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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 11 and 12 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 11 recites the limitation “the common point.” It is unclear whether this recitation is intended to refer to the common point on the central channel or the common point on the embossed central path. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “the common point on the embossed central path”. Claim 12 is also rejected based on its dependency on Claim 11.
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) 1-4, 6-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzate Machado et al (US 2020/0054504), hereinafter Alzate, in view of Rosati et al (US 2019/0117473).
Regarding Claim 1, Alzate discloses an absorbent article (Figs. 12-13) comprising:
a chassis having a front waist portion, a rear waist portion, and a crotch portion between the front and rear waist portions, the chassis having a length extending from a front waist edge of the front waist portion to a rear waist edge of the rear waist portion (see Image 1), the chassis comprising:
a liquid-permeable topsheet (top layer of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; ¶ [0022]), and
a liquid-impermeable backsheet (bottom layer of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]); and
an absorbent first core (absorbent core 2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]) disposed between the topsheet (top layer of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; ¶ [0022]) and the backsheet (bottom layer of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]), the first core comprising a mixture of cellulosic fibers and super-absorbent polymer (¶ [0023]), the first core having a front end, a rear end, two side edges, a length extending longitudinally between the front end and the rear end, a front half between a longitudinal midpoint of the first core and the front end, and a rear half between the longitudinal midpoint of the first core and the rear end (see Image 2), the first core (absorbent core 2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]) defining:
a central channel (20 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12) extending longitudinally from the rear half to the front half (see Image 2), and
two lateral channels in the front half of the first core (absorbent core 2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]), the lateral channels extending from a common point on the central channel (20 of bottom substrate, Figs. 10 and 12) toward respective ones of the side edges of the first core (see Image 2);
wherein the first core (absorbent core 2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0022-0023]) is not enclosed in a core cover within the topsheet and backsheet (there is no core wrap/envelope/cover enclosing the core wrap, each substrate is simply a top layer, a bottom layer, and an absorbent core; ¶ [0022-0023]).
Alzate is silent whether the first core comprises a mixture of cellulosic fibers, super-absorbent polymer, and adhesive.
Rosati teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the absorbent core can comprise a mixture of cellulosic fibers, super-absorbent polymer, and adhesive (¶ [0403]), which immobilizes the super-absorbent polymer within the cellulosic fibers, which is commonly utilized in absorbent cores for absorbent articles (¶ [0403]).
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 absorbent core of Alzate to be comprise a mixture of cellulosic fibers, super-absorbent polymer, and adhesive, as taught by Rosati, to allow the super-absorbent polymer to be immobilized within the cellulosic fibers, which is commonly used in absorbent cores for absorbent articles (as motivated by Rosati ¶ [0403]).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 1: Annotated Fig. 13 of Alzate Image 2: Annotated Fig. 10 of Alzate
Regarding Claim 2, Alzate further discloses the two lateral channels are front lateral channels extending longitudinally toward the front end of the first core (see Image 2).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Alzate further discloses the common point is within a confluence region (see Image 2; ¶ [0059] indicates that the channel ramification 22 is placed near a body part of the user through where fluid is exudated or released, indicating the channel ramification is placed such that it is located at the “pee point” of the user, and this can be considered the confluence region), where the confluence region is circular, and the first transverse dimension is a diameter (see Image 2).
Alzate/Rosati does not disclose the confluence region has a first transverse dimension of from 20 to 60 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Alzate/Rosati to have a confluence region with a first transverse dimension of from 20 to 60 mm since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Alzate/Rosati would not operate differently with a confluence region with a first transverse dimension of from 20 to 60 mm since the device would function appropriately to absorb fluid insults with such a sized confluence region. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the first transverse dimension of the confluence region is “in some configurations” within the claimed ranges (¶ [0022] of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding Claim 6, Alzate further discloses an absorbent second core (absorbent core 2 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) disposed between the first core (absorbent core 2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12) and the topsheet (top layer of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; ¶ [0022]) and covering at least a portion of the central channel (20 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12) and a portion of the two lateral channels (as seen in Figs. 11 and 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Alzate further discloses the second core (absorbent core 2 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) comprises an embossed first pattern (channel structure 16 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) having one or more embossed linear paths (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; ¶ [0051]) extending longitudinally from a rear half of the second core (absorbent core 2 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) to a front half of the second core (absorbent core 2 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; see Image 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
687
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Image 3: Annotated Fig. 11 of Alzate
Regarding Claim 8, Alzate further discloses at least a portion of at least one of the embossed linear paths (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) overlies at least a portion of the central channel (20 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12).
Regarding Claim 9, Alzate further discloses the second core (absorbent core 2 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) comprises an embossed first pattern (channel structure 16 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) having an embossed central path (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) extending longitudinally from a rear half of the second core to a front half of the second core (see Image 3), and two embossed lateral paths extending from a common point on the embossed central path toward respective ones of side edges of the second core (see Image 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Alzate further discloses at least a portion of the embossed central path (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) overlies at least a portion of the central channel (20 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12), and at least a portion of each of the embossed lateral paths (see Image 3 and Fig. 12) overlies at least a portion of a corresponding one of the lateral channels (see Image 2 and Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 11, Alzate further discloses the two embossed lateral paths (see Image 3) are front lateral paths extending from the common point on the embossed central path (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) toward a front end of the second core (see Image 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Alzate further discloses the embossed first pattern (16 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) further comprises two embossed rear lateral paths extending from a rear common point on the embossed central path (20 of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12) toward a rear end of the second core (see Image 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Alzate further discloses the first core (2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12) further comprises one or more embossed linear paths (18 and 26 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12) extending longitudinally from a rear half of the first core to a front half of the first core (see Image 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Alzate further discloses an acquisition-distribution layer disposed between the topsheet (top layer of top substrate 4, Figs. 11-12; ¶ [0022]) and the first core (2 of bottom substrate 5, Figs. 10 and 12; ¶ [0027]).
Claim(s) 5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzate Machado et al (US 2020/0054504), hereinafter Alzate, in view of Rosati et al (US 2019/0117473), further in view of Daniel et al (US 2020/0121521).
Regarding Claim 5, Alzate further discloses the confluence region is located in the front half (see Image 2).
Alzate/Rosati is silent whether the confluence region has a center that is 10 to 30 mm from the longitudinal midpoint of the first core.
Daniel teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the pee point of the absorbent article is marked 25 mm towards the front from the center of the absorbent core (¶ [0763]) to appropriately position the article to maximize fluid handling during a fluid insult.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the confluence region of Alzate/Rosati to have a center that is 10 to 30 mm from the longitudinal midpoint of the first core, as taught by Daniel, to appropriately position the article to maximize fluid handling during a fluid insult. This is further motivated by Alzate who indicates the channel ramification 22, which is within the confluence region, is placed “near a body part of the user through where the fluid is exudated or released.” (¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Alzate/Rosati is silent whether a center of the ADL overlies the common point on the central channel, and where a longitudinal dimension of the ADL is of less than 200 mm.
Daniel teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an acquisition-distribution layer (D, Fig. 16A) disposed between the topsheet (A, Fig. 16A) and the first core (C, Fig. 16A), where a center of the ADL (D, Fig. 16A) overlies the pee point of the absorbent core (¶ [0763]), and wherein a longitudinal dimension of the ADL is of less than 200 mm (¶ [0763]; the ADL is 160 mm long). Centering the ADL over the pee point of the absorbent core allows the ADL to efficiently acquire and distribute fluids at the main point of insult (¶ [0594]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the ADL of Alzate/Rosati to have a center of the ADL overlie the common point on the central channel, wherein a longitudinal direction of the ADL is of less than 200 mm, to allow the ADL to efficiently acquire and distribute fluids at the main point of insult (as motivated by Daniel ¶ [0763]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzate Machado et al (US 2020/0054504), hereinafter Alzate, in view of Rosati et al (US 2019/0117473), further in view of Kaiser (US 2022/0265489).
Regarding Claim 13, Alzate/Rosati is silent regarding a storage core disposed between the first core and the backsheet.
Kaiser teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where additional fluid management layers are included between the absorbent core and the backsheet (¶ [0015, 0055]). This increases the fluid storage capacity of the absorbent article.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the absorbent article of Alzate/Rosati to include a storage core disposed between the first core and the backsheet, as taught by Kaiser, to increase the fluid storage capacity of the absorbent article.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzate Machado et al (US 2020/0054504), hereinafter Alzate, in view of Rosati et al (US 2019/0117473), further in view of Van Ingelgem et al (US 2021/0161727).
Regarding Claim 15, Alzate/Rosati is silent whether the topsheet comprises a marking having a second pattern, and at least a portion of the second pattern is substantially aligned with at least a portion of the central channel and at least a portion of the two lateral channels.
Van Ingelgem teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where the topsheet comprises a marking having a pattern (¶ [0057, 0434, 0467]), and at least a portion of the pattern is substantially aligned with the channel pattern (140, 150, 160, 170, Fig. 1B) of the absorbent core (130, Fig. 1B; ¶ [0057, 0434, 0467]). This allows the user to visually distinguish between the channels (¶ [0434]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the topsheet of Alzate/Rosati to comprise a marking having a second pattern, where at least a portion of the second pattern is substantially aligned with at least a portion of the central channel and at least a portion of the two lateral channels, as taught by Van Ingelgem, to allow the user to visually distinguish between the channels (as motivated by Van Ingelgem ¶ [0434]).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alzate Machado et al (US 2020/0054504), hereinafter Alzate, in view of Rosati et al (US 2019/0117473), further in view of Bianchi et al (US 2019/0000688).
Regarding Claim 16, Alzate/Rosati is silent whether at least one of the central channel and the two lateral channels has a transverse dimension of from 10 to 25 mm.
Bianchi teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core (28, Fig. 2) with channels (26, Fig. 2) with a transverse dimension of from 2 mm to 20 mm (¶ [0096]) to allow the channels to adequately channel fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the central channel and the two lateral channels of Alzate/Rosati to have a transverse dimension of from 2 mm to 20 mm, as taught by Bianchi, to allow the channels to adequately channel fluid.
Alzate/Rosati/Bianchi discloses channels with a transverse dimension of from 2 mm to 20 mm.
However, Alzate/Rosati/Bianchi does not explicitly disclose channels with a transverse dimension of from 10 to 25 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transverse dimension of the channels of Alzate/Rosati/Bianchi to be from 2-20 mm to 10-25 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see ¶ [0029] of Applicant’s published specification indicating the transverse dimension of the channels are within the claimed range “in some configurations”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 17, Alzate/Rosati is silent whether at least one of an embossed linear path, an embossed central path, and an embossed lateral path has a transverse dimension of from 3 to 8 mm.
Bianchi teaches an absorbent article with channels (86, Fig. 2) within an acquisition distribution layer (54, Fig. 2), where the transverse dimension of the channels (86, Fig. 2) is 8 mm (¶ [0050]) to allow for adequate fluid transport.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the transverse dimension of the embossed paths of Alzate/Rosati to be 8 mm, which is fully within the claimed range, as taught by Bianchi. This dimension allows for adequate fluid transport through the layer.
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
Prosecution Insights