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
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8, 10-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2022/0016867 to Moody et al. (herein Moody) in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0137981 to Vinas Pich cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 16 April 2024 (herein Vinas Pich).
Regarding claim 1, Moody teaches acquisition-distribution layers (herein ADL) comprising a hydroentangled composite (abstract) comprising a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and at least one core layer (paragraph 0040) corresponding to the liquid acquisition side, the liquid delivery side, and the hydrophilic core recited in the instant claims, respectively. Moody teaches that the first and second outer layers are each a nonwoven web or fabric and the core layer is made of cellulose fibers (paragraph 0041).
Moody is silent as to the linear density of the fibers in the first and second layers.
Vinas Pich teaches a nonwoven fabric for an ADL comprising a first upper layer and at least three other layers (abstract). Vinas Pich teaches that the first two layers have a fineness ranging from 6 to 20 dtex (paragraph 0070) and have the thickest fibers (paragraph 0071) while the third and subsequent layers have a fineness of 0.6 to 7 dtex (paragraph 0072). These two ranges of fineness yields a linear density difference between the fibers of the layers that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Vinas Pich teaches that the layers are joined via hydroentanglement (paragraph 0079)
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 first and second outer layers of Moody to have the linear densities taught by Vinas Pich because it would allow good hydrobonding of the first outer layer (paragraph 0070) and improve the rewet behavior of the second outer layer (paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 2¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the ADL composite is hydroentangled (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 3¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Moody does not teach the used of any other consolidation methods other than hydroentanglement.
Regarding claim 4¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the composite has a basis weight of 20 to 100 gsm (paragraph 0046). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 5 and 14¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Moody as modified according to Vinas Pich has a first outer layer with fibers of linear density 6 to 20 dtex and a second outer layer with fibers of linear density of 0.6 to 7 dtex. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 15¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the core layer is 40 to 80 wt% of the composite (paragraph 0046) which overlaps the claimed amount of cellulose fibers. Dividing the remaining portion between the first and second outer layers yields an amount of first and second outer layers that overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 7 and 16¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the nonwovens of the first and second outer layers can be carded layers (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claims 8 and 17¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the fibers of the first and second outer layers can be polyester (paragraphs 0043 and 0044).
Regarding claim 10¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the fibers of the first outer layer can be a combination of fibers (paragraph 0043). Furthermore, Moody as modified according to Vinas Pich would have a linear density difference that overlaps the claimed range as discussed above. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the core layer can be 100% cellulose fibers (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claims 18 and 19¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the ADL can be used in a hygiene article comprising, in order, a permeable topsheet, the ADL, an absorbent core, and a backsheet (paragraphs 0071-0072).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody and Vinas Pich as applied above and in further view of EPO Publication EP 0692232 to Bewick-Sonntag et al. (herein Bewick-Sonntag).
Regarding claim 9¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody is silent as to the fibers of the first outer layer having a mantle to reduce wettability.
Bewick-Sonntag teaches an absorbent structure (abstract) comprising an absorbent material (page 3, lines 7-9) with an overlying ADL (page 3, lines 39-40). Bewick-Sonntag teaches that the top layer can have a hydrophobic coating (page 6, lines 1-4).
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 fibers of the first outer layer of Moody to have a hydrophobic coating as taught by Bewick-Sonntag because it would isolate the wearer’s skin from liquids contained in the core layer (page 6, lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody and Vinas Pich as applied above and in further view of U.S. Patent 5,716,703 to Payne (herein Payne).
Regarding claim 12¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Moody is silent as to the fibers of the core layer being crosslinked cellulose fibers.
Payne teaches a disposable absorbent article containing an ADL member (abstract) wherein the ADL contains crosslinked cellulose fibers (Col 2, lines 10-17).
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 cellulose fibers of the core of Moody to be the crosslinked cellulose fibers of Payne because it would minimize skin wetness (Col 2, lines 10-17).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody in view of Vinas Pich.
Regarding claim 20¸ Moody teaches an ADL comprising a hydroentangled composite (abstract) comprising a first outer layer, a second outer layer, and at least one core layer (paragraph 0040) wherein the ADL is produced via a hydroentanglement process (paragraph 0066). Moody teaches that the first and second outer layers are each a nonwoven web or fabric and the core layer is made of cellulose fibers (paragraph 0041). Moody teaches that the production method comprises the steps of providing the first outer layer, providing the second outer layer, and providing at least one core layer (paragraph 0066) wherein the core layer is deposited on the first outer layer and the second outer layer is then deposited on the core layer (paragraph 0067). Moody teaches that the three layers are then hydroentangled (paragraph 0067).
Moody is silent as to the linear density of the fibers in the first and second layers.
Vinas Pich teaches a nonwoven fabric for an ADL comprising a first upper layer and at least three other layers (abstract). Vinas Pich teaches that the first two layers have a fineness ranging from 6 to 20 dtex (paragraph 0070) and have the thickest fibers (paragraph 0071) while the third and subsequent layers have a fineness of 0.6 to 7 dtex (paragraph 0072). These two ranges of fineness yields a linear density difference between the fibers of the layers that overlaps the claimed range. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Vinas Pich teaches that the layers are joined via hydroentanglement (paragraph 0079)
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 first and second outer layers of Moody to have the linear densities taught by Vinas Pich because it would allow good hydrobonding of the first outer layer (paragraph 0070) and improve the rewet behavior of the second outer layer (paragraph 0073).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody and Vinas Pich as applied above and in further view of U.S. Patent 6,845,953 to Orlandi (herein Orlandi).
Regarding claim 21¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the steps of physically entangling the composite and imparting a three-dimensional topography are steps that may occur together (paragraph 0067), i.e. they are steps that are not required to occur together.
Moody is silent as to the hydroentangling taking place on smooth surfaces with jets from both sides of the composite.
Orlandi teaches a method of producing a composite nonwoven for receiving and storing liquids wherein the composite includes a carded nonwoven and a pulp layer (abstract). Fig 2 of Orlandi shows that the composite is formed by providing a first carded nonwoven, depositing the pulp fibers, and providing an upper carded nonwoven (Col 3, lines 7-44). Orlandi teaches that after the upper nonwoven is laid, hydroentangling occurs in multiple stages on drums to allow both sides of the composite to be subjected to the jets (Col 3, lines 45-56). Fig 2 of Orlandi shows the drums to have smooth surfaces.
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 hydroentangling process of Moody to be the hydroentangling process taught by Orlandi because applying a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moody and Vinas Pich as applied above and in further view of U.S. Patent 6,381,817 to Moody (herein Moody ‘817).
Regarding claim 22¸ Moody and Vinas Pich teach all the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Moody teaches that the hydroentangling and imparting a three-dimensional topography can happen simultaneously (paragraph 0067), i.e. no further processing is done after hydroentanglement.
Moody is silent as to the steps subsequent to hydroentanglement.
Moody ‘817 teaches a process of forming a composite nonwoven web via hydroentangling a synthetic fiber web and a cellulosic fiber web (abstract). Moody ‘817 teaches that after going through the entangling drums, the web is subsequently dried and wound for storage (Col 3, lines 60-65).
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 process of Moody to include the drying and winding steps taught by Moody ‘817 because applying a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results has been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783