DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action. See MPEP 2004, item 13.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is currently too short, refers only to the purported merits of the invention and fails to describe the technical aspects of that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ABSORBENT ARTICLE WITH A FLUID-ENTANGLED BODY FACING MATERIAL INCLUDING A PLURALITY OF PROJECTIONS
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 1, 5, 8, 6, 7, 9 and 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,633 in view of Bast et al. (US 6,440,114 B1; hereinafter “Bast”). The patented claims recite all the instant limitations, except patented claim 1 is silent regarding wherein the body facing material has a resiliency of greater than about 70%. However, Bast teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention for a body facing material with projections (e.g. Fig. 2) to have a resiliency of greater than about 70% (sheet of fibers 126 has a resiliency of at least 75%...at least 85%, col. 11, lines 27-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include in patented claim 1 wherein the body facing material has a resiliency of greater than about 70% as taught by Bast, in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring that the projections can withstand the forces of packaging and those applied by the wearer in order to remain as functional projections (Bast col. 11, lines 27-32).
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,633 in view of Baratian et al. (US 7,105,716 B2; hereinafter “Baratian”). Patented claim 7 anticipates the limitations of instant claims 12, 14 and 15, except patented claim 7 is silent regarding the open area being greater than not just about 10%, but greater than about 20%. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Baratian teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention for an open area of a body facing material with projections to be more than 20% (col. 17, lines 63-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include in patented claim 7 wherein the open area greater than about 10% is an open area greater than about 20% as taught by Baratian, in order to provide the predictable result of higher permeability for faster uptake and/or passthrough (Baratian col. 17, lines 58-67). Regarding instant claim 13, modified patented claim 7 lacks wherein the projections are hollow. However, Baratian teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention for projections to be hollow (Fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include in modified patented claim 7 wherein the projections are hollow as taught by Baratian, in order to provide an open, lighter-weight, resilient material for enhancing dryness and permeability (Baratian col. 16, line 57-col. 17, line 5). Regarding instant claim 17, modified patented claim 7 is silent regarding wherein at least some of the plurality of projections comprise apertures. However, Baratian teaches that it was known in the art of absorbent layers with projections and land areas (Fig. 2) for such materials to have apertures in both the land and the projections (col. 16, lines 53-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include in the modified patented claim 7 wherein at least some of the plurality of projections also comprise apertures as taught by Baratian, in order to provide the expected result of enhanced transfer into the body facing material and/or to the absorbent body through said apertures so that said insults are quickly moved away from the wearer (Baratian col. 15).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,633 in view of Baratian as discussed above, and further in view of Rathod et al. (WO 2005/007962 A1; hereinafter “Rathod”).The modified patented claim 7 does not recite a relative level of fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement of its first and second layers. However, Rathod teaches that it was known in the art of two-layer fluid-entangled fabrics with projections for absorbent articles for said layers to utilize layers with different levels of fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement (page 5, lines 7-8 and page 18, lines 9-12), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to provide the patented layers using the instantly claimed relative degrees of bonding, in order to provide the expected result of a material that has relatively soft projections due to less bonding/entanglement to prevent user discomfort with overly rigid projections while still providing a sufficiently durable topsheet by virtue of more bonding/entanglement in the other layer.
Claims 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,491,058 in view of Digiacomantonio et al. (US 2005/0261653 A1; hereinafter “Digiacomantonio”) and Baratian. Patented claim 10 anticipates the limitations of instant claims 12-14, and patented claims 11-13 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 15-17, except that the patented claims lack a secondary liner as instantly claimed, and they do not specify that the open area of the land area also includes interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing. However, Digiacomantonio teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention to provide a secondary liner (secondary topsheet 24) as claimed (Figs. 1-2; para [0025]), and Baratian teaches that open area of land areas between projections can also include interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 14, lines 40-46, col. 15, lines 10-37, col. 17, lines 55-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include a secondary liner as claimed and as taught by Digiacomantonio and to specify that the open area of the land area also includes interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing as taught by Baratian, in order to provide the predictable results of a secondary liner to aid in rapid acquisition and/or distribution of fluid (Digiacomantonio para [0025]) and ensuring an adequately open, light-weight topsheet material for enhancing dryness and permeability (Baratian col. 15, lines 10-37 and col. 16, line 57-col. 17, line 5).
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,608, claim 74 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,609, and claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,474,660, each in view of Digiacomantonio, Baratian, and Noda (US 2008/0085399 A1; hereinafter “Noda”) [these patents are grouped together because the patented claims share the same or similar relevant limitations and lack the same relevant limitations]. The patented claims anticipate the limitations of instant claims 12-14, except they are silent regarding the secondary liner extending/enclosing the absorbent body as claimed, they are silent regarding the open area being greater than not just about 1/5/10%, but greater than about 20%, and they do not specify that the open area of the land area also includes through-holes. However, Digiacomantonio teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention to provide a secondary liner (secondary topsheet 24) that encloses the absorbent body (absorbent core 20) as claimed (Figs. 1-2; para [0025]), optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Baratian teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention for an open area of a body facing material with projections to be more than 20% (col. 17, lines 63-67), and Baratian also teaches that open area of land areas between projections can include both interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing and apertures (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 14, lines 40-46, col. 15, lines 10-37, col. 16, lines 54-56, col. 17, lines 55-67), and Noda teaches that specifically two-ply open area of land areas between projections can include through-holes (openings 3) (Fig. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include a secondary liner as claimed and as taught by Digiacomantonio and to specify that the open area of the land area is greater than about 20% and also includes apertures as taught by Baratian and Noda, in order to provide the predictable results of a secondary liner to aid in rapid acquisition and/or distribution of fluid (Digiacomantonio para [0025]) and ensuring an adequately open, light-weight topsheet material for enhancing dryness and permeability (Baratian col. 15, lines 10-37 and col. 16, line 57-col. 17, line 5; Noda paras [0136-137] and [0154-155]). Regarding instant claim 15, the modified patented claims are silent regarding the basis wight of the body facing material being within the instantly claimed range. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Noda (para [0112]) further teaches that this was a known range at the time of invention, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include this range in the modified patented claims in order to provide the predictable result of a body facing material that is not at risk for being easily damaged while still ensuring that liquid is easily transferred through it (Noda para [0112]). Regarding instant claim 17, the modified patented claims are silent regarding wherein at least some of the plurality of projections comprise apertures. However, Baratian further teaches that it was known in the art of absorbent layers with projections and land areas (Fig. 2) for such materials to have apertures in both the land and the projections (col. 16, lines 53-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to include in the modified patented claims wherein at least some of the plurality of projections also comprise apertures as taught by Baratian, in order to provide the expected result of enhanced transfer into the body facing material and/or to the absorbent body through said apertures so that said insults are quickly moved away from the wearer (Baratian col. 15).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 36 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,608, claim 74 of U.S. Patent No. 9,480,609, and claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,474,660, each in view of Digiacomantonio, Baratian, and Noda as discussed above, and further in view of Rathod. The modified patented claims do not recite a relative level of fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement of its first and second layers. However, Rathod teaches that it was known in the art of two-layer fluid-entangled fabrics with projections for absorbent articles for said layers to utilize layers with different levels of fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement (page 5, lines 7-8 and page 18, lines 9-12), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to provide the patented layers using the instantly claimed relative degrees of bonding, in order to provide the expected result of a material that has relatively soft projections due to less bonding/entanglement to prevent user discomfort with overly rigid projections while still providing a sufficiently durable topsheet by virtue of more bonding/entanglement in the other layer.
Claim Interpretation
The instant specification defines the term "open area" as "all area where light can pass through unhindered," see e.g. page 27, lines 28-29.
The definition for the claimed property of resiliency is found on pages 132-133 of the instant specification.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 12, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gabrielii et al. (US 2010/0274208 A1; hereinafter “Gabrielii”) in view of Digiacomantonio et al. (US 2005/0261653 A1; hereinafter “Digiacomantonio”) and Baratian et al. (US 7,105,716 B2; hereinafter “Baratian”).
Regarding claim 12, Gabrielii discloses an absorbent article (absorbent article 10) (Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
an outer cover (backsheet 30);
a body facing material (topsheet 20); and
an absorbent body (absorbent core 40) disposed between the outer cover and the body facing material (Fig. 4);
wherein the body facing material comprises:
a first layer (lower layer 24) comprising a first plurality of fibers (para [0063]) and having a first surface (facing down in Fig. 5a) and an opposed second surface (facing up in Fig. 5a);
a second layer (upper layer 22) comprising a second plurality of fibers (para [0053]) and having an inner surface (facing down in Fig. 5a) and an opposed outer surface (facing up in Fig. 5a), wherein portions of the second surface of the first layer are in contact with the inner surface of the second layer (Fig. 5a; para [0063]), wherein at least a portion of the first plurality of fibers or the second plurality of fibers are fluid-entangled with at least a portion of the other of the first plurality of fibers or the second plurality of fibers (para [0063]);
a plurality of projections (channels 50) formed from at least a portion of the second plurality of fibers (Fig. 5a), the plurality of projections extending from the outer surface of the second layer in a direction away from the first layer (Fig. 5a); and
a land area disposed between the plurality of projections (any of the flat areas between the channels), land area comprising a plurality of apertures and interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing (holes and low density regions between the channels, para [0069]),
wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures extend from the first surface of the first layer to the outer surface of the second layer (para [0069]; wherein the holes are described as being through the entire thickness of the two-layer land area and thus extend and are aligned as claimed), and wherein the land area has an open area (by virtue of the presence of the openings).
Gabrielii is silent regarding a secondary liner disposed between the body facing material and the absorbent body, wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover. However, Digiacomantonio teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention to provide a secondary liner (secondary topsheet 24) disposed between the body facing material (topsheet 26) and the absorbent body (absorbent core 20) (Fig. 2), wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover (Figs. 1-2; para [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to modify Gabrielii to include a secondary liner disposed between the body facing material and the absorbent body, wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover as taught by Digiacomantonio, in order to provide the predictable result of a secondary liner to aid in rapid acquisition and/or distribution of fluid (Digiacomantonio para [0025]).
Gabrielii is silent regarding the size/number of holes and/or amount of spacing between fibers in the low density areas, such that Gabrielli is silent regarding the land area being greater than about 20% open area in a chosen area, the chosen land area including both a plurality of apertures and interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing to achieve the greater than 20% open area. However, Baratian teaches that it was known in the art of absorbent layers with projections and land areas (Fig. 2) for the land area to have an open area that is greater than 20% in a chosen area, the chosen land area including both a plurality of apertures and interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing to achieve the greater than 20% open area (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 14, lines 40-46, col. 15, lines 10-37, col. 17, lines 55-67). It would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to modify Gabrielii to include wherein the land has an open area within the instantly claimed range as taught by Baratian, in order to provide a sufficient open area to provide the expected result of enhanced/direct insult transfer to the absorbent body through the openings of Gabrielii so that said insults are quickly moved away from the wearer and into the absorbent body (Baratian col. 15).
Regarding claim 13, Gabrielii in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein Gabrielii further discloses wherein the projections are hollow projections (Gabrielii Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 15, Gabrielii in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein Gabrielii further discloses wherein the body facing material has a basis weight of between about 25 grams per square meter and about 100 grams per square meter (Gabrielii para [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Gabrielii in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein Gabrielii further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of projections comprise apertures (Gabrielii para [0067]).
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gabrielii in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Rathod et al. (WO 2005/007962 A1; hereinafter “Rathod”).
Regarding claim 16, Gabrielii in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, and Gabrielli indicates that the topsheet can be made using the methods of Rathod (para [0062]), but Gabrielii does not incorporate Rathod by reference, and Gabrielii is silent regarding wherein the second layer has less fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement than the first layer. However, Rathod teaches that it was known in the art of two-layer fluid-entangled fabrics with projections for absorbent articles to utilize layers with different levels of fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement (page 5, lines 7-8 and page 18, lines 9-12), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to manufacture the topsheet of Gabrielii using different materials as taught Rathod such that the second layer has less fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement than the first layer, in order to provide the expected result of relatively soft projections due to less bonding/entanglement to prevent user discomfort with overly rigid projections, while still providing a sufficiently durable topsheet by virtue of more bonding/entanglement in the other layer.
Claims 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2008/0085399 A1; hereinafter “Noda”) in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian.
Regarding claim 12, Noda discloses/teaches an absorbent article (absorbent article) (Fig. 21) comprising:
an outer cover (bottom layer visible in Fig. 21);
a body facing material (fabric 170 as surface sheet 301); and
an absorbent body (absorber/middle body portion in Fig. 21) disposed between the outer cover and the body facing material (Fig. 21; para [0221]);
wherein the body facing material comprises:
a first layer (layer 142) (Fig. 12) comprising a first plurality of fibers (fibers 102) and having a first surface (facing down in Fig. 12) and an opposed second surface (facing up in Fig. 12);
a second layer (layer 141) comprising a second plurality of fibers (fibers 101) and having an inner surface (facing down in Fig. 12) and an opposed outer surface (facing up in Fig. 12), wherein portions of the second surface of the first layer are in contact with the inner surface of the second layer (Fig. 12), wherein at least a portion of the first plurality of fibers or the second plurality of fibers are fluid-entangled with at least a portion of the other of the first plurality of fibers or the second plurality of fibers (Fig. 12; paras [148-150]; where the rearrangement of the fibers with air, which is a fluid, will necessarily entangle at least some of 101 with 102; and see also spun lacing process, para [0203], which would have rendered it obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to initially join the two layers of fabric 170 using a spun lacing i.e. hydroentaglement process in order provide the expected result of a suitably joined laminate);
a plurality of projections (raised ridge portions 2) formed from at least a portion of the second plurality of fibers, the plurality of projections extending from the outer surface of the second layer in a direction away from the first layer (Fig. 12); and
a land area (groove portion 1) disposed between the plurality of projections, the land area comprising a plurality of apertures (openings 3),
wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures extend from the first surface of the first layer to the outer surface of the second layer (Fig. 12), and
wherein the land area has an open area (by virtue of the presence of the openings).
Noda is silent regarding a secondary liner disposed between the body facing material and the absorbent body, wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover. However, Digiacomantonio teaches that it was known in the absorbent article art at the time of invention to provide a secondary liner (secondary topsheet 24) disposed between the body facing material (topsheet 26) and the absorbent body (absorbent core 20) (Fig. 2), wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover (Figs. 1-2; para [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to modify Noda to include a secondary liner disposed between the body facing material and the absorbent body, wherein the secondary liner overlays the absorbent body and extends beyond the absorbent body to enclose the absorbent body between the secondary liner and the outer cover as taught by Digiacomantonio, in order to provide the predictable result of a secondary liner to aid in rapid acquisition and/or distribution of fluid (Digiacomantonio para [0025]).
Noda is silent regarding the size/number of holes and interstitial spacing in the land areas, such that Noda is silent regarding the land area being greater than about 20% open area in a chosen area, the chosen land area including both a plurality of apertures and interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing to achieve the greater than 20% open area. However, Baratian teaches that it was known in the art of absorbent layers with projections and land areas (Fig. 2) for the land area to have an open area that is greater than 20% in a chosen area, the chosen land area including both a plurality of apertures and interstitial fiber-to-fiber spacing to achieve the greater than 20% open area (col. 3, lines 49-52, col. 14, lines 40-46, col. 15, lines 10-37, col. 17, lines 55-67). Theretofore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to modify Noda to include wherein the land has an open area within the instantly claimed range as taught by Baratian, in order to provide a sufficient open area to provide the expected result of enhanced/direct insult transfer to the absorbent body through the openings of Noda so that said insults are quickly moved away from the wearer and into the absorbent body (Baratian col. 15).
Regarding claim 15, Noda in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein Noda further discloses wherein the body facing material has a basis weight of between about 25 grams per square meter and about 100 grams per square meter (para [0112]).
Regarding claim 16, Noda in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein Noda further discloses wherein the second layer has less fiber-to-fiber bonding or fiber entanglement than the first layer (para [0088-89]).
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Abba et al. (US 2003/0036741 A1; hereinafter “Abba”).
Regarding claim 14, Noda in view of Digiacomantonio and Baratian teaches the absorbent article of claim 12, but Noda is silent regarding wherein the projections are surrounded by the land area. However, Baratian teaches projections surrounded by land area (Baratian Fig. 2), and Abba teaches that it was known in the art of absorbent article layers with projections at the time of invention to provide said projections either as longitudinal extensions similar to Noda (Abba, Fig. 3) or surrounded the land area similar to Baratian (Abba Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of invention to modify Noda such that the projections are surrounded by the land area as taught by Baratian and Abba, in order to provide the expected result of a topography that more effectively deters the spread of fecal matter in all directions (Baratain, col. 15, lines 45-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional reference regarding apertures and interstitial spacing for creating a desired degree of open area in land areas of a projection-comprising sheet: Noda et al. (US 2008/0045915 A1; paras [0129-135]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, Tu-Th 8a-2p, F 7:30-11:30a 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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights