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.
Claim 19 is 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 claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 20150320615 A1) in view of Takatera et al. (US 20020198508 A1) and Blomström et al. (US 20220096282 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bergstrom discloses an absorbent assembly ("absorbent article" [0015]; FIGs. 1-2) adapted to be permanently or detachably secured in a textile pant ("pant diapers" [0015]) and having an extension in a longitudinal direction, in a transverse direction and in a thickness direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and the transverse direction ([0017]; FIGs. 1-2), and comprising:
a liquid permeable layer ("fluid permeable topsheet 2" [0053]; FIG. 2), a liquid impermeable layer ("fluid impermeable backsheet 4" [0053]); and
an absorbent member ("absorbent core 6" [0053]) located between the liquid permeable layer and the liquid impermeable layer ("enclosed between the topsheet 2 and the backsheet 4" [0053]), the absorbent member comprising a liquid acquisition structure ("fluid flow control member 24" [0056]; FIG. 2) and a liquid retaining structure ("second absorbent layer 22" [0056]), the liquid acquisition structure being arranged between the liquid permeable layer and the liquid retaining structure ([0056]; FIG. 2),
the liquid acquisition structure comprises a spacer fabric comprising a top web, a bottom web and an intermediate section comprising pile filaments extending in the thickness direction and connecting the top web with the bottom web ("spacer fabric 27 has a top layer 28 and a bottom layer 29 and a connecting layer 30 of pile filaments 33 between the top layer 28 and the bottom layer 29" [0058]; FIG. 3).
Bergstrom fails to specify the absorbent assembly is washable. However, Takatera teaches “a washable and reutilizable comfortable composite water absorbent sheet” ([0004]) comprising a washable absorbent assembly ([0014]; FIG. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bergstrom to incorporate the teachings of Takatera to minimize environmental impact and improve user comfort ([0002-0003]).
Bergstrom/Takatera fails to specify the liquid permeable layer has a basis weight of less than 300 g/m2; the spacer fabric having a density of 0.1 g/cm3 or less at an applied pressure of 0.5 kPa; and the liquid retaining structure has a higher density than the liquid acquisition structure. However, Blomström teaches an absorbent article composite ([0008]) wherein the liquid permeable layer has a basis weight of less than 300 g/m2 ("surface layer 8 is an air-through-bonded fibrous nonwoven surface layer having a basis weight of from 14 to 30 g/m2" [0040]); the spacer fabric having a density of 0.1 g/cm3 or less at an applied pressure of 0.5 kPa ("intermediate high loft nonwoven layer may typically have a density below 200 kg/m3 … at a pressure of 0.5 kPa" [0047]; NOTE: 1 kg/m3 = 0.001 g/cm3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bergstrom/Takatera to suitably optimize “the liquid inlet rate” ([0015]) and maximize comfort ([0003-0006]).
Bergstrom/Takatera/Blomström fails to specify the liquid retaining structure has a higher density than the liquid acquisition structure. However, the Federal Circuit 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. In 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention through routine optimization and have had a reasonable expectation of success since Bergstrom teaches variations in density “may particularly be suitable making the material soft but still able to withstand exerted pressures during its use” ([0020]), and Blomström teaches that “a relatively low density (=high bulk) in the liquid inlet area … is beneficial for the liquid inlet rate” ([0015]) and “a relatively low density with relatively low number of bonding points between the fibers gives a structure with lower integrity” ([0026]). Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the device to arrive at the claimed density/bulk/basis weight to suitably achieve the optimal liquid inlet rate while making the material soft but still able to withstand exerted pressures during its use.
Regarding Claims 2-6, 12, and 17-18, Bergstrom/Takatera/Blomström fails to specify the liquid retaining structure has a higher density than the spacer fabric in the liquid acquisition structure; the spacer fabric in the liquid acquisition structure has a bulk of 10 cm3/g or more at an applied pressure of 5 kPa; the spacer fabric in the liquid acquisition structure has a bulk of 8 cm3/g or more at an applied pressure of 10 kPa; the spacer fabric in the liquid acquisition structure has a bulk of 5 cm3/g or more at an applied pressure of 20 kPa; the liquid retaining structure has a higher basis weight than the liquid acquisition structure; the density of the liquid retaining structure is 20% higher than the density of the spacer fabric; a density of the bottom web of the spacer fabric is higher than a density of the top web of the spacer fabric; the density of the top web of the spacer fabric is higher than a density of the intermediate section of the spacer fabric. However, the Federal Circuit 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. In 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention through routine optimization and have had a reasonable expectation of success since Bergstrom teaches variations in density “may particularly be suitable making the material soft but still able to withstand exerted pressures during its use” ([0020]), and Blomström teaches that “a relatively low density (=high bulk) in the liquid inlet area … is beneficial for the liquid inlet rate” ([0015]) and “a relatively low density with relatively low number of bonding points between the fibers gives a structure with lower integrity” ([0026]). Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the device to arrive at the claimed density/bulk/basis weight to suitably achieve the optimal liquid inlet rate while making the material soft but still able to withstand exerted pressures during its use.
Regarding Claims 9-11, Bergstrom/Takatera fails to specify the liquid permeable layer has a basis weight of 250 g/m2 or less; the spacer fabric in the acquisition structure has a lower liquid retaining capacity than the liquid retaining structure; the spacer fabric in the acquisition structure has a liquid retaining capacity of 0.2 g/cm2 or less and the liquid retaining structure has a liquid retaining capacity of 0.3 g/cm2 or more. However, Blomström teaches the liquid permeable layer has a basis weight of 250 g/m2 or less ("surface layer 8 is an air-through-bonded fibrous nonwoven surface layer having a basis weight of from 14 to 30 g/m2" [0040]); the spacer fabric in the acquisition structure has a lower liquid retaining capacity than the liquid retaining structure ("absorbent capacity of the absorbent structure may be varied to be suited for different uses" [0045]); the spacer fabric in the acquisition structure has a liquid retaining capacity of 0.2 g/cm2 or less and the liquid retaining structure has a liquid retaining capacity of 0.3 g/cm2 or more ("absorbent capacity of the absorbent structure may be varied to be suited for different uses" [0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Bergstrom/Takatera to suitably optimize “the liquid inlet rate” ([0015]) and maximize comfort ([0003-0006]).
Regarding Claims 7-8, 13-16, 19, and 21, Bergstrom discloses the spacer fabric has a basis weight between 150 g/m2 and 300 g/m2 ("spacer fabric may have a basis weight of 150-300 gsm" [0019]); the spacer fabric has a thickness of 2 mm or more ("spacer fabric advantageously has a thickness of 3-6 mm" [0026]); the liquid acquisition structure consists of a single layer of spacer fabric or of a layer of spacer fabric and one or more additional material layers ([0045]; "fluid flow control member in the form of a spacer fabric 27" [0058]; "fluid flow control member 24 is arranged between the first absorbent layer 23" [0056]); the liquid retaining structure consists of a single material layer or of 2 or more individual material layers ("absorbent layers may be homogeneous structures or may in themselves be layered structures such as absorbent laminates" [0046]); the spacer fabric of the liquid acquisition structure is in direct contact with the liquid retaining structure ("fluid flow control member 24 is arranged between the first absorbent layer 23 and the second absorbent layer 22" [0056]); the spacer fabric of the liquid acquisition structure is in direct contact with the liquid permeable layer (see FIG. 2); the liquid retaining structure is directly attached to the liquid impermeable layer (see FIG. 2); a textile pant, wherein the absorbent assembly is permanently secured in the textile pant ("fastening means for fastening of the absorbent article inside a supporting pant garment, such as a pair of underpants" [0042] wherein the absorbent hygienic underwear having an extension in a longitudinal direction, in a transverse direction and in a thickness direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, and the transverse direction, and the textile pant comprising a front portion, a rear portion and a crotch portion ([0041]; FIGs. 1-2).
Regarding Claims 20 and 22, Bergstrom discloses the absorbent pad being adapted to be detachably secured to a textile pant ("fastening means for fastening of the absorbent article inside a supporting pant garment, such as a pair of underpants" [0042]) but fails to specify the washable absorbent assembly is a washable absorbent pad and the washable absorbent hygienic underwear is a washable absorbent incontinence underwear. However, Takatera teaches the washable absorbent assembly is a washable absorbent pad and the washable absorbent hygienic underwear is a washable absorbent incontinence underwear ([0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bergstrom to incorporate the teachings of Takatera to minimize environmental impact and improve user comfort ([0002-0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references provided on the attached PTO-892 form are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure and are cited to further show the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-8846. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm (EST) M-F.
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, Rebecca E. Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/Adam Marcetich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Cheng Fong "Ted" Yang
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights