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 1-25 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 1 and 25 are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 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) 1-11, 13-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20190247238 A1) in view of Bridewell (US 20220388269 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson teaches a layered fluid acquisition/distribution system (claim 1) comprising:
a. a base nonwoven substrate layer that comprises at least one of a carded base nonwoven substrate, spunlace base nonwoven substrate, hydroentangled base nonwoven substrate, or a spunbond base nonwoven substrate (claim 1); and
b. a coform fibrous structure layer comprising a plurality of filaments and a plurality of fibers ( claims 1 and 2);
wherein the plurality of filaments and the plurality of fibers are comingled together (claims 1,2; paragraphs [0048] - [0050]).
Jackson fails to teach wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate. Bridewell teaches a fluid distribution system wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0188]). 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 system of Jackson wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate, similar to Bridewell, to create a more permanently fused interface.
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibits a basis weight of from about 10 gsm to about 60 gsm (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer comprises a plurality of fibrous elements (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 3. Jackson further teaches wherein the plurality of fibrous elements of the base nonwoven substrate layer comprise synthetic fibers (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 4. Jackson further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers comprise regenerated cellulose fibers (paragraph [0024] and [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 5. Jackson further teaches wherein the regenerated cellulose fibers are selected from the group consisting of: rayon fibers, viscose fibers, lyocell fibers and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0041]) .
Regarding Claim 7, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 7. Jackson fails to teach wherein the plurality of fibrous elements of the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibit an average diameter of from about 10 µm to about 50 µm as measured according to the Average Diameter Test Method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the plurality of fibrous elements of the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibit an average diameter of from about 10 µm to about 50 µm as measured according to the Average Diameter Test Method in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the diameter 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 page 5, lines 6-20 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 8, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson fails to teach wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibits a caliper of from about 0.2 mm to about 1 mm as measured according to the Caliper Test Method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention so the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibits a caliper of from about 0.2 mm to about 1 mm as measured according to the Caliper Test Method. in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the diameter 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 page 5, lines 6-20 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 9, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches the base nonwoven substrate layer exhibits an air permeability of between about 150 m3/m2/min and about 500 m3/m2/min as measured according to the Air Permeability Test Method (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 10, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer comprises a carded base nonwoven substrate (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer comprises a spunlace base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0032]).
=
Regarding Claim 13, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer comprises a spunbond base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0032]). .
Regarding Claim 14, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the plurality of fibers of the coform fibrous structure comprises a plurality of pulp fibers (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein the plurality of fibers of the coform fibrous structure comprises a plurality of synthetic fibers (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 16, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 15. Jackson further teaches wherein the plurality of synthetic fibers of the coform fibrous structure comprises a plurality of regenerated cellulose fibers (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 17, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 16. Jackson further teaches wherein the regenerated cellulose fibers are selected from the group consisting of: rayon fibers, viscose fibers, lyocell fibers and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 18, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson further teaches wherein at least a portion of the plurality of fibers at least partially penetrate into the base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 19, Jackson teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a. a topsheet (cover sheet, paragraph [0002]);
b. a layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 19. Jackson further teaches wherein the absorbent article further comprises a backsheet (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 21, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 20. Jackson further teaches wherein the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system is positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 22, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 19. Jackson further teaches wherein the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system further comprises a fluid storage system (absorbent layer) (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 23, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 22. Jackson further teaches wherein the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system is positioned between the topsheet and the fluid storage system(absorbent layer) (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 24, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 22. Jackson further teaches wherein the topsheet, the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system, and fluid storage system are arranged within the absorbent article such that a capillarity cascade is created such that fluid moves from the topsheet to the layered acquisition/distribution system to the fluid storage system (paragraph [0041-0042]).
Regarding Claim 25, Jackson teaches a process for making a layered fluid acquisition/distribution system (claim 1) comprising the steps of:
a) providing a base nonwoven substrate having a surface [0055], wherein the base nonwoven substrate comprises at least one of a carded base nonwoven substrate, spunlace base nonwoven substrate, hydroentangled base nonwoven substrate, or a spunbond base nonwoven substrate [0025] ;
b) spinning a plurality of filaments from a die [0025] ;
c) forming a coform mixture by mixing a plurality of fibers with the plurality of filaments, wherein the filaments and fibers are commingled together forming a mixture of filaments and fibers ([0048-0049]);
d) collecting the coform mixture on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate such that a coform fibrous structure is formed on the surface of the base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0049-0050]).
Jackson fails to teach wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate. Bridewell teaches a fluid distribution system wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate (paragraph [0188]). 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 system of Jackson wherein the coform fibrous structure is direct formed onto the base nonwoven substrate such that the plurality of filaments are spun from a die and directly laid on a surface of the base nonwoven substrate, similar to Bridewell, to create a more permanently fused interface.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US 20190247238 A1) in view of Bridewell (US 20220388269 A1) in view of Kulkarni (US 20170145610 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Jackson in view of Bridewell teaches the layered fluid acquisition/distribution system according to Claim 1. Jackson fails to teach wherein the base nonwoven substrate layer comprises a hydroentangled base nonwoven substrate. Kulkarni teaches where a textile substrate is hydroentangled to form a pre-treated textile substrate (paragraph [0124]). 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 base nonwoven substrate layer of Jackson so it comprises a hydroentangled base nonwoven substrate, similar to Kulkarni so that the fabric is tangled in a permanent fashion.
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