DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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
1. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 5, 2024, October 10, 2024 and April 15, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “about” in claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the basis weight of sheet material, the stretch of the creped paper, the folding angle of the sheet material, the water penetration time of the creped paper, the MD web modulus strain of the sheet material, and the % by weight of softwood fibers and hardwood fibers of the creped paper, will be treaded with a reasonable degree of error for examination purposes.
Claims 1, 9 and 19 recite the limitations “wherein the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 10% to about 30%”, “wherein the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 9% to about 350%” and “wherein the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 9% to about 35%”, respectively; however, it is unclear as to whether the crepe paper has already been stretched, or has the capability of being stretched, to the claimed range. For the purpose of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as “wherein the creped paper is capable of being stretched at least about 10% to about 30%/350%.”
Claims 2 and 8 recite the limitation “wherein the sheet material has a folding angle of about 450 to about 900”; however, this limitation is considered as a result to be achieved, because the method used for measuring the folding angle is not defined by the claim and it is not clear which are the technical features responsible for achieving a folding angle of about 450 to about 900. For the purpose of examination, if the prior art sheet material is fully capable of taking on a folding angle of about 450 to about 900, then it reads on the claim.
Claims 3 and 14 recite the limitations “wherein the creped paper has a water penetration time of at least about 17 seconds” and “wherein the creped paper has a water penetration time of at least about 10 seconds”, respectively; however, the method for measuring the penetration time is not defined by the claim, and therefore lacks clarity. For the purpose of examination, if the prior art creped paper is fully capable of a having water penetration time of at least about 17 seconds, then it reads on the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the primer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
5. Claim(s) 8, 10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasezawa (JP 2021-153917 A).
6. With regard to claims 8 and 12, Hasezawa discloses an individually packaged absorbent article (package absorbent article, 100; abstract; Figs. 3-5) comprising: an absorbent article (1) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (liquid permeable front surface sheet, 11), a liquid impermeable backsheet (water impermeable back surface sheet, 12), and an absorbent layer (absorber, 13) disposed between the topsheet (11) and the backsheet (12; [0038-0039]), wherein the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12) has an adhesive (“an adhesive layer containing a styrene-based polymer, a tackifier, a plasticizer, or the like”) disposed thereon ([0060]); and a wrapper (packaging material, 2) overlaying the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12; Figs. 3, 4), wherein the wrapper (2) comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 40 gsm to about 55 gsm (“preferably 50 g/m2 or less”; [0056]), wherein the sheet material (2) comprises creped paper ([0054-0055]), and has a folding angle of about 45° to about 90° (at least during folding/unfolding of wrapper, 2; Figs. 4, 5; [0094-0100]), wherein the individually packaged absorbent article (100) is provided in a folded configuration (Figs. 4, 5), the absorbent article (1) and the wrapper (2) folded together about at least one fold line (valley fold lines, V1, V2, V3 and mountain fold line, M; [0050]; [0094-0100]).
7. With regard to claim 10, Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) comprising softwood fibers and hardwood fibers ([0042]).
8. With regard to claim 16, Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) is substantially free of geologically-derived materials (“mechanical pulp” free from petrochemicals, natural gas or coal derived materials; [0053-0056]).
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.
9. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasezawa.
10. With regard to claim 1, Hasezawa discloses an individually packaged absorbent article (package absorbent article, 100; abstract; Figs. 3-5) comprising: an absorbent article (1) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (liquid permeable front surface sheet, 11), a liquid impermeable backsheet (water impermeable back surface sheet, 12), and an absorbent layer (absorber, 13) disposed between the topsheet (11) and the backsheet (12; [0038-0039]), wherein the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12) has an adhesive (“an adhesive layer containing a styrene-based polymer, a tackifier, a plasticizer, or the like”) disposed thereon ([0060]); and a wrapper (packaging material, 2) overlaying the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12; Figs. 3, 4), wherein the wrapper (2) comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm (“preferably 50 g/m2 or less”; [0056]), wherein the sheet material (2) comprises creped paper ([0054-0055]), and wherein the creped paper is an easily stretchable material ([0113]), wherein the individually packaged absorbent article (100) is provided in a folded configuration (Figs. 4, 5), the absorbent article (1) and the wrapper (2) folded together about at least one fold line (valley fold lines, V1, V2, V3 and mountain fold line, M; [0050]; [0094-0100]).
While Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) is an easily stretchable material ([0113]) which is fully capable of having a stretch of at least about 10%, Hasezawa fails to explicitly disclose that the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 10% to about 30%.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easily stretchable creped paper disclosed by Hasezawa to explicitly have a stretch of at least about 10% to about 30%, in order to employ a sufficiently stretchable packaging material capable of folding/unfolding and undergo normal impacts during transportation without damage or tearing, as suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0113] and [0118]. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claim 1, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa.
11. With regard to claim 2, Hasezawa discloses that the sheet material (2) has a folding angle of about 45° to about 90° (at least during folding/unfolding of wrapper, 2; Figs. 4, 5; [0094-0100]).
12. With regard to claims 3 and 15, while Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) may include an applied treatment agent and a coating of plugging agent ([0103]), Hasezawa fails to explicitly discloses that the creped paper has a water penetration time of at least about 17 seconds.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified a water penetration time of creped paper disclosed by Hasezawa to be at least about 17 seconds, in order to provide a packaging material that is not easily penetrated by moisture, avoiding potential damage of the absorbent article prior to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, similar to the suggested treatment agent and coating of plugging agent suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0103]. Additionally, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claims 3 and 15, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa.
13. With regard to claim 4, Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) is a creped Kraft paper. (printing, writing, or drawing paper; [0054-0055]).
14. With regard to claim 5, while Hasezawa is silent in regard to the sheet material having a MD web modulus at 1%-2% strain of less than about 450 N/cm, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claim 5, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the MD web modulus of the sheet material disclosed by Hasezawa in order to employ a sufficiently stretchable packaging material capable of folding/unfolding and undergo normal impacts during transportation without damage or tearing, as suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0113].
15. With regard to claims 6 and 7, Hasezawa discloses that a primer (release/peeling treatment agent) is disposed on an entire surface of the wrapper (2; Figs. 3-5; [0062]; [0103]).
16. With regard to claim 9, while Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) is an easily stretchable material ([0113]) which is fully capable of having a stretch of at least about 10%, Hasezawa fails to explicitly disclose that the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 10% to about 350%.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easily stretchable creped paper disclosed by Hasezawa to explicitly have a stretch of at least about 10% to about 350%, in order to employ a sufficiently stretchable packaging material capable of folding/unfolding and undergo normal impacts during transportation without damage or tearing, as suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0113] and [0118]. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claim 9, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa.
17. With regard to claims 17-20, Hasezawa discloses an individually packaged absorbent article (package absorbent article, 100; abstract; Figs. 3-5) comprising: an absorbent article (1) comprising a liquid permeable topsheet (liquid permeable front surface sheet, 11), a liquid impermeable backsheet (water impermeable back surface sheet, 12), and an absorbent layer (absorber, 13) disposed between the topsheet (11) and the backsheet (12; [0038-0039]), wherein the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12) has an adhesive (“an adhesive layer containing a styrene-based polymer, a tackifier, a plasticizer, or the like”) disposed thereon ([0060]); and a wrapper (packaging material, 2) overlaying the outward-facing surface of the backsheet (12; Figs. 3, 4), wherein the wrapper (2) comprises a sheet material having a basis weight of about 30 gsm to about 85 gsm (“preferably 50 g/m2 or less”; [0056]), wherein the sheet material (2) comprises creped paper ([0054-0055]), and wherein the creped paper is an easily stretchable material ([0113]), wherein the individually packaged absorbent article (100) is provided in a folded configuration (Figs. 4, 5), the absorbent article (1) and the wrapper (2) folded together about at least one fold line (valley fold lines, V1, V2, V3 and mountain fold line, M; [0050]; [0094-0100]).
While Hasezawa discloses that the creped paper (of 2) is an easily stretchable material ([0113]) which is fully capable of having a stretch of at least about 9%, Hasezawa fails to explicitly disclose that the creped paper has a stretch of at least about 9% to about 30%.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the easily stretchable creped paper disclosed by Hasezawa to explicitly have a stretch of at least about 10% to about 30%, in order to employ a sufficiently stretchable packaging material capable of folding/unfolding and undergo normal impacts during transportation without damage or tearing, as suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0113] and [0118]. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claim 19, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa.
Finally, while Hasezawa is silent in regard to the sheet material having a MD web modulus at 1%-2% strain of less than about 450 N/cm, 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 Hasezawa discloses the structure of claim 17, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent to Hasezawa. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the MD web modulus of the sheet material disclosed by Hasezawa in order to employ a sufficiently stretchable packaging material capable of folding/unfolding and undergo normal impacts during transportation without damage or tearing, as suggested by Hasezawa in paragraph [0113].
18. Claim(s) 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasezawa in view of Dieter et al. (EP 3821075 B1).
19. With regard to claims 11, 13 and 14, Hasezawa fails to explicitly disclose that the creped 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; wherein the hardwood fibers are selected from the group consisting of maple fibers, oak fibers, elm fibers, birch fibers, poplar fibers, aspen fibers, eucalyptus fibers, and combinations thereof, preferably birch fibers; and wherein the softwood fibers are selected from the group consisting of pine fibers, fir fibers, spruce fibers, hemlock fibers, larch fibers, and combinations thereof, preferably northern pine fibers.
However, within the similar field of endeavor, namely packaging, Dieter discloses a packaging system (abstract) comprising a paper layer, comprising about 50% by weight to about 80% by weight of softwood fibers (50% softwood fibers; [0086]) and about 20% by weight to about 50% by weight of hardwood fibers (50% hardwood fibers; [0086]; [0083]); wherein the hardwood fibers are selected from the group consisting of maple fibers, oak fibers, elm fibers, birch fibers, poplar fibers, aspen fibers, eucalyptus fibers, and combinations thereof, preferably birch fibers (“preferably birch fibres, beech fibres or eucalyptus fibres”; [0086]); and wherein the softwood fibers are selected from the group consisting of pine fibers, fir fibers, spruce fibers, hemlock fibers, larch fibers, and combinations thereof, preferably northern pine fibers (“pine fibres, spruce fibres or fir fibres”; [0086]; [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified specific fibers of softwood/hardwood and their ratios within the creped paper disclosed by Hasezawa to be at least 50%/50% by weight and specifically pine and birch fibers, similar to that disclosed by Dieter, in order to provide a particularly dense paper which has a very high barrier effect against contaminants, as suggested by Dieter in paragraph [0084].
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshiba (US PGPUB 2023/0036459) discloses a wrapping sheet and wrapped absorbent article.
Kudo (US PGPUB 2003/0149417) discloses a hygiene product.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights