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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on April 8, 2026 wherein no claim(s) were amended, canceled, or new. Examiner notes Applicant’s arguments traversing claim(s) rejections under 35 USC § 103. Therefore, claim(s) 1-4 are pending and will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20070244454A1) hereinafter FUJIKAWA, in view of Suga (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20030065300A1) hereinafter SUGA, in further view of Joseph et al. (U. S. Patent US6015045A) hereinafter JOSEPH.
Regarding claim 1, FUJIKAWA teaches (see FIG. 1A - FIG. 1C, FIG. 4 - FIG. 5, FIG. 11A - FIG. 11B, FIG. 12 below) an individually-wrapped absorbent article 1, comprising:
a wrapping sheet including paper 2; and
an absorbent article 4 individually wrapped with the wrapping sheet 2.
FUJIKAWA further teaches exposed surface F11B-01 has a deviation of a mean coefficient of friction of 0.050 or less before printing (page 27, para. [0094], lines 1-4, “… 0.03 to 0.06 …”).
FUJIKAWA fails to teach printing is provided on an exposed surface F11B-01 of the wrapping sheet 2, which is exposed when the wrapping sheet 2 individually wraps the absorbent article 4.
FUJIKAWA fails to teach exposed surface F11B-01 after the printing has a coefficient of static friction of 0.60 or greater against an exposed surface F11B-01 of another individually-wrapped absorbent article 1.
However, SUGA teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A - Fig. 2B below) an individually packaged body fluid absorbent article 1, wherein printing 26, 27 is provided on an exposed surface S2A-01 of the wrapping sheet 21, which is exposed when the wrapping sheet 21 individually wraps the absorbent article 10 for ease of use.
However, JOSEPH teaches (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7 below) a dispensing package 10, wherein an exposed surface 34 after the printing (page 8, col. 5, lines 37-39, “… printing …”) has a coefficient of static friction against an exposed surface 34 of another dispensing package 10 for ease of handling.
JOSEPH fails to teach coefficient of static friction of 0.60 or greater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified exposed surface F11B-01 in the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 of FUJIKAWA with exposed surface S2A-01 as taught in the individually packaged body fluid absorbent article 1 of SUGA for ease of use.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified exposed surface F11B-01 in the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 of FUJIKAWA, and SUGA with exposed surface 34 as taught in the dispensing package 10 of JOSEPH for ease of handling.
Henceforth, it would have been a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified coefficient of static friction (i.e., being 0.60 or greater) in the exposed surface F11B-01 of FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH since the recited range is regarded as result effective variable. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
PNG
media_image1.png
936
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1031
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
759
295
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
901
398
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
823
375
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
901
521
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
890
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
868
387
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
518
783
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
889
396
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
889
392
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
574
527
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
262
914
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of FUJIKAWA (see FIG. 1A - FIG. 1C, FIG. 4 - FIG. 5, FIG. 11A - FIG. 11B, FIG. 12 above), SUGA (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A - Fig. 2B above), and JOSEPH (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7 above) fails to teach individually-wrapped absorbent article 1, wherein a blending ratio of recycled fibers in the wrapping sheet 2 is 20% or greater.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wrapping sheet 2 in the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 of FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH with a blending ratio of recycled fibers of 20% or greater to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of FUJIKAWA (see FIG. 1A - FIG. 1C, FIG. 4 - FIG. 5, FIG. 11A - FIG. 11B, FIG. 12 above), SUGA (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A - Fig. 2B above), and JOSEPH (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7 above) fails to teach individually-wrapped absorbent article 1, wherein the wrapping sheet 2 includes fiber bundles.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wrapping sheet 2 in the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 of FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH to include includes fiber bundles to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, FUJIKAWA, SUGA, and JOSEPH (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of FUJIKAWA (see FIG. 1A - FIG. 1C, FIG. 4 - FIG. 5, FIG. 11A - FIG. 11B, FIG. 12 above), SUGA (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2A - Fig. 2B above), and JOSEPH (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7 above) further teaches [albeit with different phraseology] a production method for a packaged product in which the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 is encased in a package, the production method comprising:
printing on the wrapping sheet 2;
placing the absorbent article 4 on the wrapping sheet 2,
folding over the wrapping sheet 2 in a manner such that a surface of the wrapping sheet 2, which is printed, is exposed, to wrap the absorbent article 4 with the wrapping sheet 2 to produce the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1; and
stacking the individually-wrapped absorbent article 1 with one or more individually-wrapped absorbent articles 1 and
encasing the stacked individually-wrapped absorbent article 1s in the package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections of standing claim(s) 1-4 in reply of April 8, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument against obviousness combination of FUJIKAWA, SUGA, JOSEPH wherein --mean coefficient of friction of 0.050 or less before printing, and the exposed surface after the printing has a coefficient of static friction of 0.60 or greater-- [claim 1, line(s) 6-8] is not persuasive. FUJIKAWA teaches --coefficient of friction-- reduces by using specific substances (i.e., “silicone process”, page 27, para. [0093]) during manufacture, hence --coefficient of friction-- is a design parameter. SUGA primarily makes obvious (Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B) presence of --printing is provided on an exposed surface-- [claim 1, line(s) 4] as a variant in the arts. In turn, JOSEPH describes --coefficient of friction-- being effected by --printing-- (printing (page 8, col. 5, lines 37-39, “… printing …”). Thus, prior art combination makes obvious by routine experimentation a --static friction of 0.60 or greater-- as noted in 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. More explicit structure and functional language could be added to the claims to overcome FUJIKAWA, SUGA, JOSEPH as long as the functional language and structure is enabled and does not introduce new matter.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hasezawa et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2021153917A): Teaches a “packaging” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Tomita et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2020196541A): Teaches a “package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Sumiya et al. (Japan Patent Application Publication JP2007097923A): Teaches a “package” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights