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 § 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 1-28 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 1 recites the following limitations:
"the Vortex Time Test Method" in lines 11-12
“the Dry Void Volume Determination Test Method” in lines 13-14
“the Cradle Intake Test Method” in line 16
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the adhesive" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the SAM Capture Test Method" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
"the Vortex Time Test Method" in lines 14-15
“the Dry Void Volume Determination Test Method” in line 18
“the Cradle Intake Test Method” in line 20
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the Percent Void Volume Increase Test Method" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the SAM Capture Test Method" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
"the Vortex Time Test Method" in lines 19-20
“the Dry Void Volume Determination Test Method” in lines 21-22
“the Percent Void Volume Increase Test Method” in lines 23-24
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0009743).
With reference to claims 1, 3-6, 10-16 and 18-28, Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) discloses an absorbent article including a bodyside liner (50), a backsheet (30) and an absorbent structure (40) disposed therebetween [0002] wherein the absorbent structure includes a top corewrap material (43) and a bottom corewrap layer (i.,e,. spacer layer) as disclosed in [0049]. Wang further discloses that the superabsorbent particles may be disposed at a basis weight of greater than or equal to 250 gsm [0064], and are present in an amount greater than or equal to 90% be weight of absorbent material within the article as set forth in the abstract. Wang also includes adhesive within the absorbent structure as set forth in the abstract.
Wang is silent regarding the specific vortex time, dry void volume and first cradle intake time.
Initially, it is noted that these tests may be equivalent to zero, and therefore, would not necessarily be required to be present.
Alternatively, it is held that Wang provides the same elements in the same amounts as recited and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably presume that the article of Wang would produce the same, or similar results that would be easily adjustable, as that recited if tested.
As to claim 2, Wang discloses a cellulose-free article as set forth in the abstract where 99% SAP and 1% adhesive is disclosed.
With reference to claim 8, see the abstract.
As to claim 9, see the rejection of claims 1-6.
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that Wang would produce the same, or similar results that would be easily adjustable, as that recited if tested because Want provides the same elements in the same amounts as recited.
With reference to claim 17, see the rejection of claims 8-9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2006/0009743) and further in view of Goldwasser et al. (US 2009/0076472).
With reference to claim 7, Wang teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Wang and claim 7 is the provision that the superabsorbent particles are intermixed with adhesive filaments prior to deposition onto the one of the top corewrap material and the bottom corewrap material, with the adhesive filaments forming a three-dimensional mesh network comprising network adhesive filaments, and wherein the superabsorbent particles are immobilized within the mesh network with the network adhesive filaments and superabsorbent particles extending throughout a three-dimensional space defined by the network adhesive filaments and the superabsorbent particles, and wherein the network adhesive filaments extend in random orientations throughout the three-dimensional space.
Initially, it is noted that the product by process limitations (i.e., the superabsorbent particles are intermixed with adhesive filaments prior to deposition onto the one of the top corewrap material and the bottom corewrap material) are not considered to provide a patentable distinction between the claimed invention and the cited prior art.
With respect to the formation of a mesh network, Goldwasser et al. (hereinafter “Goldwasser”) teaches an analogous absorbent article where superabsorbent is intermixed with adhesive to form a mesh network as set forth in [0008].
The disclosure of a mesh network by Goldwasser where superabsorbent material is intermixed with adhesive is considered identical to that required to teach superabsorbent particles immobilized within the mesh network with the network adhesive filaments and superabsorbent particles extending throughout a three-dimensional space defined by the network adhesive filaments and the superabsorbent particles, and wherein the network adhesive filaments extend in random orientations throughout the three-dimensional space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Wang with the mesh network as taught by Goldwasser in order to keep the superabsorbent in the desired area as taught by Goldwasser in [0008].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights