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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “the ethylene-propylene copolymer has an amorphous character with an enthalpy of crystallization of at least about 10 J/g” is not supported by the specification as originally filed. The present specification discloses on page 20, lines 15-19, that ethylene-propylene copolymers having an amorphous character have an enthalpy of crystallization in the range from 10-40 J/g, while PP polymer matrix have a higher enthalpy of crystallization. The present specification only provides support for an ethylene-propylene copolymer having an amorphous character with an enthalpy of crystallization of 10-40 J/g. The present specification does not support an enthalpy of crystallization of greater than 40 J/g for an ethylene-propylene copolymer having an amorphous character. Therefore the limitation of “the ethylene-propylene copolymer has an amorphous character with an enthalpy of crystallization of at least about 10 J/g” is not supported because the claimed range includes values above 40 J/g.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (9,993,369) in view of DeLucia et al. (2004/0005457).
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Xu discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1A, comprising a carded calendared nonwoven, as disclosed in column 21, lines 27-37, comprising a synthetic staple fiber, as disclosed in column 11, lines 18-22. The fiber comprises a polypropylene fiber matrix, an ethylene-propylene copolymer, and at least one fatty acid amide, as disclosed in column 3, lines 55-58, column 15, lines 53-62, and column 18, lines 59-63.
Xu discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the ethylene propylene copolymer having an amorphous character with an enthalpy of crystallization of at least about 10 J/g or about 10-40 J/g, as measured by the Enthalpy of Crystallization Test Method. Xu teaches the crystallinity of 2-65% of isotactic propylene, but remains silent as to the amorphous character and the enthalpy of crystallization of the copolymer. DeLucia teaches that an amorphous ethylene-propylene copolymer additive improves the softness of fibers and nonwoven webs, as disclosed in paragraph [0031]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ethylene-propylene copolymer of Xu with an amorphous character, as taught by DeLucia, to improve the softness of the fibers and web of Xu.
Since Xu as modified by DeLucia teaches the same composition and structure as claimed and the present specification discloses that the enthalpy of crystallization of an amorphous ethylene-propylene copolymer falls within the range of 10-40 J/g, it is therefore reasonable to presume that molecular weight is inherent to Xu. When the reference discloses all limitations of a claim except for a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses the properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1908) (see MPEP 2112.02).
With respect to claims 6-7, Xu discloses the ethylene propylene copolymer has an average molecular weight above 100,000 g/mol, and above 140,000 g/mol, as disclosed in column 17, lines 37-46. Xu does not measure using the Peak Molecular Weight Measurement Method. As Xu teaches the same composition and structure as claimed and the average molecular weight overlaps the claimed peak molecular weight range, it is therefore reasonable to presume that molecular weight is inherent to Xu. When the reference discloses all limitations of a claim except for a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses the properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1908) (see MPEP 2112.02).
With respect to claims 8-9, Xu discloses the fibers comprise from about 5-25%, and about 10-20%, of the ethylene propylene copolymers, as disclosed in column 18, lines 27-28.
With respect to claim 10, Xu discloses the fatty acid amide is selected from oleamide or erucamide, as disclosed in column 19, lines 45-51.
With respect to claim 11, Xu discloses the fibers comprise at least 0.05% of the fatty acid amide, as disclosed in column 18, lines 45-49.
With respect to claim 12, Xu discloses the fibers comprise from about 0.1% to about 2% of the fatty acid amide, as disclosed in column 18, lines 45-49.
With respect to claim 13, Xu discloses the nonwoven comprises a surfactant to increase the hydrophilicity, as disclosed in column 35, lines 63-64.
With respect to claim 14, Xu discloses the fibers can be monocomponent or bicomponent, as disclosed in column 11, lines 51-54, and therefore discloses an embodiment in which the fibers are monocomponent and therefore the nonwoven is free of bicomponent fibers.
With respect to claim 15, Xu discloses the basis weight of the nonwoven is in the range of about 10-40 gsm, as disclosed in column 21, line 65, to column 22, line 2.
With respect to claim 16, Xu discloses the nonwoven has a dynamic coefficient of friction in the machine direction of less than 0.65, as shown in Table 2, as measured according to ASTM D 1894-01, as disclosed in column 44, lines 38-40.
With respect to claim 17, Xu discloses the absorbent article comprises a topsheet 18, an absorbent core 14, and a backsheet 20, as shown in figure 1B, wherein the nonwoven is comprised in at least one of the topsheet or the backsheet, as disclosed in column 9, lines 32-34.
With respect to claims 18-19, Xu discloses the absorbent article is a personal hygiene wipe, as disclosed in column 13, lines 19-23, which is fully capable of being used in baby care of feminine care.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (9,993,369) in view of Bais-Singh et al. (WO 99/46119).
With respect to claims 2-3, modified Xu discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the nonwoven comprising about 5-20% natural fibers. Bais-Singh discloses a carded, calendared nonwoven comprising a mix of polypropylene fibers and 20% natural fibers, as disclosed in Table 1. Bais-Singh teaches that the inclusion of the natural fibers maintains high absorbency and softness, while fuzz generation on the surface is reduced, as disclosed in Table 1. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the nonwoven of Xu with 20% natural fibers, as taught by Bais-Singh, to provide improved absorbency while reducing fuzz generation.
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 LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights