DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 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 11-20 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.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 16, the ligaments being “configured to/into” being “longitudinally/laterally extending” or “to extend…in the longitudinal/lateral direction” is confusing because the term “configured to” often denotes functional limitations, not structural limitations and therefore it is unclear if the limitations are structural or functional/intended use. It is likely simply deleting “configured to” and “configured into” would mostly, if not entirely, fix the issue without creating any additional ones.
Further regarding claims 13-14, it is unclear how a ligament can extend in both the lateral and longitudinal directions. It is up to Applicant to provide language that makes it clear that the plurality of ligaments does not comprise both ligaments extending in the lateral direction and also ligaments extending in the longitudinal direction, which would also make it violate the Section 112, 4th amendment. Perhaps the ligaments are extending traverse to (both) the lateral direction (and the longitudinal direction), at an angle to (both) the lateral direction (and the longitudinal direction), or extending in a direction that is partially longitudinal and partially lateral are some possible suggestions. The Examiner would prefer Applicant only reference the lateral direction for the laterally extending ligaments unless the longitudinal direction can be included in a manner that is not indefinite.
Claims 17-21 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-2, 4, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Noda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0298213 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 9-10, Noda teaches an absorbent article comprising an absorber disposed between an outer cover (not labeled) and a surface sheet comprising a fluid entangled nonwoven fabric [0194, Fig. 14] which may comprise more than one layer (precursor/support laminate) [0209], wherein the nonwoven fabric comprises a plurality of concave portions (nodes), which can be hollow (Fig. 10), formed in a first/longitudinal direction and width orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of 0.5 to 30 mm, preferably 1 to 10 mm [0057], and a height of 0.3 to 15 mm, preferably 0.5 to 5 mm, such a width of 8.5 mm and a thickness of 3.8 mm [0057, 0189] such that they extend away from the grooves/planar/land areas and may extend in a backwards facing direction [0194], wherein the center part has a greater amount of fibers oriented in the thickness/vertical direction leading to a high compression recovery and resistance to being crushed [0114, 0204] and the joining portions (ligaments) comprise a majority of fibers oriented in the second direction orthogonal to the first [0012], wherein the joining portions each extend only between a node and another adjacent node.
Further regarding claims 4 and 9-10, although an explicit anisotropy/compression energy is not taught for the nodes or ligaments. Although the prior art does not disclose the recited properties, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Noda teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 4-5 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Noda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0298213 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”).
Regarding claim 5, Noda further teaches the openings/apertures defined between joining portions and convex portions/nodes comprising about 15-40% of the surface area [0105].
Regarding claims 4 and 9-10, in the event the values are not anticipated as claimed, Noda teaches the convex portions as comprising a greater amount of fibers oriented in the thickness/vertical direction (anisotropy value greater than 1/1.07) leading to a high compression recovery and resistance to being crushed (high compression energy) [0114, 0204], wherein it would have been obvious to quantify and qualify these desired properties.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hellstrom et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0259208 A1) (hereinafter “Hellstrom”) AND/OR Kaneda et al. (JP 04-024261 A) (hereinafter “Kaneda”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Noda does not teach that the openings are contained in an apertured zone between laterally adjacent first and second side zones.
Hellstrom teaches that apertures may be uniform across the entire topsheet or may be located only in central (insult/target) area with non-apertured first and second side zones or may comprise smaller apertures located in the first and second side zones [0024, 0052].
AND/OR
Kaneda teaches a topsheet for an absorbent article comprising a three-dimensionally shaped and apertured central zone (All Figs. [11]) with relatively flat first and second side zones (All Figs. [12]) which improves touch in that part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form a central apertured zone having first and second adjacent side zones that comprise smaller holes or no holes and may be formed flat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form known configurations of apertures for the same purpose [Hellstrom], wherein flat side portions having a more uniform density increase good touching/feeling properties [Kaneda].
Claims 6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0298213 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”) in view of Uchiyama et al. (JP 2010-024573 A) (hereinafter “Uchiyama”).
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 11-12, Noda does not teach longitudinal ligaments such that the nodes have an area or number density as claimed.
Uchiyama teaches a fluid-entangled ridge structure improved over continuous convex and groove portions, wherein the convex portions (Fig. 6 [23]) are formed with smaller in height joining portions (Fig. 6 [22]) connecting them along a longitudinal direction [0002-0003, 0066-0067], wherein the convex portions have a width of preferably 1 to 10 mm, more preferably 2 to 5 mm and a length of 5 to 30 mm, more preferably 10 to 25 mm [0016-0017], for a calculated preferred area range of 5 to 300 mm2 and a preferred range of 20 to 125 mm2, and assuming a square array in an area of the projection web comprising the quadrant corners of four projections and the land area therein, an estimated number per area of <1 to 12 per cm2, preferably <1 to 3 per cm2.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to provide an improvement over continuous ridges by implementing longitudinal ligaments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an increase in flexibility while maintaining compression/cushioning properties [0020-0021] and also preventing wrinkles [0066-0067]
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, & 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites (U.S. Patent No. 2,862,251) (hereinafter “Kalwaites”) in view of Boulanger (CN 2133299 C) (hereinafter “Boulanger”), or vice-versa;
wherein claim 6 is alternatively further in view of Neton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0259524 A1) (hereinafter “Neton”), and
wherein claims 9-10 are alternatively further in view of Krautkramer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0154459 A1) (hereinafter “Krautkramer”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-15, Kalwaites teaches a fluid entangled three-dimensional nonwoven usable as a covering in an absorbent article such as a diaper or sanitary napkin (col 37, lines 54-59), wherein an exemplary structure comprises relatively major fiber concentration Z-direction fiber packed protuberant hollow buds/tufts (hollow nodes) (Figs. 49 & 54 [615]) extending from a base plane comprising connecting relatively minor fiber concentration interconnecting portions/bundles/ribbons (ligaments) (Figs. 49 & 54 [617/618]) (col. 31, lines 8-38 & col. 32, line 72 – col. 33, line 23) such that the hollow buds constitute pivot points that distribute and strengthen the consolidated ribbons similar to a woven textile fabric (col. 31, lines 65-75), wherein the relatively lower fiber density ribbons are preferably consolidated into a relatively higher low density to increase strength, preferably further consolidated along at least one direction, such as the vertical/longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 40-51 & col. 31, lines 8-38), wherein hollow buds are arranged in a regular pattern, such as a diamond or hexagonal pattern, such that at least four to six bundles/ribbons, such as two longitudinal/vertical bundles and four lateral bundles that extend at opposing sides of the bud at angles to the lateral/traverse direction in a mirrored fashion thereabout a direction parallel thereto, extend therebetween defining a plurality of openings/apertures disposed between adjacent hollow buds (cols. 31-32), wherein the buds/tufts may comprise binder/adhesive material added/applied thereto (cols. 33-34).
However, Kalwaites does not explicitly teach the orientation of the protruding buds facing toward the absorbent body or an outer cover such that the absorbent body is disposed between the covering and the outer cover.
Boulanger teaches a skin-contacting, fluid-handling three-dimensional fluid entangled nonwoven cover layer for an absorbent product such as a diaper or sanitary napkin, wherein the nonwoven comprises a reticulated network of a plurality of hollow protuberant fiber packings (nodes) facing toward the absorbent core that act as spacers to reduce the possibility of wetback (rewet) connected in the base plane comprising a high density and low density areas within the plane comprising a plurality of interconnecting strips/ribbons (ligaments) forming at least some apertures therebetween, the relatively higher density areas being primarily oriented along the longitudinal axis of the article and relatively lower density areas being primarily oriented along the lateral axis of the article at an angle thereto, mirrored across a direction parallel to the lateral axis, such that the fibers of those strips may remain relatively more mobile allowing shifting/flexing to increase liquid penetration (pg. 15, line 4 – pg. 16, line 6; pg. 26, lines 14-25), wherein the base plane is softer at a skin contacting surface, the nonwoven being formed in a well-known rosebud hydroentanglement process (pg. 6, line 19 – pg. 8, line 18 & pg. 9, line 9 – pg. 10 line 10), and the buds may be strengthened/bonded by added/applied binder/adhesive (pg. 8), wherein the cover and a barrier layer (outer cover) are bonded at marginal portions to enclose the absorbent core/body (pg. 29, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the bud/bundle structure of Kalwaites with its protuberant buds facing toward the absorbent core such that the absorbent core is disposed between the cover and an outer cover/barrier layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a space between the base plane of the cover and the absorbent core system such that increases fluid handling/drainage and reduces rewet/wetback (pg. 16, lines 20-27 & pg. 25, line 17 – pg. 26, line 25) while providing the smoother, softer side for skin contact (pg. 8, lines 2-7), wherein a barrier layer would inherently provide barrier properties to fluid transfer out of the absorbent article (pg. 29, lines 1-5).
Alternatively, Boulanger does not explicitly teach the interconnecting strips as each interconnecting a node and adjacent node within the plurality of nodes forming a defined pattern of openings/apertures therebetween.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a pattern of defined apertures and more consolidated strips connecting individual adjacent nodes within the plurality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the rosebud process to create a more reticulated network wherein the hollow buds constitute pivot points that distribute and strengthen the consolidated ribbons similar to a woven textile fabric (Kalwaites; col. 31, lines 65-75), wherein the relatively lower fiber density ribbons are preferably consolidated into a relatively higher low density to increase strength, preferably further increased along at least one direction, such as the vertical/longitudinal direction (Kalwaites; col. 4, lines 40-51 & col. 31, lines 8-38).
Further regarding claim 4, the fiber packings act as spacers that prevent wetback/rewet, especially for viscous fluids, and reduce incidence of contact between the cover and the absorbent core, under repeated deformations under external forces/compression (pg. 16, lines 20-27 & pg. 25, line 17 – pg. 26, line 25), wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a test such that a desired value of compression energy (compression resistance) is obtained. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize a compression energy value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further regarding claim 6, an example comprises a number of protuberances per square inch as 43 (~6.67/cm2) (pg. 25, lines 1-5), wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, Neton further teaches a projection web comprising hollow compressible [0006] deformations/projections, wherein the projections may be oriented downward toward the absorbent core [Fig. 26] for more effective absorption of exudates into the absorbent core [0155], like Boulanger, wherein the number of hollow projections per centimeter is about 5 to 100 deformations per 10 cm2 (0.5 to 10 per cm2), alternatively 10 to 50 per 10 cm2 (1 to 5 per cm2), or further alternatively 20 to 40 deformations per 10 cm2 (2 to 4 per cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the hollow projections used as spacing protrusions in an absorbent article body-side cover layer with a number per unit area value within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for an exemplary range that includes and then further optimizes/expands upon an exemplary embodiment.
Further regarding claims 9-10, in the event that the fibers are not inherently packed into the hollow protuberant buds in such a way as to provide an anisotropy greater than 1 or 1.07:
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article such as a feminine napkin or diaper [0144] comprising an absorbent core and a backsheet (outer cover) and a body side liner or skin-contacting material comprising a fluid entangled nonwoven [0017, 0145], wherein the fluid entangled web comprises a projection web comprising a plurality of hollow projections (nodes) having no holes or apertures extend from the land area/planar base surface [0097-0098, 0102], wherein a substantial majority to all of the fibers of the node are by design of the hydroentangling process and also preferably oriented in a Z-direction (thickness direction) [0081, 0112, 0125], wherein the desired process would inherently provide or would have been optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an anisotropy value measured by the claimed Node Analysis Test Method greater than 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites in view of Boulanger, or vice-versa, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hellstrom et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0259208 A1) (hereinafter “Hellstrom”) AND/OR Kaneda et al. (JP 04-024261 A) (hereinafter “Kaneda”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kalwaites/Boulanger or Boulanger/Kalwaites do not teach that the openings are contained in an apertured zone between laterally adjacent first and second side zones.
Hellstrom teaches that apertures may be uniform across the entire topsheet or may be located only in central (insult/target) area with non-apertured first and second side zones or may comprise smaller apertures located in the first and second side zones [0024, 0052].
AND/OR
Kaneda teaches a topsheet for an absorbent article comprising a three-dimensionally shaped and apertured central zone (All Figs. [11]) with relatively flat first and second side zones (All Figs. [12]) which improves touch in that part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form a central apertured zone having first and second adjacent side zones that comprise smaller holes or no holes and may be formed flat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form known configurations of apertures for the same purpose [Hellstrom], wherein flat side portions having a more uniform density increase good touching/feeling properties [Kaneda].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites in view of Boulanger, or vice-versa, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hellstrom et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0259208 A1) (hereinafter “Hellstrom”) OR Hao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0177643 A1) (hereinafter “Hao”) OR Krautkramer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0154459 A1) (hereinafter “Krautkramer”) and optionally Greenway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,575,874) (hereinafter “Greenway”).
Regarding claim 5, Boulanger teaches an exemplary apertured drum comprising 30% open area, which would be equivalent to collective hollow node/bud surface area, wherein the openings/apertures would comprise less than 100% of the remaining 70% surface area. However, Kalwaites/Boulanger an explicit open area percentage for the openings in relation to the total area is not taught.
Hellstrom teaches a hydroentangled and apertured nonwoven fabric topsheet for an absorbent article (abstract), wherein the open area of the apertured fabric may be between 10 and 50%, preferably between 20 and 40% [0013].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art of known hydroentangled fabrics for well-established optimizable open area values for good fluid distribution [0003].
OR
Hao teaches a topsheet for an absorbent article to comprise a nonwoven layer comprising a first surface having a plurality of apertures and a plurality of depressions or wells downwardly depending from the first surface [0038] spacing it from an adjacent layer such that it provides an air gap between the first surface to prevent rewet even under compressive loads [0002, 0040, 0074], similar in practice to the low sites of Yamaguchi, wherein the apertures in the top surface form an open area between about 1 to 40%, such as between about 10 to 20% [0049].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art of known spacing nonwovens for well-established optimizable open area values in the planar region for good fluid handling properties [0003].
OR
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article such as a feminine napkin or diaper [0144] comprising an absorbent core and a backsheet (outer cover) and a body side liner or skin-contacting material comprising a fluid entangled nonwoven [0017, 0145], wherein the fluid entangled web comprises a projection web comprising a plurality of hollow projections (nodes) having no holes or apertures extend from the land area/planar base surface [0097-0098, 0102], wherein a substantial majority of the fibers of the node are preferably oriented in a Z-direction (thickness direction) [0081, 0112, 0125], wherein it is more desirable, but not required, that the projections be facing outwardly so as to be in a body contacting position [0146], wherein projections comprise essentially no open area/openings [0098] and the land areas/planar base surface comprises about 1% to greater than about 20% open area, wherein a higher open area is thought to increase fiber bundling and therefore tensile strength in the machine/longitudinal direction and softness, such as greater than about 8%, or greater than about 18%, or even greater than about 20 wt% [0101, 0222-0223, 0334].
Furthermore, Greenway teaches an improved process over Kalwaites (2,862,251), which teaches consolidation of interconnecting fiber bundles between protuberant hollow buds as a method of increasing strength of the nonwoven as recited above, wherein Greenway teaches a more focused method of rearranging forming holes for nodes and ligaments, such that a coherent lattice structure comprising holes are formed therebetween resulting in a higher tensile strength than the prior art, having machine and cross-direction randomization (anisotropy) ratios being in the range of 1:1-4:1 with corresponding machine direction and cross-direction tensile strengths (col. 2, lines 25-41), wherein an exemplary embodiment comprising increased strength in the MD (longitudinal direction) to prevent/limit necking during processing (and use) having a MD/CD randomization ratio being 1.7:1 (col. 7, lines 50-60; col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2; Figs. 7 & 11A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art of hydroentangled fabrics comprising hollow projections to provide the planar land areas with an open area within or obviously near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an increased open area hole area to increase tensile strength in the machine direction [Krautkramer], wherein also providing an increased machine direction tensile strength while maintaining a coherent lattice structure and sufficient cross-directional strength [Greenway].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites in view of Boulanger, or vice-versa, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Krautkramer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0154459 A1) (hereinafter “Krautkramer”), and optionally Neton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0259524 A1) (hereinafter “Neton”).
Regarding claim 8, the exemplary embodiment of Boulanger is taught to comprise a height of 1.575 mm and a diameter of about 2 mm (calculated area of about 3.2-4 mm2, depending on whether it is calculated as a circular node or a squarish node).
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article such as a feminine napkin or diaper [0144] comprising an absorbent core and a backsheet (outer cover) and a body side liner or skin-contacting material comprising a fluid entangled nonwoven [0017, 0145], wherein the fluid entangled web comprises a projection web comprising a plurality of hollow projections (nodes) having no holes or apertures extend from the land area/planar base surface [0097-0098, 0102], wherein the projections comprise a height of at least about 1 to about 10 mm [0099] imparted by forming holes having a depth of about 1 to 10 mm preferably 3 to 5 mm [0120] and a cross-section size of between about 2 to 10 mm, preferably between 3 to 6 mm [0120], giving a calculated projection/node area of about 3 to 78.5 mm2, preferably 7 to 20 mm2.
Furthermore, Neton teaches a projection web comprising hollow deformations/protrusions, wherein the protrusions may be oriented downward toward the absorbent core [Fig. 26] for more effective absorption of exudates into the absorbent core [0155], like Boulanger, wherein the protrusions comprise a height in the range of about 1 to 10 mm, alternatively about 1 mm to about 6 mm [0131] having a cap portion with a plan view surface area of at least about 3 mm2 [0131], wherein exemplary embodiments [Table 2] comprise calculated cap surface areas (using both elliptical and rectangular area formulas) about 8 mm2 to about 19 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide hollow projections formed by hydroentangling and/or used as spacing protrusions in an absorbent article body-side cover layer with a height and area within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for an exemplary range that includes and then further optimizes/expands upon an exemplary embodiment.
Claims 16-17 & 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kalwaites (U.S. Patent No. 2,862,251) (hereinafter “Kalwaites”) in view of Boulanger (CN 2133299 C) (hereinafter “Boulanger”), or vice-versa, Greenway et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,575,874) (hereinafter “Greenway”), as evidenced by or further in view of Noda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0298213 A1) (hereinafter “Noda”), wherein claim 19 is optionally further in view of Neton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0259524 A1) (hereinafter “Neton”).
Regarding claims 16 and 20-21, Kalwaites teaches a fluid entangled three-dimensional nonwoven usable as a covering in an absorbent article such as a diaper or sanitary napkin (col 37, lines 54-59), wherein an exemplary structure comprises relatively major fiber concentration Z-direction fiber packed protuberant hollow buds/tufts (hollow nodes) (Figs. 49 & 54 [615]) extending from a base plane comprising connecting relatively minor fiber concentration interconnecting portions/bundles/ribbons (ligaments) (Figs. 49 & 54 [617/618]) (col. 31, lines 8-38 & col. 32, line 72 – col. 33, line 23) such that the hollow buds constitute pivot points that distribute and strengthen the consolidated ribbons similar to a woven textile fabric (col. 31, lines 65-75), wherein the relatively lower fiber density ribbons are preferably consolidated into a relatively higher low density to increase strength, preferably further consolidated along at least one direction, such as the vertical/longitudinal direction (col. 4, lines 40-51 & col. 31, lines 8-38), wherein hollow buds are arranged in a regular pattern, such as a diamond or hexagonal pattern, such that at least four to six bundles/ribbons, such as two longitudinal/vertical bundles and four lateral bundles that extend at opposing sides of the bud at angles to the lateral/traverse direction in a mirrored fashion thereabout a direction parallel thereto, extend therebetween defining a plurality of openings/apertures disposed between adjacent hollow buds (cols. 31-32), wherein the buds/tufts may comprise binder/adhesive material added/applied thereto (cols. 33-34).
However, Kalwaites does not explicitly teach the orientation of the protruding buds facing toward the absorbent body or an outer cover such that the absorbent body is disposed between the covering and the outer cover.
Boulanger teaches a skin-contacting, fluid-handling three-dimensional fluid entangled nonwoven cover layer for an absorbent product such as a diaper or sanitary napkin, wherein the nonwoven comprises a reticulated network of a plurality of hollow protuberant fiber packings (nodes) facing toward the absorbent core that act as spacers to reduce the possibility of wetback (rewet) connected in the base plane comprising a high density and low density areas within the plane comprising a plurality of interconnecting strips/ribbons (ligaments) forming at least some apertures therebetween, the relatively higher density areas being primarily oriented along the longitudinal axis of the article and relatively lower density areas being primarily oriented along the lateral axis of the article at an angle thereto, mirrored across a direction parallel to the lateral axis, such that the fibers of those strips may remain relatively more mobile allowing shifting/flexing to increase liquid penetration (pg. 15, line 4 – pg. 16, line 6; pg. 26, lines 14-25), wherein the base plane is softer at a skin contacting surface, the nonwoven being formed in a well-known rosebud hydroentanglement process (pg. 6, line 19 – pg. 8, line 18 & pg. 9, line 9 – pg. 10 line 10), and the buds may be strengthened/bonded by added/applied binder/adhesive (pg. 8), wherein the cover and a barrier layer (outer cover) are bonded at marginal portions to enclose the absorbent core/body (pg. 29, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the bud/bundle structure of Kalwaites with its protuberant buds facing toward the absorbent core such that the absorbent core is disposed between the cover and an outer cover/barrier layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a space between the base plane of the cover and the absorbent core system such that increases fluid handling/drainage and reduces rewet/wetback (pg. 16, lines 20-27 & pg. 25, line 17 – pg. 26, line 25) while providing the smoother, softer side for skin contact (pg. 8, lines 2-7), wherein a barrier layer would inherently provide barrier properties to fluid transfer out of the absorbent article (pg. 29, lines 1-5).
Alternatively, Boulanger does not explicitly teach the interconnecting strips as each interconnecting a node and adjacent node within the plurality of nodes forming a defined pattern of openings/apertures therebetween.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a pattern of defined apertures and more consolidated strips connecting individual adjacent nodes within the plurality. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the rosebud process to create a more reticulated network wherein the hollow buds constitute pivot points that distribute and strengthen the consolidated ribbons similar to a woven textile fabric (Kalwaites; col. 31, lines 65-75), wherein the relatively lower fiber density ribbons are preferably consolidated into a relatively higher low density to increase strength, preferably further increased along at least one direction, such as the vertical/longitudinal direction (Kalwaites; col. 4, lines 40-51 & col. 31, lines 8-38).
However, further regarding claims 16 and 21, while the longitudinal ribbons are emphasized as being increasingly oriented and the lateral ligaments as being more flexible/relatively displaceable as recited above, neither Kalwaites/Boulanger nor Boulanger/Kalwaites teach the longitudinal ligaments as having anisotropy values greater than 1.3/1.4 and lateral ligaments as having an anisotropy value of less than 1.1/1.08.
Greenway teaches an improved process over Kalwaites (2,862,251), which teaches consolidation of interconnecting fiber bundles between protuberant hollow buds as a method of increasing strength of the nonwoven as recited above, wherein Greenway teaches a more focused method of rearranging forming holes for nodes and ligaments, such that a coherent lattice structure comprising holes are formed therebetween resulting in a higher tensile strength than the prior art, having machine and cross-direction fiber randomization (anisotropy) ratios being in the range of 1:1-4:1 with corresponding machine direction and cross-direction tensile strengths (col. 2, lines 25-41), wherein an exemplary embodiment comprising increased strength in the MD (longitudinal direction) to prevent/limit necking during processing (and use) having a MD/CD randomization ratio being 1.7 to 1 (col. 7, lines 50-60; col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 2; Figs. 7 & 11A), wherein Noda evidences/further teaches that ligaments having a higher fiber orientation (increased anisotropy) and/or a higher fiber concentration provide a higher tensile strength [0197, 0201].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide longitudinal ligaments as having increased fiber content/orientation (anisotropy) in relation to lateral ligaments such that the relative nature of which would have been optimized inherently or obviously within the claimed values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide increased machine directional orientation ligaments for the fluid-directing reasons as desired in Boulanger while also providing increased tensile strength in relation to the more flexible lateral ligaments such that it provides limited to no necking during processing/use [Greenway], wherein a higher fiber density/concentration works in concert with or is replaceable by fiber orientation as a result effective variable directly correlated with desired increased tensile strength in the longitudinal direction [Noda].
Regarding claim 17, Boulanger teaches the cover is disposed on the absorbent core or a transfer layer disposed therebetween (pg. 27, lines 5-9).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites in view of Boulanger, or vice-versa, Greenway, and optionally Noda, as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of Finn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0121624 A1) (hereinafter “Finn”) AND/OR Tally et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0250660 A1) (hereinafter “Tally”).
Boulanger teaches the cover is disposed on the absorbent core or a transfer layer disposed therebetween (pg. 27, lines 5-9), but Boulanger does not teach the width of the hydroentangled nonwoven material in relation thereto.
Finn teaches a topsheet comprising a fluid entangled three dimensional body facing material [0135] and an outer cover having an absorbent body disposed therebetween, wherein the body facing material and the outer cover (and the leg elastic members) may be bonded together [0082, Fig. 3] or the body facing material may comprise a lateral width narrower than a secondary liner (Fig. 6 [34]) between the body facing material and the absorbent body, wherein the secondary liner is attached to the outer cover (and the leg elastic members) [0086-0087].
AND/OR
Tally teaches a multilayer topsheet comprising at least a first discrete substrate (Figs. 46-61 [710]) having a larger width than an upper second discrete substrate (Figs. 46-61 [720]), wherein the second discrete substrate comprises a more expensive three-dimensional shaped substrate beneficial for reducing skin/fluid contact and the first discrete substrate is a more traditional topsheet material [0004-0005, 0197, 0228], with the second discrete substrate outline forming an optionally decorative shape [0229-0230 & Figs. 58-61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form the fluid entangled three-dimensional nonwoven beneficial for fluid handling as more narrow than a lower liner/substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known arrangement that only uses the fluid handling material where necessary [Finn] AND/OR using less of an expensive to manufacture material [Tally; 0005] and providing other aesthetically pleasing decorative qualities [Tally; 0152].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwaites in view of Boulanger, or vice-versa, Greenway, and optionally Noda, as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Krautkramer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0154459 A1) (hereinafter “Krautkramer”), and optionally Neton et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0259524 A1) (hereinafter “Neton”).
Regarding claim 19, the exemplary embodiment of Boulanger is taught to comprise a height of 1.575 mm and a diameter of about 2 mm (calculated area of about 3.2-4 mm2, depending on whether it is calculated as a circular node or a squarish node).
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article such as a feminine napkin or diaper [0144] comprising an absorbent core and a backsheet (outer cover) and a body side liner or skin-contacting material comprising a fluid entangled nonwoven [0017, 0145], wherein the fluid entangled web comprises a projection web comprising a plurality of hollow projections (nodes) having no holes or apertures extend from the land area/planar base surface [0097-0098, 0102], wherein the projections comprise a height of at least about 1 to about 10 mm [0099] imparted by forming holes having a depth of about 1 to 10 mm preferably 3 to 5 mm [0120] and a cross-section size of between about 2 to 10 mm, preferably between 3 to 6 mm [0120], giving a calculated projection/node area of about 3 to 78.5 mm2, preferably 7 to 20 mm2.
Furthermore, Neton teaches a projection web comprising hollow deformations/protrusions, wherein the protrusions may be oriented downward toward the absorbent core [Fig. 26] for more effective absorption of exudates into the absorbent core [0155], like Boulanger, wherein the protrusions comprise a height in the range of about 1 to 10 mm, alternatively about 1 mm to about 6 mm [0131] having a cap portion with a plan view surface area of at least about 3 mm2 [0131], wherein exemplary embodiments [Table 2] comprise calculated cap surface areas (using both elliptical and rectangular area formulas) about 8 mm2 to about 19 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide hollow projections formed by hydroentangling and/or used as spacing protrusions in an absorbent article body-side cover layer with a height and area within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for an exemplary range that includes and then further optimizes/expands upon an exemplary embodiment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 22nd, 2026
Prosecution Insights