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 11, 12, 15, 18, 23 & 24 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.
Claims 11 & 12 recite the limitation "more than one of the first sheets" in line 2 and line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8 & 10 cite only “a first sheet”; it is unclear how there can be a plurality of ‘first sheets’ in claims 11 & 12. For this reason, claims 11 & 12 are indefinite.
Claims 15, 18, 23 & 24 are indefinite as they are dependent to claims 11 & 12. Claims 15 & 18 also cite only a singular ‘first sheet’.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claims 11 & 12 will be examined as: “wherein at the first step, the first absorbent material is disposed on more than one of the first regions of the first sheet[[s]], and at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which more than one of the first regions of the first sheet[[s]] is arranged with a spacing therebetween.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasayama (WO2013108863A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
8. An absorbent body manufacturing method comprising: a first step of forming a first absorbent sheet having a first absorbent material disposed in first regions of a first sheet; a second step of forming a second absorbent sheet having a second absorbent material disposed in second regions of a second sheet; a third step of forming a continuous body including the first absorbent sheet and the second absorbent sheet and in which the first regions and the second regions are adjacent to each other in plan view; and a fourth step of forming an absorbent body including the first absorbent material and the second absorbent material, by cutting the continuous body so that the first regions and the second regions adjacent to each other are included.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art of Sasayama teaches an absorbent body (Fig. 7, item 1) manufacturing method comprising: a first step of forming a first absorbent sheet (Fig. 3, item 131; Fig. 7, item 201) having a first absorbent material (Fig. 3, item 4) disposed in first regions of a first sheet [P. 7, ¶ 5 - P. 8, ¶ 1]; a second step of forming a second absorbent sheet (Figs. 7 & 8, item 220) having a second absorbent material (Figs. 7 & 8b, items 206) disposed in second regions of a second sheet; a third step of forming a continuous body including the first absorbent sheet and the second absorbent sheet and in which the first regions and the second regions are adjacent to each other in plan view (Fig. 7, item 1; [P. 10, ¶ 5 – P. 11, ¶ 4]); and a fourth step of forming an absorbent body (Fig. 7, item 1) including the first absorbent material and the second absorbent material, by cutting the continuous body with a cutter (Fig. 3, item 138; [P. 8, ¶ 1]) so that the first regions and the second regions adjacent to each other are included (See Figs. 1 & 7, items 1, 6, 206).
9. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 8, wherein at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which the first absorbent sheet and the second absorbent sheet overlap each other such that the first regions and the second regions are adjacent to each other in plan view.
With respect to claim 9, Sasayama teaches at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which the first absorbent sheet (Fig. 8a) and the second absorbent sheet (Fig. 8b) overlap each other such that the first regions and the second regions are adjacent to each other in plan view (See Fig. 7).
11. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 8, wherein at the first step, the first absorbent material is disposed on more than one of the first regions of the first sheet[[s]], and at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which more than one of the first regions of the first sheet[[s]] is arranged with a spacing therebetween.
With respect to claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Sasayama teaches at the first step, the first absorbent material is disposed on more than one of the first regions of the first sheet, and at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which more than one of the first regions of the first sheet is arranged with a spacing therebetween (See Figs. 7, 8a).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama (WO2013108863A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claims 8 & 11, respectively, and further in view of Thomann (US20140296810A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
13. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 8, wherein at the first step, the first absorbent material is disposed in the first regions aligned in a direction in which the first sheet continues, in a plurality of rows with a spacing therebetween, and at the second step, the second absorbent material is disposed in the second regions aligned in a direction in which the second sheet continues, with a spacing therebetween.
With respect to claim 13, Sasayama teaches the absorbent material regions of the first and second sheets are a deposited plurality of horizontal strips. These strips are lengthwise on the sheets.
The regions of Sasayama are not along the direction of sheet travel during manufacture.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Thomann teaches upper and lower laminate layers (Fig. 2, items 72, 62) comprising absorbent material strips (Fig. 2, items 90) extending in the longitudinal (longer) direction of an absorbent core (Fig. 2, item 14; [0035, 0062-0063]). Thomann also teaches that the strips can alternately be deposited in the lateral (shorter) direction on the absorbent core [0066-0067], but the longer direction for strips is preferable [0066].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the absorbent material deposition direction from the shorter to the longer longitudinal direction of the absorbent body, as taught by Thomann, in place of the lateral direction strips on the absorbent body taught by Sasayama, if this design type were desired. While Thomann teaches either the longer (longitudinal) or shorter lateral, matching the Sasayama process) is allowable, the longitudinal strip length is preferred [0066]. No unexpected results would be expected from a change in the strip direction for the modified process of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, with potentially an improvement in absorption for the article.
While Thomann is silent on the manufacturing apparatus and possible travel direction of the sheets/absorbent body, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the longitudinal strips of first and second absorbent materials in the modified process of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, would preferably be applied in the direction of travel of the sheet in a plurality of rows to form the absorbent strips, as the particle supply device of Sasayama (Fig. 3, item 136) remains stationary when depositing the strips.
15. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein at the first step, the first absorbent material is disposed in the first regions aligned in a direction in which the first sheet continues, in a plurality of rows with a spacing therebetween, and at the second step, the second absorbent material is disposed in the second regions aligned in a direction in which the second sheet continues, with a spacing therebetween.
With respect to claim 15, Sasayama teaches the absorbent material regions of the first and second sheets are a deposited plurality of horizontal strips. These strips are lengthwise on the sheets.
The regions of Sasayama are not along the direction of sheet travel during manufacture.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Thomann teaches upper and lower laminate layers (Fig. 2, items 72, 62) comprising absorbent material strips (Fig. 2, items 90) extending in the longitudinal (longer) direction of an absorbent core (Fig. 2, item 14; [0035, 0062-0063]). Thomann also teaches that the strips can alternately be deposited in the lateral (shorter) direction on the absorbent core [0066-0067], but the longer direction for strips is preferable [0066].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the absorbent material deposition direction from the shorter to the longer longitudinal direction of the absorbent body, as taught by Thomann, in place of the lateral direction strips on the absorbent body taught by Sasayama, if this design type were desired. While Thomann teaches either the longer (longitudinal) or shorter lateral, matching the Sasayama process) is allowable, the longitudinal strip length is preferred [0066]. No unexpected results would be expected from a change in the strip direction for the modified process of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, with potentially an improvement in absorption for the article.
While Thomann is silent on the manufacturing apparatus and possible travel direction of the sheets/absorbent body, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the longitudinal strips of first and second absorbent materials in the modified process of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, would preferably be applied in the direction of travel of the sheet in a plurality of rows to form the absorbent strips, as the particle supply device of Sasayama (Fig. 3, item 136) remains stationary when depositing the strips.
Claims {16, 18, 21, 23 & 26} are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama (WO2013108863A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claims {8, 11, 8, 11, & 16}, respectively, and further in view of Makoui (US5128082A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
16. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 8, wherein at the first step, a first coating sheet is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
With respect to claim 16, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a first sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama is silent on a first coating sheet that is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the first absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting first absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
18. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein at the first step, a first coating sheet is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
With respect to claim 18, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a first sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama is silent on a first coating sheet that is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the first absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting first absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
21. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 8, wherein at the second step, a second coating sheet is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
With respect to claim 21, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a second sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama is silent on a second coating sheet that is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the second absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting second absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
23. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 11, wherein at the second step, a second coating sheet is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
With respect to claim 23, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a second sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama is silent on a second coating sheet that is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the second absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting second absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
26. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein at the second step, a second coating sheet is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
With respect to claim 26, as set forth in the rejection of claim 16, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a second sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama is silent on a second coating sheet that is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the second absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting second absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 19 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama (WO2013108863A1), in view of Thomann (US20140296810A1), as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, and further in view of Makoui (US5128082A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
19. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein at the first step, a first coating sheet is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
With respect to claim 19, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a first sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama, in view of Thomann, is silent on a first coating sheet that is joined with the first sheet to form the first absorbent sheet having the first absorbent material disposed between the first sheet and the first coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the first absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Thomann and Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting first absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
25. The absorbent body manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein at the second step, a second coating sheet is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
With respect to claim 25, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, Sasayama teaches an absorbent body comprising a second sheet, which comprises a disposed absorbent material.
Sasayama, in view of Thomann, is silent on a second coating sheet that is joined with the second sheet to form the second absorbent sheet having the second absorbent material disposed between the second sheet and the second coating sheet.
However, the prior art of Makoui teaches a method of making an absorbent structure, wherein a fibrous web sheet is incorporated with a superabsorbent material, with a latex overcoating applied that imparts integrity to the resulting structure without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid [Col. 2, line 57 – Col. 3, line 10].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the latex coating over a superabsorbent material technique taught by Makoui, to improve the second absorbent material sheet in the method of Sasayama, in view of Thomann, in the same way. The latex overcoating used in the modified method of Sasayama, in view of Thomann and Makoui, would be expected to impart integrity to the resulting second absorbent sheet without substantially impairing the effectiveness of said superabsorbent material to absorb liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 14, 17, 20 & 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, no prior art was found to modify Sasamaya to teach a fifth step of forming first pieces including the first regions, by cutting the first absorbent sheet after the first step and before the third step; and a sixth step of forming second pieces including the second region, by cutting the second absorbent sheet after the second step and before the third step, wherein at the third step, the continuous body is formed in which the first pieces and the second pieces are aligned such that the first regions and the second regions are adjacent to each other in plan view.
No combination of discovered prior art with Sasayama provided a prima facie obvious rationale for rejection of claim 10.
Claims 14, 17, 20 & 22 are objected to as they are dependent to claim 10.
Claims 12 & 24 are dependent to claim 10, but require resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights