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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 15 lines of text and/or 150 words. Additionally, the abstract includes legal phraseology (i.e., use of the word “said).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
"the length of the wings" in line 9
“the wings” in lines 9 and 18
“the longitudinal sides” in line 10
“the longitudinal axis” in line 11
“the side of the backsheet” in line 12
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Additionally, with respect to claims, the initial recitation of wings refers to “two wings” as set forth in line 5 of claim 1. Subsequent recitations refer to both “the wings” (in lines 9 and 18, for example) and “the two wings” as recited in line 2 of claim 2. The inconstant language renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if “the wings” and “the two wings” are the same element or different elements. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the wings” in line 2 and "the longitudinal axis" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the release paper" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the release paper" in line 3 and “the opposite side of the release paper” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Additionally, claim 8, which is dependent upon claim 7, refers to a single release paper in addition to the first release paper of claim 7. Lines 3-4 then refer to “the release paper”. The inconsistent language renders the claim unclear because it is not clear if the “the release paper” refers to the first release paper of claim 7 or the single release paper of claim 8. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the wings” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the wings” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Nakanishi et al. (US 5,201,727).
With reference to claim 1, Nakanishi et al. (hereinafter “Nakanishi”) discloses a sanitary napkin (1) comprising:
a topsheet (2),
a backsheet (3),
an absorbent core (4) arranged between said topsheet and backsheet (figures 1b and 4),
two wings (5),
the sanitary napkin extending in longitudinal, transversal and vertical directions (L,T,V), (figures 2 and 8),
the sanitary napkin being divided with respect to the longitudinal direction, into a front portion (F), a rear portion (R) and a central portion (C) arranged between said front and rear portions, the central portion (C) being defined by the length of the wings taken in the point in which they extend from the longitudinal sides of the sanitary napkin in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (y-y) (see annotated figure 8 below),
wherein a layer of adhesive is arranged on the side of the backsheet opposite to the absorbent core (figure 8),
characterized in that said layer of adhesive is arranged on the backsheet in a discontinuous pattern (figure 8),
said pattern of adhesive comprising: a first area of adhesive (front 17) arranged in the front portion (F), a second area of adhesive ( rear 17) arranged in the rear portion (R); a third area of adhesive (16) being arranged on the wings (figure 8);
wherein said pattern of adhesive comprises an adhesive-free area between the first area of adhesive and the second area of adhesive, said adhesive-free area longitudinally extending on a length that is greater than or equal to the length of the third area of adhesive with respect to the longitudinal direction as shown in annotated figure 8 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With reference to claim 2, Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein said adhesive-free area extends transversally between the two wings as shown in figure 8.
As to claim 3, Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein the first area of adhesive and second area of adhesive are aligned on one same longitudinal axis as shown in figure 8.
Regarding claim 4. Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein the third area of adhesive is longitudinally skewed from the first and second areas of adhesive when projected on the longitudinal axis as shown in figure 8
With respect to claim 5, Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein when the wings are folded onto the backsheet or topsheet (figures 9b-9c), the first, second and third areas of adhesive are aligned with respect to the longitudinal axis as shown in figures 9b-9c.
With reference to claim 6, Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein the first, second and/or third areas of adhesive comprise strips of adhesive, said strips extending transversally and/or longitudinally as shown in the figures.
As to claim 7, Nakanishi discloses a sanitary napkin wherein a first release paper (9) and/or a pouch is arranged on one side of the layer of adhesive such that the layer of adhesive is arranged between the backsheet and the release paper and/or pouch as set forth in col. 6, lines 39-54.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 and annotated figure 8 above where the method naturally flows from the teaching of the structure.
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.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (US 5,201,727) and further in view of Glaug et al. (US 4,701,178).
With reference to claim 8, Nikanishi teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Nakanishi and claim 8 is the provision that the sanitary napkin includes a single release paper that simultaneously covers all three areas of adhesive, first and second areas of adhesive being covered by a first side of the release paper and the third area of adhesive being covered by the opposite side of the release paper.
Glaug et al. (hereinafter “Glaug”) teaches an analogous sanitary napkin that includes a single release paper (28) that simultaneously covers all three areas of adhesive (i.e., upper and lower areas of adhesive 30) which encompass the entire length of the article, first and second areas of adhesive (30) being covered by a first side of the release paper and the third area of adhesive (32) being covered by the opposite side of the release paper as shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Nikanishi with a single release paper as taught by Glaug in order to conserve the sue of release strip material which also affords the ease of release strip removal which reduces the problem of unintended adhesion as taught by Glaug in col. 2, lines 39-47.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (US 5,201,727) and further in view of Konawa (US 2010/0256585).
With reference to claim 9, Nikanishi teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Nikanishi discloses that the wings are separated by a gap with respect to the transversal direction when folded over the backsheet as shown in figures 8 and 9b-9c.
The difference between Nakanishi and claim 9 is the provision that the sanitary napkin comprises a second release paper covering the third areas of adhesive with an additional layer of adhesive being arranged between the first and second release papers within said gap.
Konawa teaches an analogous sanitary napkin having a second release paper (30b) covering the third areas of adhesive (12) and also includes an additional layer of adhesive (11) being arranged between the first (30a, 31) and second (30b) release papers within said gap as shown in figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Nakanishi with the release paper(s) as taught by Konowa in order to smoothly set and fix the article to the undergarment without causing wrinkling as taught by Konawa in [0011].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barr et al. (US 5,868,727) discloses a sanitary napkin covered by release strips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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 at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781