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 .
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, 3, 6-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robles (US 20130116646 A1) in view of Ingenfeld (US 20240180757 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robles discloses feminine hygiene pad (10) comprising:
a forward end (F), a rearward end (R), and a longitudinal axis (L) and a lateral axis (T, fig. 1), the axes having an intersection (C, fig. 1, para. [0039]);
a liquid-permeable topsheet (14, para. [0038]);
a liquid-impermeable backsheet (16, para. [0038]); and
an absorbent layer (18) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (para. [0038]);
wherein the absorbent layer (18) comprises a layer of open-celled foam (para. [0066]) having a z-direction caliper (para. [0042]) and an outer perimeter (66) along an x-y plane (para. [0043]), the layer of open-celled foam comprises an arrangement of macro-voids (holes 70) therein, the macro-voids having a z-direction depth (para. [0045]).
However, Robles fails to disclose wherein the arrangement of macro-voids defines paths that lie along an x-y planar surface of the layer of open-celled foam and comprise:
a left forward path leg disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis and beginning at a left central location proximate the intersection of the axes, and ending at a left outboard location disposed forward of the first left central location, and further outboard of the longitudinal axis than the first left central location; and
a right forward path leg disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis and beginning at a right central location proximate the intersection of the axes, and ending at a right outboard location disposed forward of the first right central location, and further outboard of the longitudinal axis than the first right central location.
Ingenfeld teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein an absorbent core has a left forward path leg (43) disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis (TCL) and beginning at a left central location (411) proximate the intersection of the axes (fig. 1), and ending at a left outboard location (421) disposed forward of the first left central location (411, fig. 1), and further outboard of the longitudinal axis (LCL) than the first left central location (411); and
a right forward path leg (4) disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis (TCL) and beginning at a right central location (411) proximate the intersection of the axes (fig. 1), and ending at a right outboard location (422) disposed forward of the first right central location (411, fig. 1), and further outboard of the longitudinal axis (LCL) than the first right central location (411).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the macro-voids of Robles and arrange them like the branching pattern of channels taught by Ingenfeld because they achieve the same purpose—structures to aid fluid distribution (para. [0082] of Ingenfeld and para. [0045] of Robles)—therefore, employing both strategies and arranging the holes of Robles to align with the incorporated channel of Ingenfeld would have been an obvious because it would increase fluid acquisition and distribution (para. [0082] of Robles).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. Robles further discloses wherein the absorbent layer comprises an arrangement of one or more forward perforations (70) lying along the x-y planar surface of the pad (fig. 1C, para. [0045]).
However, Robles fails to disclose wherein the forward perforations are disposed between the left forward path leg and the right forward path leg.
Ingenfeld teaches the left forward path leg (43) and the right forward path leg (4, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the paths of Ingenfeld and maintain apertures between the paths to improve the acquisition and distribution of incoming fluid (para. [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, Robles fails to disclose wherein one or more of the path legs traverses at least four macro-voids.
Ingenfeld teaches one or more path legs (42, 43, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the paths of Ingenfeld wherein at least four of the holes (70 of Robles) are within the path because it would have been obvious to try some quantity of holes within the paths to facilitate adequate fluid acquisition. Furthermore, Robles supports any number of macro-voids (para. [0045]) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1 and specifically, Ingenfeld teaches the incorporated path legs. However, Robles fails to disclose wherein each of the macro-voids along each of the path legs has a width, and the width is equal to about 20 percent to about 200 percent of the z-direction caliper.
Robles demonstrates the macro-voids have some width and some z-direction caliper (fig. 1, para, [0045]), but fails to expressly disclose the width being about 20 percent to about 200 percent of the z-direction caliper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the macro-voids to be within that expansive range of 20-200% of the z-direction caliper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. Robles further discloses wherein the open-celled foam is one or more of a HIPE foam and a polyurethane foam (para. [0066]).
Regarding claims 9-13, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose:
(Claim 9) wherein the arrangement of macro-voids further comprises a second left forward path leg disposed outboard of the left forward path leg;
(Claim 10) wherein the second left forward path leg extends substantially parallel to the left forward path leg;
(Claim 11) wherein the left forward path leg and the second left forward path leg are separated by a distance of from about 2 mm to about 4 mm;
(Claim 12) wherein the arrangement of macro-voids further comprises a second right forward path leg;
(Claim 13) wherein the second right forward path leg extends substantially parallel to the right forward path leg.
Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the claimed invention except for a second left and second right forward path separated by 2 mm – 4 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the left and right forward paths, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Further, no new or unexpected result is likely to be produced. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Separating the duplicated paths by 2 mm – 4 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. Robles further discloses comprising a stiffener underlying one or more portions of the absorbent layer (para. [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Robles discloses feminine hygiene pad (10) comprising:
a forward end (F), a rearward end (R), and a longitudinal axis (L) and a lateral axis (T, fig. 1), the axes having an intersection (C, fig. 1, para. [0039]);
a liquid-permeable topsheet (14, para. [0038]);
a liquid-impermeable backsheet (16, para. [0038]); and
an absorbent layer (18) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (para. [0038]);
wherein the absorbent layer (18) comprises a layer of open-celled foam (para. [0066]) having a z-direction caliper (para. [0042]) and an outer perimeter (66) along an x-y plane (para. [0043]), the layer of open-celled foam comprises an arrangement of macro-voids (holes 70) therein, the macro-voids having a z-direction depth (para. [0045]).
However, Robles fails to disclose wherein the arrangement of macro-voids defines paths that lie along an x-y planar surface of the layer of open-celled foam and comprise:
a left forward path leg disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis and beginning at a left central location proximate the intersection of the axes, and ending at a left outboard location disposed forward of the first left central location, and further outboard of the longitudinal axis than the first left central location; and
a right forward path leg disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis and beginning at a right central location proximate the intersection of the axes, and ending at a right outboard location disposed forward of the first right central location, and further outboard of the longitudinal axis than the first right central location.
Ingenfeld teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein an absorbent core has a left forward path leg (43) disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis (TCL) and beginning at a left central location (411) proximate the intersection of the axes (fig. 1), and ending at a left outboard location (421) disposed forward of the first left central location (411, fig. 1), and further outboard of the longitudinal axis (LCL) than the first left central location (411); and
a right forward path leg (4) disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis (TCL) and beginning at a right central location (411) proximate the intersection of the axes (fig. 1), and ending at a right outboard location (422) disposed forward of the first right central location (411, fig. 1), and further outboard of the longitudinal axis (LCL) than the first right central location (411).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the macro-voids of Robles and arrange them like the branching pattern of channels taught by Ingenfeld because they achieve the same purpose—structures to aid fluid distribution (para. [0082] of Ingenfeld and para. [0045] of Robles)—therefore, employing both strategies and arranging the holes of Robles to align with the incorporated channel of Ingenfeld would have been an obvious because it would increase fluid acquisition and distribution (para. [0082] of Robles).
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein at least one of the left forward path leg and the right forward path leg has a ratio of a macro-void length to a gap length of from about 30: 1 to about 1:5.
Ingenfeld discloses path legs with some gap length and Robles discloses macro-voids with some length. 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 device of Robles and Ingenfeld to have a ratio of a macro-void length to a gap length of from about 30: 1 to about 1:5 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 Robles and Ingenfeld would not operate differently with the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 25 lines 25-26).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 15, but fails to disclose:
(Claim 17) wherein the arrangement of macro-voids further comprises a second left forward path leg disposed outboard of the left forward path leg and a second right forward path leg disposed outboard of the right forward path leg;
(Claim 18) wherein the left forward path leg and the second left forward path leg are separated by a distance of from about 2 mm to about 4 mm.
Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the claimed invention except for a second left and second right forward path separated by 2 mm – 4 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to duplicate the left and right forward paths, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Further, no new or unexpected result is likely to be produced. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Separating the duplicated paths by 2 mm – 4 mm would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 15. Robles further discloses wherein the open-celled foam is one or more of a HIPE foam and a polyurethane foam (para. [0066]).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robles (US 20130116646 A1) in view of Ingenfeld (US 20240180757 A1), and in further view of Genaro (US 5300053 A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the arrangement of macro-voids further comprises a rearward path leg disposed substantially along the longitudinal axis and predominantly rearward of the lateral axis.
Genaro teaches a similar absorbent device in the same field of endeavor wherein the arrangement of macro-voids (18) further comprises a rearward path leg (fig. 1) disposed substantially along the longitudinal axis and predominantly rearward of the lateral axis (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path leg pattern of Robles and Ingenfeld and incorporate the central rearward path leg of Genaro yielding predictable results, namely a channel with macro-voids to facilitate fluid acquisition. MPEP 2143 A-C.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the z-direction depth of a portion of the macro-voids extends entirely through the caliper of the foam layer.
Genaro teaches wherein the z-direction depth of a portion of the macro-voids extends entirely through the caliper of the foam layer (fig. 2, column 3 lines 22-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the macro-voids of Robles that have some non-specific z-direction and incorporate the depth of Genaro for a quick, high-volume flow of incoming fluid (column 4 lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 15. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the arrangement of macro-voids further comprises a rearward path leg disposed substantially along the longitudinal axis and predominantly rearward of the lateral axis.
Genaro teaches a similar absorbent device in the same field of endeavor wherein the arrangement of macro-voids (18) further comprises a rearward path leg (fig. 1) disposed substantially along the longitudinal axis and predominantly rearward of the lateral axis (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path leg pattern of Robles and Ingenfeld and incorporate the central rearward path leg of Genaro yielding predictable results, namely a channel with macro-voids to facilitate fluid acquisition. MPEP 2143 A-C.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robles (US 20130116646 A1) in view of Ingenfeld (US 20240180757 A1), and in further view of Waas et al. (US 20120103505 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the z-direction depth of a portion of the macro-voids is about 40 percent to about 70 percent of the caliper of the foam layer, wherein the z-direction depth begins and extends from a wearer-facing side of the foam layer.
Waas teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the z-direction depth of a portion of the macro-voids (40/41, fig. 3) is about 40 percent to about 70 percent of the caliper of the foam layer (22, para. [0042]), wherein the z-direction depth begins and extends from a wearer-facing side of the foam layer (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the macro-voids of Robles and incorporate the depth as shown in Waas such that its avoiding damage to the backsheet and creating fluid barriers (para. [0004]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robles (US 20130116646 A1) in view of Ingenfeld (US 20240180757 A1), and in further view of Noel (US 20150257943 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Robles and Ingenfeld discloses the pad of claim 1. However, the combination fails to disclose a stiffener underlying one or more portions of the absorbent layer, wherein the stiffener has an x-y surface area disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis.
Noel teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor with a stiffener (24) underlying one or more portions of the absorbent layer (12), wherein the stiffener has an x-y surface area (column 5 lines 12-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the generic stiffener of Robles and incorporate the stiffener of Ingenfeld to add resilient properties to the pad (column 4 lines 47-54). Although Noel fails to expressly disclose wherein the stiffener is disposed predominantly forward of the lateral axis, the stiffener can be from ½ to the full length of the absorbent core and adjusting the location of where the stiffener where its predominately in front of the lateral axis would have been obvious to try. There are only a finite number of predictable solutions regarding where to put the stiffener—along the entire core, in the center, or predominately to the front or rear. MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN A KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-4738. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (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.
/ERIN A KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SUSAN S SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 6 June 2026
Prosecution Insights