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 1 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the auxiliary glue". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that an auxiliary glue is introduced in claim 9, not claim 1, and thus the glue in claim 10 lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, claim 10 is interpreted to depend from claim 9.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al. US 2014/0163503, hereafter Arizti, in view of DesMarais et al. US 5292777, hereafter DesMarais.
Regarding Claim 1, Arizti discloses a personal hygiene absorbent article (figure 1, abstract) comprising a longitudinal axis (80) extending in a longitudinal direction (para. 0029), a transversal axis extending in a transversal direction (90), and a vertical direction orthogonal to the transversal direction and longitudinal direction (figure 2), the article comprising, in this vertical order: a liquid permeable topsheet (24, liquid permeable per para. 0011); a fibrous distribution layer having a front edge (distribution layer [54], fibrous per para. 0096), a back edge and two longitudinal edges and a maximum width W3 (see figure 1, where the outline of distribution layer [54] can be seen to have a front edge, back edge, and longitudinal side edges between, where the layer exhibits a width, interpreted as W3), wherein all width herein are measured in the transversal direction (see above interpretation); an absorbent core (28) comprising a core wrap having a top layer and a bottom layer (para. 0032,0041), an absorbent layer disposed between the core wrap top layer and the core wrap bottom layer (absorbent material [60], within the core wrap per para. 0074), the absorbent layer comprising superabsorbent polymer particles (abstract, para. 0032,0042), the absorbent layer having a front edge, a back edge and two longitudinal edges (see figure 1), the absorbent layer having a maximum width W1 (width displayed at front/back edge); and- a liquid-impermeable backsheet (para. 0011) ;wherein the absorbent layer comprises a narrow portion at a position intermediate the front edge and the back edge of the absorbent layer (see figure 1, where the absorbent layer is seen to narrow at a middle point, this is further detailed under para. 0076, where the absorbent material area may taper toward the middle of the crotch region in a “hour-glass” or “dog bone” shape), the narrow portion having a minimum width W2 (width at narrow portion); wherein W1 is larger than W2 (see figure 1, where the defined W2 is narrower)by a factor of at least 1.1. The examiner notes that paragraph 0076 details that the width of the narrow portion may be about 50mm (in one example) and may be at least 10mm smaller than the width at the largest point at the front/back regions. Based on said disclosure, the narrow width would be 50mm and the wider width would be 10mm (60mm). A simple calculation of 60/1.1 (per the claim) would give a value of 54.5mm and thus 60mm is greater than 50mm (W1>W2) by at least 1.1. The ratio is 1.2 (60/1.2=50).
Arizti further discloses wherein either the absorbent layer comprises at least one longitudinally-extending core channel or the distribution layer comprises at least longitudinally-extending distribution channel or both (channels 26 and 26’ in the absorbent core per abstract, para. 0032).
Arizti however, fails to specifically disclose that the distribution layer comprises a narrow portion between the front edge and the back edge of the distribution layer, the narrow portion having a minimum width W4; wherein W3 is larger than W4 by a factor of at least 1.1;wherein the narrow portion of the absorbent layer and the narrow portion of the distribution layer are at least partially vertically superposed; wherein W1 is larger than or equal to W3, and W2 is larger than or equal to W4;
DesMarais teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DesMarais teaches a that the diaper includes a topsheet, back sheet and an absorbent core (column 13, lines 30-54). Per the same citation, an acquisition distribution layer (73) is also incorporated, where said layer is in an hourglass shape (see also figure 2). Therefore, as DesMarais teaches that acquisition/distribution layers in diapers may suitably be in hourglass shapes in addition to an hourglass shaped absorbent storage layer (72), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the distribution layer of Arizti in an hourglass shape. Doing so would require the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being the formation of a distribution layer, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As seen in the figure, the narrowed central portion (W4) is less wide than the edge portions (W3) and the narrow portions of the distribution layer is directly above the narrowed absorbent storage layer portion. Further, the width of the distribution layer in both Arizti and DesMarais appears equal to the width of the absorbent layer (thus W1 = W3) and the narrowed widths appear equal in figure 2 of DesMarais. Therefore, it is interpreted that upon combination, the widest widths of both layers (W1 and W3) are equal, and the narrowed widths of both layers (W2 and W4) are also equal. However, there is no clear disclosure that W3 is larger than W4 by at least 1.1. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A n 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), 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. The examiner notes that as both the instant application and prior art device teach a distribution layer with a narrowed, hourglass shape in a middle portion, where, in the examiner’s opinion, modifying the prior art device to have the widest width be at least 1.1x would not have a function on the operation of the device compared to the instant device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have W3 greater than W4 by at least 1.1, for example, 1.2, as taught by the ratio of Arizti regarding an other layer.
Regarding Claim 2, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein W1 is larger than W2 by a factor not exceeding 2.0. Per the rejection of claim 1, the factor is 1.2 and thus not exceeding 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein W3 is larger than W4 by a factor not exceeding 2.0. Per the rejection of claim 1, the factor was found obvious to be 1.2 and thus not exceeding 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, but fail to teach W1 is larger than W3 by at least 5 mm and W2 is larger than W4 by at least 5 mm. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A n 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), 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. The examiner notes that as both the instant application and prior art device teach an absorbent layer and a distribution layer with a narrowed, hourglass shape in a middle portion, where, in the examiner’s opinion, modifying the prior art device to have the distribution layer be narrower than the absorbent by 5mm would not have altered the functionality of the device as the device would still receive, distributed, and absorbent fluid, due to the lack of criticality and specific function said dimensions impart on the structure of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have W1 be greater than W3 by 5mm and have W2 be greater than W4 by 5mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal edges of the absorbent layer and/or the distribution layer are inwardly curved in their respective narrow portions (See figure 1 of Arizti, see also figure 2 of DesMarais).
Regarding Claim 6, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the part of the narrow portion of respectively the absorbent layer and distribution layer having the minimum width W2 and W4 is in the crotch region of the absorbent article, and wherein the crotch region is the central third of the article as measured in longitudinal direction (See figure 1 of Arizti, see also figure 2 of DesMarais, see also para. 0076 of Arizti).
Regarding Claim 7, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent layer comprises one or more longitudinally-extending channel(s) (channels 26, see figure 2 of Arizti) and wherein the channel(s) is/are substantially free of absorbent material and the top layer of the core wrap is bonded to the bottom layer of the core wrap (top and bottom 16,16’ through at least one longitudinally-extending channel, so that a three- dimensional channel is formed when the absorbent material surrounding the channel swells (see figure 2 of Arizti, where the wrap can be seen being bonded together around the absorbent material (60) through the defined channels (26, 26’).
Regarding Claim 8, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 7, wherein the absorbent layer comprises at least two longitudinally-extending channels disposed symmetrically on each side of the longitudinal axis, and wherein the channels are at least partially disposed in the narrow portion of the absorbent layer and are inwardly curved towards the longitudinal axis (see figure 1 of Arizti, channels 26,26’ and longitudinal axis 80).
Regarding Claim 9, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, comprising an auxiliary glue between either the core wrap top layer and the absorbent layer or between the core wrap bottom layer and the absorbent layer or both (Arizti para. 0041, 0074). The examiner notes that per paragraph 0074, the core wrap layers are suitably glued to one another along the periphery, where the wrap is generally rectangular. This configuration provides a strong seal around the absorbent material. The core wrap layers are placed on the absorbent material.
Regarding Claim 10, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 9, wherein the auxiliary glue is present at least in the narrow portion of the absorbent layer, and wherein the width of the auxiliary glue area where the auxiliary glue is present is larger than the absorbent layer's minimum width W2. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 9, the core wrap is bonded together via glue at the periphery and understood to be also be glued through the channels (26 and 26’) seen in figure 2, as the core wrap layers are directly connected. As the channels extend through the narrow portion of the absorbent, it is interpreted that the glue is present in the narrow portion. Further, as the core wrap is disclosed to be rectangular, seen in figure 1 of Arizti and thus wider than the narrow portion, where the glue is provided at the entire periphery of the wrap, it is interpreted that the glue is present at a larger width than the narrow portion width W2.
Regarding Claim 11, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent material is free of cellulose fibers (Arizti para. 0043, where the absorbent material may be substantially free of cellulose fibers) and the superabsorbent polymer particles are at least partially immobilized within the core wrap by a microfibrous glue (Arizti para. 0151).
Regarding Claim 12, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the distribution layer comprises at least one distribution channel, and wherein the distribution channel is at least partially superposed with at least one channel of the absorbent core (Arizti para. 0079). The examiner notes that per paragraph 0079, the acquisition distribution system, including the distribution layer may comprise channels which may correspond to the absorbent core channels. As the distribution layer is above the core, the at least one channel is superposed the absorbent core channel
Regarding Claim 13, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article of claim 12, wherein the article comprises a pair of distribution channels at least partially vertically superposed with a pair of channels of the absorbent core(Arizti para. 0079). The examiner notes that per paragraph 0079, the acquisition distribution system, including the distribution layer may comprise channels which may correspond to the absorbent core channels. As the absorbent core comprises two channels, and Arizti teaches that the channels in the distribution system may correspond to the channels in the absorbent, it is interpreted that there may be a channel corresponding to each of the two absorbent channels. Further, as the distribution layer is above the core, the at least one channel is superposed the absorbent core channel
Regarding Claim 14, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, comprising an acquisition layer between the topsheet and the distribution layer (Arizti acquisition layer (52), see figure 2), and wherein the distribution layer comprises or consists of cross-linked cellulose fibers (Arizti para. 0094).
Regarding Claim 15, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 14, wherein an adhesive deposited on the acquisition layer at least partially immobilizes the fibers of the distribution layer (Arizti para. 0111, 0112). Per the citation, the distribution layer is deposited on the acquisition layer, where adjacent layers are joined via an adhesive. The examiner notes that this attachment would at least partially immobilize the fibers of the distribution layer due to them being adhered to another layer.
Regarding Claim 16, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the superabsorbent polymer is in the form of superabsorbent particles mixed with cellulose fibers (para. 0043, where the core may include SAP and cellulose fibers).
Regarding Claim 17, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent article comprises a pair of elasticized inner leg cuffs (barrier leg cuffs (34) see figure 1,2 of Arizti, see para. 0092 where the cuffs include elastic strings), each inner leg cuff having a proximal edge attached to the topsheet (see figure 2), and a free-standing elasticized distal edge (edge with elastic strings (35)); the article comprises a pair of elasticized outer cuffs (gasketing cuffs (34)); and wherein at least one of the elasticized inner cuffs and/or outer cuffs exerts a contraction force on the chassis of the article so that the absorbent article takes a basin shape when the article is placed on a wearer (para. 0092-0093, where the cuffs allow the device to fit and seal around the wearer).
Regarding Claim 18, Arizti discloses a personal hygiene absorbent (figure 1, abstract) comprising a longitudinal axis (80) extending in a longitudinal direction (para. 0029), a transversal axis extending in a transversal direction (90), and a vertical direction orthogonal to the transversal direction and longitudinal direction (figure 2), the article comprising, in this vertical order: a liquid permeable topsheet (24, liquid permeable per para. 0011); a fibrous distribution layer having a front edge (distribution layer [54], fibrous per para. 0096), a back edge and two longitudinal edges and a maximum width W3 (see figure 1, where the outline of distribution layer [54] can be seen to have a front edge, back edge, and longitudinal side edges between, where the layer exhibits a width, interpreted as W3); an absorbent core (28) comprising a core wrap having a top layer and a bottom layer (para. 0032,0041), an absorbent layer disposed between the core wrap top layer and the core wrap bottom layer (absorbent material [60], within the core wrap per para. 0074), the absorbent layer comprising superabsorbent polymer particles and cellulose fibers (abstract, para. 0032,0043), the absorbent layer having a front edge, a back edge and two longitudinal edges (see figure 1), the absorbent layer having a maximum width W1 (width displayed at front/back edge); and- a liquid-impermeable backsheet (para. 0011); wherein the absorbent layer comprises a narrow portion at a position intermediate the front edge and the back edge of the absorbent layer (see figure 1, where the absorbent layer is seen to narrow at a middle point, this is further detailed under para. 0076, where the absorbent material area may taper toward the middle of the crotch region in a “hour-glass” or “dog bone” shape), the narrow portion having a minimum width W2 (width at narrow portion); wherein W1 is larger than W2 (see figure 1, where the defined W2 is narrower)by a factor of at least 1.1. The examiner notes that paragraph 0076 details that the width of the narrow portion may be about 50mm (in one example) and may be at least 10mm smaller than the width at the largest point at the front/back regions. Based on said disclosure, the narrow width would be 50mm and the wider width would be 10mm (60mm). A simple calculation of 60/1.1 (per the claim) would give a value of 54.5mm and thus 60mm is greater than 50mm (W1>W2) by at least 1.1. The ratio is 1.2 (60/1.2=50).
Arizti further discloses wherein either the absorbent layer comprises at least one longitudinally extending core channel or the distribution layer comprises at least longitudinally extending distribution channel or both (channels 26 and 26’ in the absorbent core per abstract, para. 0032), and wherein the absorbent article comprises a pair of elasticized inner leg cuffs barrier leg cuffs (34) see figure 1,2 of Arizti, see para. 0092 where the cuffs include elastic strings), each inner leg cuff having a proximal edge attached to the topsheet (fig. 2), and a free-standing elasticized distal edge (edge with elastic strings (35)); the article comprises a pair of elasticized outer cuffs (gasketing cuffs (34)); and wherein at least
(para. 0092-0093, where the cuffs allow the device to fit and seal around the wearer).
Arizti however, fails to specifically disclose that the distribution layer comprises a narrow portion between the front edge and the back edge of the distribution layer, the narrow portion having a minimum width W4; wherein W3 is larger than W4 by a factor of at least 1.1;wherein the narrow portion of the absorbent layer and the narrow portion of the distribution layer are at least partially vertically superposed; wherein W1 is larger than or equal to W3, and W2 is larger than or equal to W4.
DesMarais teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DesMarais teaches a that the diaper includes a topsheet, back sheet and an absorbent core (column 13, lines 30-54). Per the same citation, an acquisition distribution layer (73) is also incorporated, where said layer is in an hourglass shape (see also figure 2). Therefore, as DesMarais teaches that acquisition/distribution layers in diapers may suitably be in hourglass shapes in addition to an hourglass shaped absorbent storage layer (72), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the distribution layer of Arizti in an hourglass shape. Doing so would require the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being the formation of a distribution layer, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As seen in the figure, the narrowed central portion (W4) is less wide than the edge portions (W3) and the narrow portions of the distribution layer is directly above the narrowed absorbent storage layer portion. Further, the width of the distribution layer in both Arizti and DesMarais appears equal to the width of the absorbent layer (thus W1 = W3) and the narrowed widths appear equal in figure 2 of DesMarais. Therefore, it is interpreted that upon combination, the widest widths of both layers (W1 and W3) are equal, and the narrowed widths of both layers (W2 and W4) are also equal. However, there is no clear disclosure that W3 is larger than W4 by at least 1.1. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A 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), 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. The examiner notes that as both the instant application and prior art device teach a distribution layer with a narrowed, hourglass shape in a middle portion, where, in the examiner’s opinion, modifying the prior art device to have the widest width be at least 1.1x would not have a function on the operation of the device compared to the instant device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have W3 greater than W4 by at least 1.1, for example, 1.2, as taught by the ratio of Arizti regarding an other layer.
Regarding Claim 19, Arizti discloses a personal hygiene absorbent article (figure 1, abstract) comprising a longitudinal axis (80) extending in a longitudinal direction (para. 0029), a transversal axis extending in a transversal direction (90), and a vertical direction orthogonal to the transversal direction and longitudinal direction (figure 2), the article comprising, in this vertical order: a liquid permeable topsheet (24, liquid permeable per para. 0011); a fibrous distribution layer having a front edge (distribution layer [54], fibrous per para. 0096), a back edge and two longitudinal edges and a maximum width W3 (see figure 1, where the outline of distribution layer [54] can be seen to have a front edge, back edge, and longitudinal side edges between, where the layer exhibits a width, interpreted as W3); an absorbent core (28) comprising a core wrap having a top layer and a bottom layer (para. 0032,0041), an absorbent layer disposed between the core wrap top layer and the core wrap bottom layer (absorbent material [60], within the core wrap per para. 0074), the absorbent layer comprising superabsorbent polymer particles (para. 0043) at least partially immobilized in microfibrous glue ( para. 0151), the absorbent layer having a front edge, a back edge and two longitudinal edges (see figure 1), the absorbent layer having a maximum width W1(width displayed at front/back edge); and- a liquid-impermeable backsheet (para. 0011); wherein the absorbent layer comprises a narrow portion at a position intermediate the front edge and the back edge of the absorbent layer (see figure 1, where the absorbent layer is seen to narrow at a middle point, this is further detailed under para. 0076, where the absorbent material area may taper toward the middle of the crotch region in a “hour-glass” or “dog bone” shape), the narrow portion having a minimum width W2 (width at narrow portion); wherein W1 is larger than W2 (see figure 1, where the defined W2 is narrower)by a factor of at least 1.1. The examiner notes that paragraph 0076 details that the width of the narrow portion may be about 50mm (in one example) and may be at least 10mm smaller than the width at the largest point at the front/back regions. Based on said disclosure, the narrow width would be 50mm and the wider width would be 10mm (60mm). A simple calculation of 60/1.1 (per the claim) would give a value of 54.5mm and thus 60mm is greater than 50mm (W1>W2) by at least 1.1. The ratio is 1.2 (60/1.2=50).
Arizti further discloses wherein either the absorbent layer comprises at least one longitudinally-extending core channel or the distribution layer comprises at least longitudinally-extending distribution channel or both (channels 26 and 26’ in the absorbent core per abstract, para. 0032), and the article comprises an acquisition layer between the topsheet and the distribution layer (acquisition layer 54), and the distribution layer comprises or consists of cross-linked cellulose fibers (para. 0094).
Arizti however, fails to specifically disclose that the distribution layer comprises a narrow portion between the front edge and the back edge of the distribution layer, the narrow portion having a minimum width W4; wherein W3 is larger than W4 by a factor of at least 1.1;wherein the narrow portion of the absorbent layer and the narrow portion of the distribution layer are at least partially vertically superposed; wherein W1 is larger than or equal to W3, and W2 is larger than or equal to W4.
DesMarais teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DesMarais teaches a that the diaper includes a topsheet, back sheet and an absorbent core (column 13, lines 30-54). Per the same citation, an acquisition distribution layer (73) is also incorporated, where said layer is in an hourglass shape (see also figure 2). Therefore, as DesMarais teaches that acquisition/distribution layers in diapers may suitably be in hourglass shapes in addition to an hourglass shaped absorbent storage layer (72), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the distribution layer of Arizti in an hourglass shape. Doing so would require the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being the formation of a distribution layer, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As seen in the figure, the narrowed central portion (W4) is less wide than the edge portions (W3) and the narrow portions of the distribution layer is directly above the narrowed absorbent storage layer portion. Further, the width of the distribution layer in both Arizti and DesMarais appears equal to the width of the absorbent layer (thus W1 = W3) and the narrowed widths appear equal in figure 2 of DesMarais. Therefore, it is interpreted that upon combination, the widest widths of both layers (W1 and W3) are equal, and the narrowed widths of both layers (W2 and W4) are also equal. However, there is no clear disclosure that W3 is larger than W4 by at least 1.1. The examiner notes that per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A 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), 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. The examiner notes that as both the instant application and prior art device teach a distribution layer with a narrowed, hourglass shape in a middle portion, where, in the examiner’s opinion, modifying the prior art device to have the widest width be at least 1.1x would not have a function on the operation of the device compared to the instant device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have W3 greater than W4 by at least 1.1, for example, 1.2, as taught by the ratio of Arizti regarding an other layer.
Regarding Claim 20, Arizti and DesMarais teach the absorbent article of claim 19, wherein the distribution layer comprises at least one distribution channel, and wherein the distribution channel is at least partially superposed with at least one channel of the absorbent core (Arizti para. 0079). The examiner notes that per paragraph 0079, the acquisition distribution system, including the distribution layer may comprise channels which may correspond to the absorbent core channels. As the distribution layer is above the core, the at least one channel is superposed the absorbent core channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights