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 § 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 2-5, 7-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Haas et al. (WO 2020074400 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Haas”.
Regarding Claim 2, Haas teaches A disposable absorbent article (see Abstract; Figure 1) comprising: a liquid permeable topsheet (1); a substantially liquid impermeable backsheet (2); and an absorbent core (liquid-absorbent suction arrangement 5) comprising absorbent material (comprising suction body 3) therein and being sandwiched between said topsheet and backsheet (see Figure 1); the topsheet, backsheet and absorbent core together forming a chassis of said article (forming the chassis of diaper, see Figure 1), wherein said chassis comprises a perimeter formed by first and second transverse edges (top and bottom transverse edges, see Figure 1) and first and second longitudinal edges (longitudinal edges, see Figure 1) connecting the first and second transverse edges (see Figure 1); a longitudinal centerline extending substantially parallel to said first and second longitudinal edges and interposed therebetween such to divide said chassis into a first longitudinal half between said longitudinal centerline (y) and said first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal half between said longitudinal centerline (y) and said second longitudinal edge (longitudinal centerline can be in the center of the diaper which creates a first and second longitudinal half); and a transverse centerline (x) extending substantially parallel to said first and second transverse edges and interposed therebetween such to divide said chassis into a first transverse half between said transverse centerline (x) and said first transverse edge and a second transverse half between said transverse centerline (x) and said second transverse edge (transverse centerline can be in the center of the diaper which creates a first and second transverse half); wherein said article further comprises an outer cover (fleece layer 14) positioned on a garment-facing side of said backsheet ( the backsheet 2 has a fleece layer 14 on its side facing away from the topsheet 1 (outside of the diaper), see pg. 5 paragraph 3) and covering at least 75% of an area defined by said perimeter of said chassis (the outer cover covering the entire chassis, see Figure 1); and a fastening system (fastening tab 6) comprising one or more male fasteners (male fastening elements 4) and a female fastening material (a fastening tab 6 is brought together for the intended fastening of the diaper on the body of the user with the backsheet 2, in particular the part of the backsheet 2 and fleece layer 14 which is directed forward in FIG. 1 and which then functions as a comfort band, see pg. 5 paragraph 3); and wherein the female fastening material comprises a landing zone arranged to receive said one or more male fasteners thereon to provide a fastening of said one or more male fasteners (FM,FM') to said female fastening material (portion of the backsheet 2 intended for fastening with tab 6, see pg. 5 paragraph 3), wherein said female fastening material comprises, said outer cover (see Figure 1), and wherein the one or more male fasteners (FM,FM') comprise a combination of adhesive and mechanical fastening elements (an adhesive layer 9, preferably continuous, here and thereon on the carrier material 8 a hook band 10 with a plurality of individual hooks 11 is arranged, see Figure 2b); characterized in that the outer cover (14) is a nonwoven (nonwoven, see pg. 5 paragraph 4), comprising high-fiber-density areas (HFD) (embossing elements 19/20, wherein “The fiber material of the nonwoven layer is compressed in the area of the embossing elements, whereas it takes up a larger volume at the other locations, see pg. 2 paragraph 4) and low-fiber-density areas (LFD) (the pattern elements 16), wherein the low- fiber-density areas (LFD) are at least substantially enclosed by high-fiber-density areas (HFD) (see Figure 2a), and wherein the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) are disposed in a repeated pattern (RP) (see Figure 2a), wherein the one or more male fasteners (FM,FM') comprise one or more first areas of adhesive Al (adhesive areas 13) and one or more second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 (hook areas 12); and in that: the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) are substantially continuously connected with each other (embossed elements 19/20 are continuously connected, see Figure 2a), the sum of the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) is from about 13% to about 25% of a total surface area of the outer cover (11).- the total area ratio ∑Al / ∑A2 is greater than or equal to 0.4, or - a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 3, Haas further teaches wherein the first area(s) Al are mutually separated by second area(s) A2 (see Figure 2b).
Regarding Claim 4, Haas further teaches at least two oppositely disposed fasteners (FM,FM') comprising a first fastener (FM) and a second fastener (FM') (two fastening tabs 6 located on left and right sides, see Figure 1), and wherein each of the first fastener (FM) and [[a]] the second fastener (FM') having at least a portion of an outer surface (OS) thereof comprising a further female fastening material (FF) (correspondingly connecting to the outer surface 14 on the left and right, see Figure 1), and wherein the one or more first areas of adhesive Al and the one or more second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 of the first fastener (FM) are arranged to come into contact with and/or join to the female fastening material (FF) of the second fastener (FM') or vice versa such to close the article to be worn by a subject (see pg. 5 paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Haas further teaches wherein the total area ratio SumA1/ SumA2 is from about 0.45 to about 2.0 (average area fraction of at most 60%, see pg. 6 paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Haas further teaches wherein the repeated pattern (RP) is substantially continuously formed (see Figure 2a); and/or wherein the repeated pattern (RP) comprises, one or more substantially sinusoidal curves; and/or wherein the repeated pattern (RP) is symmetric about at least the x-axis, y-axis and further axis being about 450 from said x-axis and y-axis (embossed elements 19/20 are symmetric about the x-axis, see Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 8, Haas further teaches wherein the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) are substantially continuously connected with each other (see Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 9, Haas further teaches wherein the one or more second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 are alternatingly arranged with the one or more first areas of adhesive Al such that said one or more second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 are separated by one or more first areas of adhesive Al (adhesive areas 13 separated by hook areas 12, see Figure 2b).
Regarding Claim 10, Haas further teaches wherein the one or more second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 are disposed in a pattern (see Figure 2b) such that each said second area A2, when viewed in a planar direction, forms a line- form or sinusoidal shape having a straight and/or curved perimeter (forming straight and curved perimeters, see Figure 2b).
Regarding Claim 11, Haas further teaches wherein the one or more first areas of adhesive Al, when viewed in a planar direction, forms a line-form or sinusoidal shape having a straight and/or curved perimeter (adhesive areas 13 having a straight perimeter, see Figure 2b), and wherein each of said first areas of adhesive Al continuously extends from a first terminal position (T1) to a second terminal position (T2) (extends from a top portion to a bottom portion of fastening tab 6, see Figure 2b).
Regarding Claim 18, Haas further teaches wherein the one or more male fasteners (FM,FM') comprise a first adhesive (adhesive portion 13 at the edges) and a second adhesive (adhesive portion between the hook readions 12), wherein the first and second adhesives are different (different areas of adhesive), wherein the first areas of adhesive Al comprise the first adhesive (see Figure 2b) and the second areas of mechanical fastening elements A2 comprise the second adhesive joining said mechanical fastening elements to said male fasteners (FM,FM') (adhesive portion between the hook elements 12) and arranged such that a portion of the second adhesive remains exposed and capable of coming into direct contact with one or more fibers of the outer cover (adhesive between the hook areas exposed to contact with the fleece layer 14, see Figure 2b).
Regarding Claim 19, Haas further teaches wherein the outer cover (14) is a nonwoven comprising fibers that are micro-embossed (see pg.2 paragraph 4),and wherein the nonwoven is further macro-embossed with a pattern corresponding to the repeated pattern (RP) (see Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 20, Haas further teaches wherein the total area ratio ∑Al / ∑A2 is greater than or equal to 0.4 (average area fraction of at most 60%, see pg. 6 paragraph 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6, 16, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (WO 2020074400 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2. However, Haas does not explicitly disclose wherein the sum of the low-fiber-density areas (LFD) is from about 75% to about 87%, of a total surface area of the outer cover (11); and wherein the sum of the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) is from about 13% to about 20%, of a total surface area of the outer cover (11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Haas to have sum of the low-fiber-density areas (LFD) is from about 75% to about 87%, of a total surface area and the sum of the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) is from about 13% to about 20%, of a total surface area of the outer cover since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Haas would not operate differently with the claimed sum of the high/low-fiber-density areas and since the high/low-fiber-density areas is intended to reside within on outer cover the device would function appropriately having the high/low-fiber-density areas. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the high/low-fiber-density areas “is about “ within the claimed ranges (last two paragraphs of see pg. 15).
Regarding Claim 16, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2 and further teaches wherein the one or more male fasteners (FM,FM') comprise a cutting height h and a plurality of boundary lengths b between mechanical fastening elements (see below) and adhesive at the border of the areas Al and A2 (adhesive areas 13 at the border, see Figure 2b). However, Haas does not explicitly disclose wherein the sum of boundary lengths is greater than 5h.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Haas to have a the sum of boundary lengths is greater than 5h since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Haas would not operate differently with the claimed boundary length and since the boundary length is intended to reside within the fastener the device would function appropriately having the boundary length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the boundary length “is preferably” within the claimed ranges (see first paragraph of pg. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2. However, Haas does not explicitly disclose wherein the sum of the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) is from about 13% to about 25% of a total surface area of the outer cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Haas to have sum of the high-fiber-density areas (HFD) is from about 13% to about 20%, of a total surface area of the outer cover since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Haas would not operate differently with the claimed sum of the high/low-fiber-density areas and since the high/low-fiber-density areas is intended to reside within on outer cover the device would function appropriately having the high-fiber-density areas. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the high-fiber-density areas “is about “ within the claimed ranges (last two paragraphs of see pg. 15).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (WO 2020074400 A1) in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 20170333262 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Chatterjee”.
Regarding Claim 12, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2. However, Haas does not explicitly disclose wherein the backsheet and the outer cover are joined together by one or more adhesives, wherein the landing zone of the outer cover is joined to the backsheet by a first joining pattern (P1) and the area of the outer cover outboard of the landing zone is joined to the backsheet by a second joining pattern, wherein the first joining pattern comprises a greater amount of adhesive(s) per unit area than the second joining pattern (P2).
Chatterjee teaches an absorbent article (10) having a waist gasketing element (40) comprising a closure bond (50), having a outer cover (top layer 44) of the waist gasketing element (40) is joined to the backsheet (bottom layer 45) by one or more closure bonds (51) by a first joining pattern (P1) (see Figure 5) and the area of the outer cover (44) outboard of the landing zone is joined to the backsheet (45) by a second joining pattern (P2) (where multiple closure bonds 51 are utilized, the bonds 51 may be in the form of multiple stripes, dots, or any other suitable shape or suitable combination of shapes, see Paragraph [0062]), wherein the first joining pattern (P1) comprises a greater amount of adhesive(s) per unit area than the second joining pattern (P2) (the first pattern can be dots and the second pattern can be larger stripes, see Paragraph [0062]).
Haas and Chatterjee are analogous art because both disclose an absorbent article comprising a backsheet and outer cover layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the backsheet and outer cover layer of Haas and further include them joined together by one or more adhesives, wherein the landing zone of the outer cover is joined to the backsheet by a first joining pattern (P1) and the area of the outer cover outboard of the landing zone (12) is joined to the backsheet by a second joining pattern (P2), wherein the first joining pattern (P1) comprises a greater amount of adhesive(s) per unit area than the second joining pattern (P2), as taught by Chatterjee. Chatterjee teaches the patterned adhesive layer is beneficial for the amount of adhesive can be reduced, helping to minimize costs, while maintaining sufficient bond strength (see Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding Claim 13, Haas and Chatterjee teach all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 12 and Chatterjee further teaches wherein the backsheet (45) and the outer cover (44) are joined together by a third bonding pattern (P3) located substantially outboard of the first and second bonding pattern (P1, P2) and along at least a portion of the perimeter of the chassis (mechanical bonds may be applied along one or more edges 46, 47, 48 of the waist gasketing element and/or one or more edges of the closure bond region, see Paragraph [0064];may be in the form of multiple stripes, dots, or any other suitable shape or suitable combination of shapes, see Paragraph [0062]), wherein the third joining pattern (P3) comprises an amount of adhesive(s) per unit area that is greater than or equal to that of the first joining pattern (P1) (the bonds 51 may be in the form of multiple stripes, dots, or any other suitable shape or suitable combination of shapes, see Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 14, Haas and Chatterjee teach all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 12 and Chatterjee further teaches wherein the first bonding pattern (P1) comprises one or more first stripes or swirls of adhesive (the bonds 51 may be in the form of multiple stripes, dots, or any other suitable shape or suitable combination of shapes, see Paragraph [0062]), and wherein the second bonding pattern (P2) comprises a plurality of second stripes or swirls of adhesive ((the bonds 51 may be in the form of multiple stripes, dots, or any other suitable shape or suitable combination of shapes, see Paragraph [0062]), wherein the first stripe(s) have an aspect ratio that is greater than that of the second stripes, the aspect ratio being defined as a ratio of a longest dimension and a smallest dimension of said stripes; and/or wherein the first and/or second bonding pattern (P1, P2) comprises a plurality of bonding points having a circular or elliptical shape (see Paragraph [0062]-[0063]).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (WO 2020074400 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (WO 2006130053 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Anderson”.
Regarding Claim 15, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2 and Haas further teaches wherein the landing zone (connections points on outer cover 14) comprises a main landing zone positioned at a front portion of the chassis (see pg. 6 paragraph 4) that is closer to the first transverse edge and further from the second transverse edge (the fastening tab has a landing zone that connects to adjacent to a first transverse edge, see Figure 1). However, Haas does not explicitly disclose a disposal-landing-zone (ZD) positioned at a back portion of the chassis (6) that is closer to the second transverse edge (8) and further from the first transverse edge (7)said disposal-landing-zone (ZD) adapted for receiving the one or more male fasteners (FM) thereon once the absorbent article is rolled-up and/or folded for disposal thereof.
Anderson teaches an absorbent article (see Abstract; Figure 1) comprising a disposal-landing-zone (ZD) (see Figure 8b-c) positioned at a back portion of the chassis that is closer to the second transverse edge and further from the first transverse edge (see Figure 8c) said disposal-landing-zone (ZD) adapted for receiving the one or more male fasteners (FM) thereon once the absorbent article is rolled-up and/or folded for disposal thereof (adapted for fastening means 18 and element 20 to be received once rolled up, see Figure 8c).
Haas and Anderson are analogous art because both disclose an absorbent article with a fastener.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the back portion of the chassis of Haas and further include a disposal-landing-zone closer to the second transverse edge and further from the first transverse edge said disposal-landing-zone (ZD) adapted for receiving the one or more male fasteners (FM) thereon once the absorbent article is rolled-up and/or folded for disposal thereof, as taught by Anderson. Anderson teaches it is beneficial for after use, absorbent articles are usually folded or rolled up so that the soiled portion is wrapped inside for disposal. In order to prevent the soiled article unfolding and to keep the soiled portion inside, it is desired that a so-called disposal fastening means, is arranged to keep the article in the folded or rolled-up state under disposal (see pg. 1 lines 13-16).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (WO 2020074400 A1) in view of Kupelian et al. (WO 2016080960 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kupelian”.
Regarding Claim 17, Haas teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in Claim 2. However, Haas does not explicitly disclose wherein the backsheet comprises a breathable thermoplastic film comprising polyethylene or polypropylene and said film having a basis weight less than or equal to 15 gsm and a water vapor transmission rate of at least 500 grams H20/24-hour/m2; and/or wherein the outer cover is a nonwoven having a basis weight of from about 5 g/m2 to about 20 g/m2, and wherein said nonwoven comprises fibers having an average diameter of from about 0.6 dtex to about 2.5 dtex; and/or wherein the backsheet and the outer cover are joined together by a plurality of adhesive bonding patterns wherein said patterns are different in at least one of shape and/or basis weight.
Kupelian teaches a backsheet layer (217) of an absorbent article (201) comprising a nonwoven web wherein the backsheet (2) comprises a breathable thermoplastic film comprising polyethylene or polypropylene (see pg.4 lines 4-5) and said film having a basis weight less than or equal to 15 gsm (basis weight can be less than 15 gsm, see pg. 12 line 2-5) and a water vapor transmission rate of at least 500 grams H20/24-hour/m2 (see pg. 18 lines 21-25).
Haas and Kupelian are analogous art because both teach a backsheet layer for an absorbent article.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the backsheet of Haas and further include wherein the backsheet comprises a breathable thermoplastic film comprising polyethylene or polypropylene and said film having a basis weight less than or equal to 15 gsm and a water vapor transmission rate of at least 500 grams H20/24-hour/m2, as taught by Kupelian. Kupelian teaches it is highly desirable to have nonwoven components that are both soft and strong. Backsheet, for instance, are often formed from a polypropylene nonwoven web laminated to a breathable film made from linear low-density polyethylene (see pg. 1 lines 4-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT.
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 (571) 272-7159. 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.
/ERIC RASSAVONG/ (9/16/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
