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 4 and 14 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 4 recites the limitations "the fluid control layer" and “first absorbent layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1, which claim 4 depends on, does not recite a fluid control layer or first absorbent layer. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 was interpreted as being dependent on claim 2, which does recite a fluid control layer and first absorbent layer.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the first and second side cuts” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1, which claim 14 depends on, does not recite first and second side cuts. For the purpose of examination, claim 14 was interpreted as being dependent on claim 13, which does recite first and second side cuts.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brisebois et al. (US 6,312,416 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Brisebois discloses an absorbent article for a female user in the form of a sanitary napkin, incontinence pad or liner (Figs. 1-4, feat. 20; Col. 2, lines 58-67) having a first (30) and second (32) longitudinal side edge and a front (26) and a rear (28) end edge, and comprising a fluid permeable topsheet (42; Col. 3, lines 14-23), a backsheet (50), and an absorbent core being located between the topsheet and the backsheet (44), the absorbent article extending in a longitudinal direction (34; Col. 3, lines 1-13), a transverse direction (36), and a thickness direction (Col. 2, lines 58-67), and has a longitudinal centerline (34), the absorbent core being divided in a front half and a rear half and comprising a first absorbent structure (46) and a second absorbent structure (48), the first absorbent structure (Fig. 4, feat. 46) located between the topsheet (42) and the second absorbent structure (48), and the second absorbent structure (48) is located between the first absorbent structure (46) and the backsheet (50), wherein the second absorbent structure (48) comprises a central embossed shaping element, the central embossed shaping element comprising an I-shaped portion extending along at least part of the longitudinal centerline of the absorbent core (Figs. 11-12, feat. 100; Col. 9, line 49 – Col. 10, line 18; Col. 11, lines 25-50; Col. 12, line 50 – Col. 13, line 10: central preferential bending line 100 is preferably embossed and may be formed in the second absorbent layer 48), the absorbent article comprising also an outer embossed shaping element provided in the topsheet and/or the first absorbent structure, the outer embossed shaping element comprising a first outer embossed shaping portion and a second outer embossed shaping portion, each extending in the longitudinal direction and on a respective side of the central embossed shaping element (Figs. 11-12, feats. 102, 104; Col. 9, line 49 – Col. 10, line 18; Col. 11, lines 25-50; Col. 12, line 50 – Col. 13, line 10: lateral preferential bending lines 102, 104 are preferably embossed and may be formed in the first absorbent layer 46; Col. 13, lines 6-10: embossments may be applied to all layers of the article, including the cover layer/topsheet).
Regarding claim 5, Brisebois further discloses that the embossed lines comprising the preferential bending zones may extend over the length of the absorbent article (Brisebois: Figs. 1-2; Col. 10, line 12 – Col. 11, line 35), and therefore Brisebois further discloses that the central embossed shaping element extends along at least part of the rear half of the absorbent core and along at least part of the front half of the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 8, Brisebois further discloses that the embossed lines comprising the preferential bending zones may extend over the length of the absorbent article (Brisebois: Figs. 1-2; Col. 10, line 12 – Col. 11, line 35), and therefore Brisebois further discloses that the outer embossed shaping element extends up to or past a rear end point of the central embossed shaping element or extends up to or past a front end point of the central embossed shaping element.
Regarding claim 10, Brisebois further discloses that the absorbent core has substantially the same width along the length of the absorbent article (Figs. 1-4, feats. 46, 48). Therefore, Brisebois further discloses that the traversal width of the absorbent core along the rear half varies less than 12%.
Regarding claim 12, Brisebois further discloses that the second absorbent structure (Figs. 1-4, feat. 48) may comprise superabsorbent polymer in an amount from 5 wt% to 60 wt% (Col. 5, lines 9-17). This overlaps the claimed range of above 30 wt% and therefore anticipates it. Please see MPEP §2131.03. Therefore, Brisebois further discloses that the second absorbent structure comprises superabsorbent polymers in an amount of from 30 wt. %.
Regarding claim 15, Brisbois discloses the article of claim 1, and further discloses that the central embossed shaping element or the outer embossed shaping element comprises continuous or discontinuous embossment portions (Col. 10, line 12 – Col. 11, line 35; Col 12, line 50 – Col. 13, line 10).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois in view of Schmoker et al. (US 2017/0246045 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Brisebois discloses the article of claim 1. Brisebois discloses that the first absorbent structure comprises a first absorbent layer (Fig. 4, feat. 46; Col. 4, lines 13-45). Brisebois does not disclose that the first absorbent structure comprises a fluid control layer.
Schmoker teaches an absorbent article (Figs. 1-3, feat. 10; ¶0029) comprising a topsheet (16), backsheet (18), and absorbent assembly (20; ¶0030 and 0047). The article further includes a fluid intake layer (52; ¶0039-0042) between the topsheet (16) and absorbent assembly (20) to enhance the transfer of fluid to the absorbent assembly (¶0042). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article disclosed by Brisebois so that the first absorbent structure comprises a fluid control layer in order to enhance the transfer of fluid to the first absorbent layer as taught by Schmoker.
Regarding claim 3, Brisebois in view of Schmoker suggests the article of claim 2. As discussed above, Brisebois teaches that the embossments are preferably applied to all layers of the article to hold the article together (Col. 13, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify article suggested by Brisebois in view of Schmoker so that the outer embossed shaping element is provided in the topsheet, the fluid control layer, and the first absorbent layer in order to hold the article together as taught by Brisebois.
Regarding claim 4, Brisebois in view of Schmoker suggests the article of claim 2. Brisebois further teaches that the embossed lines comprising the preferential bending zones may extend over the length of the absorbent article (Brisebois: Figs. 1-2; Col. 10, line 12 – Col. 11, line 35), and therefore that the lateral bending lines (Brisebois: 102, 104) corresponding to the claimed outer embossed shaping elements may extend rearward of the fluid control layer of Brisebois in view of Schmoker. Schmoker further teaches that embossed lateral stiffeners (Schmoker: Figs. 1-2, feat. 110, 112, 114; ¶0057-0060) which may terminate or have a rupture in alignment with the maximum rearward extent of the fluid intake layer (Schmoker: Figs. 7-8, feats. 52, 86, 112, and 114; ¶0045 and 0059-0060). Schmoker further teaches that the fluid intake layer (Schmoker: Figs. 1-2, feat. 52) is smaller than the absorbent assembly (Schmoker: 20). Therefore, Brisebois in view of Schmoker further suggests that the fluid control layer has a shorter length than the first absorbent layer, and the first and second embossed parts of the outer embossed shaping element each extend rearwardly of a rear edge of the fluid controller layer and comprises a respective line rupture of the first and second embossed parts coinciding with the rear edge of the fluid control layer.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois in view of Tokunaga (US 2020/0197232 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Brisebois discloses the article of claim 1, but does not disclose that the first and the second outer embossed shaping portions of the outer embossed shaping element converges in the direction from the front end edge of the absorbent article towards the rear end edge of the absorbent article.
Tokunaga teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 6, feat. 601; ¶0064-0067) comprising compressed or embossed grooves (610; ¶0030-0031 and 0064-0067), corresponding to the claimed outer embossed shaping elements, which converge from the front of the article towards the rear in order to prevent rearward leakage (¶0067). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article disclosed by Brisebois so that the first and the second outer embossed shaping portions of the outer embossed shaping element converges in the direction from the front end edge of the absorbent article towards the rear end edge of the absorbent article in order to prevent rearward leakage as taught by Tokunaga.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Brisebois discloses the article of claim 1, but does not disclose that the traversal distance between the first and second outer embossed shaping portions closes to the from end edge is 30-60 mm and the traversal distance between the first and second embossed shaping portions closest to the rear end edge is 0.5-20 mm, with respect to claim 7, or that the traversal distance between the first and the second outer embossed shaping portions in the rear half varies less than 12%, with respect to claim 9.
As discussed above, Tokunaga teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 6, feat. 601; ¶0064-0067) comprising compressed or embossed grooves (610; ¶0030-0031 and 0064-0067), corresponding to the claimed outer embossed shaping elements, which converge from the front of the article towards the rear in order to prevent rearward leakage (¶0067). Tokunaga is silent with respect to what the traversal distance of the embossed grooves is at the front and rear of the article is. However, the Federal circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Please see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) with respect to Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article disclosed by Brisbois so that the traversal distance between the first and second outer embossed shaping portions closes to the from end edge is 30-60 mm and the traversal distance between the first and second embossed shaping portions closest to the rear end edge is 0.5-20 mm, with respect to claim 7, or so that the traversal distance between the first and the second outer embossed shaping portions in the rear half varies less than 12%, with respect to claim 9, in order to prevent rearward leakage as taught by Tokunaga.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois in view of Blanchard et al. (US 2001/0007065 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Brisebois discloses the article of claim 1, but does not disclose that the outer embossed shaping element comprises a third outer embossed shaping portion and a fourth outer embossed shaping portion provided in the topsheet and the first absorbent structure, the third outer embossed shaping portion provided outwards with respect to the first outer embossed shaping portion of the outer shaping element and the fourth outer embossed shaping portion being provided outwards with respect to the second outer embossed shaping portion of the outer embossed shaping element, the third and fourth outer embossed shaping portions being arranged on a respective side of the I-shaped portion of the central embossed shaping element.
Blanchard teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1, feat 30; ¶0021) comprising a first, inner pair of embossed shaping hinges (Fig. 1, feat. 50; ¶0024-0025 and 0030), corresponding to the claimed first and second outer embossed shaping portions of the outer embossed shaping element, and an outer pair of embossed shaping hinges (Fig. 1, feat. 52; ¶0024-0025 and 0030), corresponding to the claimed third and fourth outer embossed shaping portions of the outer embossed shaping element. Blanchard teaches that providing multiple pairs of embossed shaping hinges advantageously provides an optimum fit to a wide variety of wearer’s anatomies (¶0028). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article disclosed by Brisebois so that the outer embossed shaping element comprises a third outer embossed shaping portion and a fourth outer embossed shaping portion provided in the topsheet and the first absorbent structure, the third outer embossed shaping portion provided outwards with respect to the first outer embossed shaping portion of the outer shaping element and the fourth outer embossed shaping portion being provided outwards with respect to the second outer embossed shaping portion of the outer embossed shaping element, the third and fourth outer embossed shaping portions being arranged on a respective side of the I-shaped portion of the central embossed shaping element in order to provide an optimum fit to a wide variety of wearer’s anatomies as taught by Blanchard.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisebois in view of Drevik (US 2002/0077617 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brisebois discloses the article of claim 1, but does not disclose that the second absorbent structure comprises a first side cut along a first longitudinal side edge and a second side cut along the second longitudinal side edge and wherein the first and second side cuts are arranged in the front half of the absorbent core.
Drevik teaches an absorbent article (Figs. 1-4, feat. 1; ¶0022-0035) comprising an absorbent body (4; ¶0022 and 0034-0035) with a lower absorbent structure (17) and an upper absorbent structure (18). Drevik teaches that the absorbent article and body comprises a front portion (Fig. 1, feat. 6) which is wider than a central portion (8) and rear portion (7) such that the article and absorbent body are narrowest at a first cross-sectional line in the front half of the article (24; ¶0026-0027). Drevik teaches that this results in the article having a high degree of adaptation to the anatomy of the wearer (¶0026). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article disclosed by Brisebois so that the second absorbent structure comprises a first side cut along a first longitudinal side edge and a second side cut along the second longitudinal side edge and wherein the first and second side cuts are arranged in the front half of the absorbent core in order to provide the article with a high degree of adaptation to the anatomy of the wearer as taught by Drevik.
Regarding claim 14, Brisebois in view of Drevik suggests the article of claim 13. Brisebois in view of Drevik are silent with respect to the ratio of the width of the narrowest section of the second absorbent layer at the first and second side cuts to the width of the absorbent article at the same location being from 0.5:1 to 0.8:1. However, the Federal circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Please see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A) with respect to Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
