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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 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.
The term “a difficult-to-fuse material” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult-to-fuse” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maldonado et al. (2024/0315890) in view of Tagomori (2021/0322233).
With respect to claim 1, Maldonado discloses an individually packaged absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, in which an absorbent article 20 is individually packaged by a packaging sheet 80 made of a difficult-to-fuse material, as disclosed in paragraph [0073]. A sealing portion is formed by folding the packaging sheet 80 towards an inner surface 92 of the sheet in a first direction, as shown in figure 3, and sealing both edge portions of a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, as shown in figure 1. The sealing portion comprises a pressed portion formed by pressing the packaging sheet in a thickness direction, as disclosed in paragraph [0094]. A heat sealing agent 95 is applied in a predetermined pattern to at least a region corresponding to the sealing portion on the inner surface 92 of the packaging sheet, as shown in figure 6, wherein the pressed portion overlaps the heat sealing agent 95, as disclosed in paragraphs [0094] and [0104].
Maldonado discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the pressed portions comprising a plurality of pressed portions spaced apart in a surface direction. Tagomori discloses an individually packaged absorbent article packaged by a packaging sheet, as shown in figure 1. The packaging sheet is folded and sealed along its edge portions, as shown in figure 2. The sealing portion formed by folding the packaging sheet comprises a plurality of pressed portions SD which are spaced apart from each other in a surface direction, as shown in figures 5(a) and 5(b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sealing portion of Maldonado to comprise a plurality of spaced apart pressed portions, as taught by Tagomori, to apply a known technique to a known material to achieve the predictable result of a balanced seal strength to allow the seal to remain strong but be able to be opened during use.
With respect to claim 2, Maldonado remains silents as to a ratio of a total area of overlapping portions where the pressed portion overlaps the heat sealing agent to a total area of the pressed portions being 50-95%. Maldonado shows in figure 9D an embodiment in which the heat sealing agent 95 cover most, but not all, of the side edges that form the overlapping portions when the packaging sheet is folded along fold lines H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ratio of a total area of overlapping portions of Maldonado where the pressed portion overlaps the heat sealing agent of to a total area of the pressed portions 50-95%, to achieve the predictable result of heat sealing agent that covers most, but not all, of the overlapping portions, as desired by Maldonado.
With respect to claim 3, the difficult-to-fuse material of Maldonado is paper, as disclosed in paragraph [0073].
With respect to claim 5, Maldonado remains silent as to the application area ratio of the heat sealing agent in the packaging sheet being 40% or more, but shows in figure 9C an embodiment in which the heat sealing agent covers approximately half of the packaging sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an application area ratio of the heat sealing agent of Maldonado in the packaging sheet of 40% or more to achieve the predictable result of covering approximately half of the packaging sheet with heat sealing agent, as desired by Maldonado.
With respect to claim 6, at least any two adjacent pressed portions of Maldonado overlap the heat sealing agent 95, as shown in figure 9D.
With respect to claim 7, Maldonado shows in figure 8C that the heat sealing agent 95 is not applied to a region other than the region corresponding to the sealing portion, and therefore a basis weight of heat sealing agent 95 in a region other than the region corresponding to the sealing portion is smaller than a basis weight of the heat sealing agent 95 in the sealing portions because the basis weight of heat sealing agent in the other region is 0.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, Tagomori discloses a predetermined pattern of heat sealing SD is a dot pattern, as shown in figure 5(a), but does not disclose varying the size of the dots within the pattern, and therefore does not anticipate nor fairly suggest the claimed invention of a size-varying dot pattern of heat sealing agent.
With respect to claim 8, Maldonado discloses the individually packaged absorbent article includes a thin zone in which the packaging sheet 80 is folded into two sections and a thick zone where it is folded into three sections, as shown in figure 3. Maldonado is silent as to an application area ratio of heat sealing agent in the thick zone being smaller than an application area ratio of heat sealing agent in the thin zone. Maldonado does not disclose varying the application area ratio of heat sealing agent in different zones, and therefore does not anticipate nor fairly suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents 12,564,523; 12,303,371; 5,462,166; and 5,181,610 disclose individual packages for absorbent articles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
