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 .
EXAMINER’S NOTE
To facilitate compact prosecution, the examiner advises the applicant to further specify the dependency of claims 5-10 to the preceding claims, instead of “to any one of the preceding claims”, to promote clarity on the scope of the claimed invention, especially in the case of the addition of future amendments to the currently presented claims.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/05/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 9-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the number of through holes (18) for each recessed area (17) is comprised between 3 and 12”, and the claim also recites “in particular between 4 and 10” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the diameter of said through holes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In an effort to compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted as –a diameter of said through holes--.
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) 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neton et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0259524 A1) in view of Di Benedetto (Application No. EP 2353809 A1) and Gray (Publication No. US 2003/02021582 A1).
For the purposes of examination, the reference numbers within the claims were removed.
Regarding claim 1, Neton teaches a multi-layered material, in particular for hygiene/sanitary products (nonwoven materials 30 having layers 30A and 30B; Paragraph 0108 and 0113; Figure 12), the multi-layered material comprising:
an outer surface (outer surface is top surface of layer 30B; Paragraph 0113; Figure 12) shaped so as to comprise:
a) a plurality of recessed areas (protrusions 32 are upside down to form recessed; Figure 26; Paragraph 0155) and
b) at least one embossed area which is arranged alongside said recessed areas and protrudes with respect to said recessed areas at said outer surface (embossed areas adjacent recessed areas and protrudes from recessed areas at the outer surface; annotated Figure 26 below; Paragraph 0198-200 – describes embossing process); a plurality of through holes, formed only through said recessed areas (more than one holes, such as Figure 15I, that are formed in the recess 32; Paragraph 0128; Figure 15I and Figure 26);
a first layer and a second layer coupled to one another, whereby said through holes pass through both said first and said second layers (first layer 30B and second layer 30A that are connected to each other and the holes pass through both layers 30B and 30A; Paragraph 0128; Figures 15I);
wherein said second layer is a non-woven fabric (second layer 30A is a nonwoven layer; Paragraph 0171); and
wherein said first layer defines said outer surface and is a film made of plastic material (layer 30B is the outer surface and is made of a layer of nonwoven with plastic material; Paragraph 0170). The term “a film” is interpreted to be a thin sheet or layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 26
Neton does not teach the at least one embossed area which is arranged alongside said recessed areas and protrudes with respect to said recessed areas at said outer surface so as to define a thickness of the multi-layered material greater than the one at said recessed areas.
However, Di Benedetto teaches the at least one embossed area which is arranged alongside said recessed areas and protrudes with respect to said recessed areas at said outer surface so as to define a thickness of the multi-layered material greater than the one at said recessed areas (unperforated regions 19 has a greater thickness compared to the perforated regions 17; Figure 7; Paragraph 0062).
Neton and Di Benedetto are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent materials for absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neton to incorporate the teachings of Di Benedetto and have the thickness of the embossed areas of Neton be greater than the thickness of the recessed areas of Neton, as taught by Di Benedetto, using the embossing method of Di Benedetto. This allows for the thicker regions to provide softness (Di Benedetto; Paragraph 0022) and the thinner regions to facilitate fluid movement (Di Benedetto; Paragraph 0035).
The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto does not teach the film comprising a plurality of protruding micro-portions, that are provided on at least said embossed area and protrude outwards with respect to the remaining part of the first layer along said outer surface.
However, Gray teaches the film comprising a plurality of protruding micro-portions (plastic film 10 has volcano like micro-apertures 50; Figure 11; Paragraph 0056), that are provided on at least said embossed area and protrude outwards with respect to the remaining part of the first layer along said outer surface (volcano like micro-apertures 50 is on the first surface 57 on the land area 56 and protrude outwards; Figure 11; Paragraph 0056-0057).
Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent materials for absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neton in view of Di Benedetto to incorporate the teachings of Gray and have the first layer of Neton in view of Di Benedetto be replaced with the plastic film with the volcano-like apertures of Gray and applied onto the embossed and recessed regions of Neton in view of Di Benedetto, as taught by Gray. This allows for a softer tactile impression to the wearer with the apertures on the land area of the topsheet (Gray; Paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 2, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of claim 1. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray further teaches wherein said protruding micro- portions are arranged along the edges of respective micro-holes provided through the first layer, at least at said embossed area (Gray; volcano-shaped wall of apertures 50 are the protruding micro-portions and are arranged along the edges of the apertures 50 on plastic film 10 and on the land area 56; Figure 11; Paragraph 0056-0057; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of claim 2. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray further teaches wherein said micro-holes are at least partially closed at said recessed areas (Gray; apertures 50 are partially and fully closed at the macro-apertures 60; Figure 12; Paragraph 0057-0059).
Regarding claim 4, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of claims 2 or 3. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray further teaches wherein said micro-holes, at said embossed area, have a diameter that, on average, is comprised between 0.1 and 0.30 mm (Gray; apertures that are made on plastic film has a diameter of about 0.05 mm and about 0.5 mm and since the apertures on the embossed areas are not partially or fully closed, the diameter is maintained at this range; Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray further teaches consisting only of said first and second layers (Neton; first layer 30B and second layer 30A that are connected to each other and the holes pass through both layers 30B and 30A; Paragraph 0128; Figures 15I; Gray; first layer is plastic film 10 with apertures 50; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray further teaches wherein said first and second layers are bonded to one another only at said recessed areas (Neton; layers 30A and 30B are bonded to each other at recess 32, located at the tip bonded portion 152; Paragraph 0223-0225; Figures 28-29).
Regarding claim 8, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray does not expressly teach wherein the surface of said recessed areas is at least equal to 30% of said outer surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the surface of said recessed areas is at least equal to 30% of said outer surface 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) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the multi-layer material of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray would not operate differently with the recessed area surface area percentage since the material of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the same components and structure as the claimed invention (see disclosed above) and is intended to move and absorb fluids. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the surface area is the claimed range (specification; pg. 13, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 9, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray does not teach wherein the number of through holes for each recessed area is comprised between 3 and 12, in particular between 4 and 10.
However, since the applicant has not disclosed that having additional through holes in each recessed area does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. increases fluid flow through the recessed area by the increased number of holes), the mere duplication of the number of through holes in the recessed area between 4 to 10 is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date, to modify Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray to between 4 to 10 through holes in each recessed area, in order to predictably provide increased fluid flow in the recessed areas. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 10, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray does not teach wherein the diameter of said through holes is, on average, greater than 0.2 mm.
However, Gray teaches wherein the diameter of said through holes is, on average, greater than 0.2 mm (“macro-apertures typically range in size from 0.3 to 3.0 mm and are typically at least 4 times as big as the fine-scale small apertures 16 of the forming structure 15”; Paragraph 0049; Figure 5).
Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent materials for absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray to incorporate the teachings of Gray and have the through holes of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray to have the diameter of Gray. This allows for good fluid acquisition and rewet performance (Gray; Paragraph 0059).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neton et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0259524 A1) in view of Di Benedetto (Application No. EP 2353809 A1) and Gray (Publication No. US 2003/02021582 A1), as applied to any one of the preceding claims, and further in view of Splendiani et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0312143 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray teaches the multi-layered material of any one of the preceding claims. The combination of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray does not teach wherein the density of said protruding micro-portions is comprised between 30 and 100 mesh.
However, Splendiani teaches wherein the density of said protruding micro-portions is comprised between 30 and 100 mesh (micro-apertures are in a 40 to 120 mesh pattern; claims 3-5).
Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray and Splendiani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent materials for absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray to incorporate the teachings of Splendiani and have the mesh pattern/density of Splendiani applied to the micro-portions of Neton in view of Di Benedetto and Gray. This allows for the film to provide a unique visual to the user and deliver softness to the skin of the user (Splendiani; Paragraph 0008).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyama et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0240085 A1) discusses a topsheet that comprises of a plurality of recessed areas with multiple through holes and a plurality of embossed areas (Figure 3);
Cecchetto et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0369028 A1) discusses a laminate sheet with a plurality of recessed areas, embossed areas, and apertures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights