view of Yoshiba (US 2023/0036459) further in view of Akiyama et al (US 2009/0177174).
Regarding Claim 2, Cohen/Yoshiba is silent whether the folding angle is from about 45 to about 65 degrees.
Akiyama teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the folding angle of the absorbent article is preferably 60 degrees (¶ [0222]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the folding angle of the wrapper of the absorbent article of Cohen/Yoshiba to have a folding angle between about 45 to about 65 degrees, as taught by Akiyama, as Akiyama shows that folding angles in this range are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2009/0221981) in view of Yoshiba (US 2023/0036459) further in view of Kudo (US 2003/0149417).
Regarding Claim 4, Cohen/Yoshiba is silent whether the release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive is less than about 5 N.
Kudo teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive is at most 0.33 N per 25 mm width (¶ [0087]). This ensures the release sheet is easily removed from the adhesive and the absorbent article isn’t damaged during removal (¶ [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive is less than about 5 N. Since Yoshiba indicates the absorbent article can have a width of 50 mm to 110 mm (¶ [0021]), the combination of Cohen/Yoshiba/Kudo would have a release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive of 0.66 N – 1.452 N, based on the width of Cohen/Yoshiba and the release peel force of Kudo. This would allow the wrapper to be easily removed from the adhesive of the absorbent article without damaging the absorbent article (as motivated by Kudo ¶ [0087]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cohen/Yoshiba is silent whether the sealing aid is bonded such that the wrapper has an opening force of greater than about 0.5 N to about 3.0 N.
However, Cohen does indicate that the amount of force needed to detach the absorbent article from the wrapper should be less than or equal to the amount of force needed to tear the side seals of the wrapper (¶ [0030, 0033]) to ensure the article is easily unwrapped (¶ [0033]).
Kudo teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive is at most 0.33 N per 25 mm width (¶ [0087]). This ensures the release sheet is easily removed from the adhesive and the absorbent article isn’t damaged during removal (¶ [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive is less than about 5 N. Since Yoshiba indicates the absorbent article can have a width of 50 mm to 110 mm (¶ [0021]), the combination of Cohen/Yoshiba/Kudo would have a release peel force between the inner surface of the wrapper and the backsheet of the absorbent article including the adhesive of 0.66 N – 1.452 N, based on the width of Cohen/Yoshiba and the release peel force of Kudo. The opening force of the wrapper would be less than or equal to this range to allow the wrapper to be easily removed from the adhesive of the absorbent article without damaging the absorbent article (as motivated by Kudo ¶ [0087] and Cohen ¶ [0030, 0033]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 2009/0221981) in view of Yoshiba (US 2023/0036459) further in view of Cantelow (US 3172801).
Regarding Claim 15, Cohen/Yoshiba is silent whether the paper comprises about 50% by weight to about 80% by weight of softwood fibers and about 20% by weight to about 50% by weight of hardwood fibers.
Cantelow teaches a packaging wrapper sheet, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the paper sheet is made from 80% softwood kraft pulp and 20% hardwood kraft pulp (Col. 2 lines 23-43). This produces a paper suitable for use as packaging sheets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the paper of Cohen/Yoshiba to comprise about 50% by weight to about 80% by weight of softwood fibers and about 20% by weight to about 50% by weight of hardwood fibers, as taught by Cantelow, as Cantelow shows that packaging sheets are well known to have been made out of a ratio of 80/20 softwood/hardwood fibers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781