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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimoe et al. JP H1199169 A (hereinafter Shimoe), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Shimoe discloses an absorbent sheet 1 (Fig. 1 – liquid absorptive article/panty liner 1) comprising:
a base sheet 3 (Fig. 2 – liquid impermeable back sheet 3);
a plurality of absorbent layers 10 (Fig. 2 – mutually parallel tubular parts 10) disposed with spacing d2 (Fig. 2) in between on a main surface 8 (Fig. 2 – inner surface 8) of the base sheet 3 (Fig. 3) and containing a superabsorbent polymer resin 4 (Fig. 4 – liquid absorbent material 4, and Par. 13 in the provided translation – “the liquid absorbent material 4 contains… superabsorbent polymer particles…”); and
a covering sheet 2 (Fig. 2 – topsheet 2) covering the main surface 8 (Fig. 2) of the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) and the absorbent layers 10 (Fig. 2),
wherein when the superabsorbent polymer resin 4 (Fig. 2) in the absorbent layers 10 (Fig. 2) swells (Par. 17 in the provided translation – “In the panty liner 1 configured in this way, when the superabsorbent polymer swells due to absorption of body fluid and the liquid absorbent material 4 fills the tubular portion 10…”), the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) is more easily deformed than the covering sheet 2 (Fig. 2, and Par. 17 in the provided translation – “In the panty liner 1 configured in this way, when the superabsorbent polymer swells due to absorption of body fluid and the liquid absorbent material 4 fills the tubular portion 10, the backsheet 3 having a relatively small extension stress forms a virtual line in Fig. 2. The topsheet 2 is non-stretchable sheet that does not substantially stretch even when the backsheet 3 stretches…”).
Regarding claim 2, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. Shimoe further discloses wherein when the superabsorbent polymer resin 4 (Fig. 2) in the absorbent layers 10 (Fig. 2) swells (Par. 17 in the provided translation – “In the panty liner 1 configured in this way, when the superabsorbent polymer swells due to absorption of body fluid and the liquid absorbent material 4 fills the tubular portion 10…”), the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) is compressed in a thickness direction (Fig. 2) and deformed (Fig. 2, and Par. 17 in the provided translation – “In the panty liner 1 configured in this way, when the superabsorbent polymer swells due to absorption of body fluid and the liquid absorbent material 4 fills the tubular portion 10, the backsheet 3 having a relatively small extension stress…”).
Regarding claim 3, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. Shimoe further discloses wherein the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) has a lower rebound than the covering sheet 2 (Fig. 2, and Par. 14-15 – “the topsheet 2… is substantially non-stretchable…” and “the backsheet 3 is a sheet of rubber, elastomer, or the like that is elastically expandable…”, thus indicating that the backsheet 3 has lower resilience than the topsheet 2, since stretchable material has lower resilience than non-stretchable material).
Regarding claim 4, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. Shimoe further discloses wherein the covering sheet 2 (Fig. 2) is bonded to an area 11 (Fig. 2 – zone 11) of the main surface 8 (Fig. 2) of the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) where the superabsorbent polymer resin 4 (Fig. 2) is substantially absent (Fig. 2, and Par. 16 in the provided translation – “joining the topsheet 2 and the backsheet 3 in the zone 11”).
Regarding claim 6, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. Shimoe further discloses wherein the base sheet 3 (Fig. 2) has a bulky structure (Par. 12 in the provided translation – “repreats ups and downs in the width direction… to form a correguated structure”) where pores are formed between fibers (Examiner contends that stretchable backsheet 3 inherently possess a level of porosity in its elastomeric material).
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoe.
Regarding claim 5, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Shimoe does not currently disclose wherein the lateral stress on the base sheet at 5% swelling is lower than the lateral stress on the covering sheet at 5% swelling.
Meanwhile, Shimoe discusses in Par. 17 in the provided translation that, “the topsheet 2 is non-stretchable sheet that does not substantially stretch even when the backsheet 3 stretches, and maintain a flat state even when the superabsorbent polymer swells. There is almost no change in the state of contact with the skin”. According to said disclosure, the lateral stress would have been considered a result-effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, because the base sheet 3 can only stretch in the thickness direction when there is an initial lateral stretch to the material of base sheet 3, thereby accommodating the volume increase of liquid absorbing material 4 while the topsheet 2 maintains the same. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the lateral stress on the base sheet at 5% swelling is lower than the lateral stress on the covering sheet at 5% swelling” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the lateral stress on the base sheet at 5% swelling is lower than the lateral stress on the covering sheet at 5% swelling in the device of Shimoe to obtain the desired stretchable effect of topsheet and non-stretchable, flat effect of the base sheet, as taught by Shimoe (Par. 17 and Par. 21 in the provided translation) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 8, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Shimoe does not disclose wherein the thickness of the covering sheet is equal to the thickness of the base sheet or is smaller than the thickness of the base sheet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the thickness of the covering sheet is equal to the thickness of the base sheet or is smaller than the thickness of the base sheet, in order to fit the particular procedure being done since this claimed dimension of the sheets does not change their ability to form an absorbent article with various stretchability throughout the layers. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (Par. 39 of Applicant’s Specification), 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoe evidenced by Hashino et al. US 2018/0098895 A1 (hereinafter Hashino), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Shimoe discloses the invention of claim 6. However, Shimoe does not disclose wherein the bulk density of the bulky structure of the base sheet is lower than the bulk density of the covering sheet.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the technological capability to recognize and reasonably deduce that the stretchable base sheet will have a bulk density lower than that of the covering sheet, especially in the bulk structure, since evidentiary reference Hashino discusses that lower fiber densities and are softer than the second bottom sections which have the highest fiber density (Par. 12), they more readily deform than the second bottom sections and readily follow movement (Par. 14). In other words, stretchability requires lower bulk density. Thus, the limitation is met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stiehl et al. US 2021/0015687 A1 teaches core materials that can withstand swelling pressures and prevent migrating to contact user’s skin.
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
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights