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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “wherein the second fold line either corresponds to a front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region; and either corresponds to a back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region and/ or lies between the back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the back waist edge of the absorbent core in the back waist region” as described in the specification; at most, Fig. 12B-12C only shows the arrangement of the second fold line 500 with respect to the front end edge 18 of absorbent article 10, the back end edge of absorbent article 10, the back waist edge 116 of the absorbent core 30, and the first fold line 400. No other Figures demonstrate the relationship between the second fold line 500 with respect to the edges of the acquisition and distribution system alone, and in combination with the edges of the absorbent core 30.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature “wherein the second fold line either corresponds to a front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region; and either corresponds to a back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region and/ or lies between the back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the back waist edge of the absorbent core in the back waist region” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, “wherein absorbent article the first fold line…” is recited, which appears to be a typo. For examining purposes, Examiner currently interprets the limitation as “wherein the first fold line…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of “at 0.6 psi of at most 3.0 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably at most 2.5 mm, more preferably at most 2.0 mm, even more preferably at most 1.5 mm, most preferably at most 1.0 mm or even at most 0.5 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the Package Compression Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the In-Bag Stack Height Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the Package Center of Gravity Test detailed herein" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surushe et al. US 2022/0387230 A1 (hereinafter Surushe) in view of Kato et al. US 2013/0317470 A1 (hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Surushe discloses a package comprising a plurality of absorbent articles 10 (Fig. 1 – absorbent article 10, and Par. 53 – “Each package may comprise a plurality of absorbent articles”) in the form of diapers (Par. 22 – “An example absorbent article 10 according to the present disclosure, shown in the form of a taped diaper”),
the package comprising a flexible package material (Par. 53 – “The packages may comprise polymeric films”),
wherein each of the plurality of absorbent articles is in open form (Fig. 1) and comprises
a liquid permeable topsheet 26 (Fig. 1 – liquid permeable topsheet 26),
a liquid impermeable backsheet 28 (Fig. 1 – liquid impermeable backsheet 28), and
an absorbent core 30 (Fig. 1 – absorbent core 30) at least partially positioned between the topsheet 26 (Fig. 1) and the backsheet 28 (Fig. 1, and Par. 24 – “an absorbent core 30 positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet 26 and the backsheet 24”);
a front waist region 12 (Fig. 1 – front waist region 12), a back waist region 16 (Fig. 1 – back waist region 16), a crotch region 14 (Fig. 1 – crotch region 14) located between the front waist region 12 (Fig. 1) and the back waist region 16 (Fig. 1, and Par. 23 – “The crotch region 14 may extend intermediate the front waist region 12 and the back waist region 16”);
a central longitudinal axis 50 (Fig. 1 – central longitudinal axis 50).
However, Surushe does not disclose a first fold extending transversely across the crotch region along a first fold line, which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis; and a second fold extending transversely across the front and back waist regions along a second fold line, which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis; wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Compression Deflection Differential at 0.6 psi of at most 3.0 mm, preferably at most 2.5 mm, more preferably at most 2.0 mm, even more preferably at most 1.5 mm, most preferably at most 1.0 mm or even at most 0.5 mm according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article package (Title), teaches a first fold FW1 (Fig. 1 – first widthwise folding line FW1) extending transversely across the crotch region A1 (Fig. 1 – region A1) along a first fold line FW1 (Fig. 1), which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis L (Fig. 1 – folding line FW1 is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L); and a second fold FW2 (Fig. 1 – second widthwise direction folding line FW2) extending transversely across the front E1 (Fig. 1 – front end E1, and Fig. 5) and back waist regions E2 (Fig. 1 – back end E2, and Fig. 5) along a second fold line FW2 (Fig. 5 – folding line FW2 overlaps the front and back region E1 and E2 when the absorbent article is folded along the first folding line FW1), which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis L (Fig. 5 – folding line FW2 is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Surushe to further include a first and second fold as taught by Kato, in order to individually package the absorbent article in a compact size (Par. 43 of Kato). The size reduction of the absorbent article does not require a large storage space to occupy inside a bag (Par. 43 of Kato).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. In this instant case, the combination of Surushe in view of Kato discloses the claimed structure and material of the apparatus, except for the listed properties claimed above, and "When the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims of the instant invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent” (see MPEP 2112 (III)). As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Compression Deflection Differential at 0.6 psi of at most 3.0 mm, preferably at most 2.5 mm, more preferably at most 2.0 mm, even more preferably at most 1.5 mm, most preferably at most 1.0 mm or even at most 0.5 mm according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 2, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection at 0.6 psi of at most 4.5 mm, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection at 0.6 psi of at most 4.5 mm, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 3, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection at 5.0 psi of at most 15.0 mm, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection at 5.0 psi of at most 15.0 mm, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 4, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection Factor of at most 2.25 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Waist Compression Deflection Factor of at most 2.25 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 5, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Compression Deflection Factor Differential of at most 0.80 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package Out-of-Stack Compression Deflection Factor Differential of at most 0.80 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 6, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package In-Stack Waist Compression Deflection Factor of at most 4.25 mm/psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package In-Stack Waist Compression Deflection Factor of at most 4.25 mm/psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 7, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package In-Stack Compression Deflection Factor Differential of at most 1.50 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package In-Stack Compression Deflection Factor Differential of at most 1.50 mm/ psi, according to the Package Compression Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 8, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein the package has an in-bag stack height of from 70 mm to 110 mm (Par. 60 of Surushe – “Packages of the absorbent articles of the present disclosure may have an In-Bag Stack Height in the range of about 70 mm to about 110 mm”).
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose according to the In-Bag Stack Height Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “according to the In-Bag Stack Height Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 9, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the package has a Package Center of Gravity at from 20% to 49% of the Package Out-of-Stack Length, according to the Package Center of Gravity Test detailed herein.
Similar to the analysis as established in claim 1 above, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the limitation of “wherein the package has a Package Center of Gravity at from 20% to 49% of the Package Out-of-Stack Length, according to the Package Center of Gravity Test detailed herein” to read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 10, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses wherein each of the plurality of absorbent articles (Fig. 1 of Surushe) comprises back ears 42 (Fig. 1 of Surushe – back ears 42) in the back waist region (Fig. 1 of Surushe – back waist region 16).
Regarding claim 11, Surushe discloses an absorbent article 10 (Fig. 1 – absorbent article 10) in the form of diapers (Fig. 1, and Par. 22 – “An example absorbent article 10 according to the present disclosure, shown in the form of a taped diaper”) comprising
a liquid permeable topsheet 26 (Fig. 1 – liquid permeable topsheet 26),
a liquid impermeable backsheet 28 (Fig. 1 – liquid impermeable backsheet 28), and
an absorbent core 30 (Fig. 1 – absorbent core 30) at least partially positioned between the topsheet 26 (Fig. 1) and the backsheet 28 (Fig. 1, and Par. 24 – “an absorbent core 30 positioned at least partially intermediate the topsheet 26 and the backsheet 24”);
a front waist region 12 (Fig. 1 – front waist region 12), a back waist region 16 (Fig. 1 – back waist region 16), a crotch region 14 (Fig. 1 – crotch region 14) located between the front waist region 12 (Fig. 1) and the back waist region 16 (Fig. 1, and Par. 23 – “The crotch region 14 may extend intermediate the front waist region 12 and the back waist region 16”);
back ears 42 (Fig. 1 – back ears 42) in the back waist region 16 (Fig. 1, and Par. 24 – “back ears 42 in the back waist region 16”);
a central longitudinal axis 50 (Fig. 1 – central longitudinal axis 50).
However, Surushe does not disclose a first fold extending transversely across the crotch region along a first fold line, which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis; and further comprising a second fold extending transversely across the front and back waist regions along a second fold line, which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis; wherein the second fold line lies between the first fold line and a front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region and/ or lies between the first fold line and a back waist edge of the absorbent core in the back waist region.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article package (Title), teaches a first fold FW1 (Fig. 1 – first widthwise folding line FW1) extending transversely across the crotch region A1 (Fig. 1 – region A1) along a first fold line FW1 (Fig. 1), which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis L (Fig. 1 – folding line FW1 is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L); and
further comprising a second fold FW2 (Fig. 1 – second widthwise direction folding line FW2) extending transversely across the front E1 (Fig. 1 – front end E1, and Fig. 5) and back regions E2 (Fig. 1 – back end E2, and Fig. 5) along a second fold line FW2 (Fig. 5 – folding line FW2 overlaps the front and back region E1 and E2 when the absorbent article is folded along the first folding line FW1), which is substantially perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis L (Fig. 5 – folding line FW2 is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction L);
wherein the second fold line FW2 (Fig. 1) lies between the first fold line FW1 (Fig. 1) and a front edge of the absorbent core 30 (see annotated Fig. 1 below – folding line FW2 is between the first folding line FW1 and the annotated front edge of absorber 30) in the front region E1 (Fig. 1 – front end E1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Surushe to further include a first and second fold as taught by Kato, in order to individually package the absorbent article in a compact size (Par. 43 of Kato). The size reduction of the absorbent article does not require a large storage space to occupy inside a bag (Par. 43 of Kato).
Regarding claim 12, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 11. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent article 10 (Fig. 1 of Surushe) comprises an acquisition and distribution system 38 (Fig. 1 of Surushe – acquisition material 38) at least partially positioned intermediate the absorbent core 30 (Fig. 1 of Surushe) and the topsheet 26 (Fig. 1 of Surushe, Par. 48 of Surushe – “one or more acquisition materials 38 may be present at least partially intermediate the topsheet 26 and the absorbent core 30”) and wherein the crotch region 14 (Fig. 1 of Surushe) at least partially comprises the acquisition and distribution system 38 (Fig. 1 of Surushe).
However, the combination does not disclose wherein the second fold line either corresponds to a front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region; and either corresponds to a back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system or lies between the front waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the front waist edge of the absorbent core in the front waist region and/ or lies between the back waist edge of the acquisition and distribution system and the back waist edge of the absorbent core in the back waist region.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the second fold line to so it was at one of the position claimed, since this claimed position of the second folding line does not change the its ability to provide a size reduction and storage capability of the absorbent article. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the second folding line disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 52, Par. 59, and Par. 60 of Applicant’s PG-PUB, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 13, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 11. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent core 30 (Fig. 11 of Surushe) comprises absorbent material comprising a blend of cellulose fibers and superabsorbent particles (Par. 38 of Surushe – “the absorbent material typically comprises superabsorbent particles which are optionally mixed with cellulose fibers”); and wherein the absorbent material is non-uniformly distributed at least in the direction of the longitudinal axis (Par. 45 of Surushe – “The basis weight (amount deposited per unit of surface) of the absorbent material may also be varied to create a profiled distribution of absorbent material, in particular in the longitudinal direction”).
Regarding claim 14, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 13. The combination further discloses wherein absorbent article the first fold line FW1 (Fig. 1 of Kato) divides the crotch region 14/A1 (Fig. 1 of Surushe, and Fig. 1 of Kato) into two parts of unequal length in the direction of the central longitudinal axis 50/L (Fig. 1 of Surushe, and Fig. 1 of Kato – the first fold line FW1 of Kato divides the absorbent article into a longer length including region A1+E1 and a shorter length E2).
Examiner notes that once the modification is made as discussed above, the first fold line FW1 of Kato will divide Surushe’s device into a longer length including region 12+14 and a shorter region 16.
Regarding claim 15, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 14. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fold line is closer to the front-end edge than to the back-end edge of the absorbent article.
Kato, in the same field of endeavor of absorbent article package (Title) and in another embodiment, teaches wherein the first fold line FW1 (Fig. 9B) is closer to the front-end edge 4A (Fig. 9B – front end 4A of absorbent article 4) than to the back-end edge 4B (Fig. 9B) of the absorbent article 4 (Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fold line of the combination to be closer to the front-end edge of the absorbent article, also as taught by Kato, as Kato teaches both embodiments. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the first fold line to so it was closer to the front-end edge of the absorbent article, since this claimed position of the first fold line does not change the its ability to provide a size reduction and storage capability of the absorbent article. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the first fold line disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 16, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 15. The combination further discloses wherein the absorbent article 10 (Fig. 1 of Surushe) further comprises an elastic waistband 36 (Fig. 1 – elastic waistband 36).
Regarding claim 17, Surushe in view of Kato discloses the invention of claim 1. The combination further discloses comprising a plurality of absorbent articles the form of diapers (Fig. 1 of Surushe) and/ or pants (Par. 53 of Surushe – “Each package may comprise a plurality of absorbent articles”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albino et al. US 2021/0298967 A1 teaches a folded absorbent article.
Sheehan US 2018/0289564 A1 teaches an absorbent article package.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH DAO LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/QUYNH DAO LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights