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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 16, 21 and 29 have been amended. Claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 23 and 26 are cancelled. Claim 30 is new. Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 16-18, 20-22, 24-25 and 27-30 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to claim 29 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC §112(b) and the rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Claim 14 has been cancelled and the rejection under 35 USC §112(d) is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, applicant argues that Sillerstrom fails to disclose that the welded attachment zone has a first width at a first position and a second width at a second position, wherein said first width is larger than said second width and wherein the width of said welded attachment zone is measured perpendicular to a center line of the welded attachment zone and between the outer boundaries of the welded attachment zone. Applicant argues that that Sillerstrom does not measure the width between the outer boundaries of the welded attachment zone. However, as illustrated in annotated fig. 3, such first and second widths are between the outer boundaries of the welded attachment zone. It can be seen in annotated fig. 3 that at the outer left boundary, there is no weld, and it is therefore an outer boundary. Applicant argues Sillerstrom discloses a welded attachment zone of constant width. Illustrated below is the outer boundaries of the welded attachment zone of Sillerstrom. Accordingly, Sillerstrom discloses a first width at a first position larger than a second width at a second position.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, applicant argues that Sillerstrom fails to indicate an elongate channel zone with a variable width, and of which both sides are adjacent to absorbent material. However, claim 21 requires welded attachment zone to have a varying width, not the elongated channel zone. Thus, such limitation of an elongated channel zone having a variable width is not required by claim 21. Further, Sillerstrom discloses first and second sidewalls adjacent absorbent material.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Roe fails to disclose the channels varying in width. While fig. 6 of Roe illustrates channels having a constant width, Roe discloses varying widths as a possible embodiment (¶ 0087).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
While claim 1 of the present application aims to improve targeted liquid distribution and absorption capacity, Ehrnsperger teaches that such folding can improve fit and reduce leakage (¶ 0002). Thus, the absorbent core of Ehrnsperger similarly aims to target liquid distribution and absorption capacity such that liquid is distributed and absorbed into the basin and does not leak from the core.
Applicant argues that the combination of Roe and Ehrnsperger would not result in the claimed structure and that Ehrnsperger teaches away. However, as discussed in the rejection below, Ehrnsperger teaches the wider first position and narrower second position. Further, such placement of the first and second positions result in the ability to form the folded basin and result in reduced leakage (abstract, ¶ 0002).
Further, Roe discloses that the elongated channel zone is entirely surrounded by the absorbent material. Ehrnsperger is not relied upon to teach such limitation.
Accordingly, claim 1 remains obvious over Roe in view of Ehrnsperger.
Regarding claim 22, applicant argues that Roe does not teach a channel that originates in the crotch region and terminates in the front. However, as discussed below, Roe teaches this as a possible embodiment. Further, the combination of Roe in view of Ehrnsperger results in the claimed ends of the channels, and the ends having different widths.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above with respect to claim 22, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose the claimed ends of the channels.
Regarding claim 5, Roe discloses that the ends of the channels are surrounded by absorbent material, as discussed below.
Regarding claim 7, applicant argues that Roe and Ehrnsperger, alone or in combination, do not teach the distance to be at least 40% of the length of the absorbent core. However, as discussed below, Roe suggests such limitation.
Regarding claim 16, applicant argues that both Roe and Ehrnsperger teach symmetrical designs. However, as discussed below, Roe discloses that the channel can extend from the crotch region to the front region. Thus, Roe discloses an asymmetrical design with respect to a transversal center line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sillerstrom et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0352799 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Sillerstrom discloses (fig. 1-3, annotated fig. 3) an absorbent core (5) comprising an absorbent material (absorbent components 5a, 5b, 5c) between a top core wrap sheet (upper core cover side 11) and a back core wrap sheet (lower core cover side 12) (¶ 0048), said absorbent core having a first and second longitudinal edge (first side edge 17 and second side edge 18, ¶ 0053, fig. 1) and a first and second transverse edge (see side seams 15, 16, ¶ 0053, fig. 1), wherein the absorbent core is provided with at least a first elongated channel zone (first channel 13) having a bottom (fig. 2) and a first and second sidewall (fig. 1-2, ¶ 0050), wherein each of the first and second sidewall is adjacent said absorbent material (¶ 0050),
Wherein the bottom of the elongated channel zone corresponds to a welded attachment zone (first channel sealing 9, ¶ 0053) where the top wrap sheet is welded to the back core wrap sheet (fig. 2) according to a predetermined sealing pattern (welding pattern 23) comprising a plurality of discrete shapes (welding spots 24) (¶ 0089);
Wherein said welded attachment zone has a first width at a first position and a second width at a second position; wherein said first width is larger than said second width (annotated fig. 3);
Wherein said plurality of discrete shapes have dimensions in the range of between 0.5 and 3.0 mm (¶ 0090) which falls within the claimed range of 0.5 mm and 5 mm and
Wherein the welded attachment zone is elongated in longitudinal direction of the absorbent core (fig. 1) and wherein the width of the welded attachment zone is measured perpendicular to a center line of the welded attachment zone between the outer boundaries of the welded attachment zone (annotated fig. 3).
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sillerstrom annotated fig. 3
Regarding claim 29, Sillerstrom discloses wherein the sealing pattern consists of a plurality of discrete shapes in the form of rounded elements (fig. 3) having a length dimension between 1-6 mm (¶ 0090) which falls within the claimed range of between 0.5-5 mm, and a width dimension between 0.5-3.0 mm (¶ 0090) which falls within the claimed range of between 0.5 and 5 mm.
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 30, Sillerstrom discloses wherein said absorbent material is disposed adjacent the elongated channel zone such that, as seen from a top view, the elongated channel zone is entirely surrounded by said absorbent material (¶ 0050, fig. 1-2).
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.
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, 4-5, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 22, 24-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0058630 A1) in view of Ehrnsperger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0235595 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roe discloses (fig. 1-2, 6, annotated fig. 6) an absorbent core (28) having a length (fig. 6), the absorbent core comprising an absorbent material (60) between a top core wrap sheet and a back core wrap sheet (substrates 16, 16’) (¶ 0034), said absorbent core having a first (longitudinal side 284) and second longitudinal edge (longitudinal side 286) and a first (front side 280) and second transverse edge (rear side 282) (¶ 0047),
Wherein the first transverse edge is intended to be positioned at a front side of a person, and the second transverse edge is a rear edge intended to be positioned at a rear side of a person (first transverse is front side 280 and second transverse edge is rear side 282, ¶ 0047);
Wherein the absorbent core has a front portion near said front edge (see portion corresponding to front waist region 5), a rear portion near said rear edge (see portion corresponding to rear waist region 6) and a crotch portion in between said front portion and said rear portion (see portion corresponding to crotch region 7) (fig. 1);
Wherein the crotch portion constitutes about 50% of the length of the absorbent core (fig. 6);
Wherein the absorbent core is provided with an elongated channel zone (see zone characterized by channel 26);
Wherein said elongated channel zone is formed by an elongated attachment zone where the front core wrap sheet is attached to the back core wrap sheet (¶ 0079) and wherein substantially no absorbent material is present at the elongated attachment zone between the top core wrap sheet and the back core wrap sheet (¶ 0079);
Wherein said elongated attachment zone has a length that is larger than 30% of the length of the absorbent core (fig. 6) and
Wherein said elongated attachment zone has a first width at a first position and a second width at a second position (annotated fig. 6);
Wherein the second position is in the crotch region and wherein the first position is in the front portion of the absorbent core (annotated fig. 6);
Wherein the width and the length are measured between outer boundaries of the elongated attachment zone (see length L’ and width Wc, fig. 6, ¶ 0079, ¶ 0087); and
Wherein the elongated attachment zone is formed by a continuous attachment (¶ 0079);
Wherein said absorbent material is disposed adjacent said elongated channel zone such that, as seen from a top view, the elongated channel zone is entirely surrounded by absorbent material (¶ 0079, fig. 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Roe annotated fig. 6
While Roe discloses that the width of the elongated attachment zone may vary (¶ 0087), Roe fails to disclose wherein the first width is 10% larger than the second width.
Ehrnsperger teaches (fig. 1-2, annotated fig. 1) an absorbent core (28) and thus in the same field of endeavor, wherein the absorbent core is provided with an elongated channel zone (folding guide 1), wherein said elongated channel zone is formed by an elongated attachment zone where a top core wrap sheet (top layer 16) is attached to a back core wrap sheet (bottom layer 16’) (fig. 2, ¶ 0037) and wherein substantially no absorbent material is present at the elongated attachment zone between the top core wrap sheet and the back core wrap sheet (fig. 2, ¶ 0037);
Wherein said elongated attachment zone has a first width at a first position (maximum width D, annotated fig. 1) and a second width at a second position (minimum width d, annotated fig. 1) (¶ 0037),
Wherein the first width is larger than the second width (annotated fig. 1, ¶ 0037).
While Ehrnsperger fails to teach that the first width is 10% larger than the second width, Ehrnsperger teaches that the folding guide is shaped to facilitate the folding of the absorbent core so that the core forms a three-dimensional shape similar to a basin (¶ 0037). Thus, Ehrnsperger teaches that the shape, and thus first and second widths, are a result-effective variable and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongated attachment zone of Roe such that it has the shape of Ehrnsperger and such that the first width is 10% larger than the second width in order facilitate folding of the absorbent core so that the core forms three-dimensional shape similar to a basin (Ehrnsperger, ¶ 0037).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ehrnsperger annotated fig. 1
Regarding claim 4, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose wherein the width of said elongated attachment zone increases from the second position to the first position (Ehrnsperger fig. 1).
Roe discloses that the channel may extend from the crotch region or may be present in the front waist region and/or in the rear waist region (¶ 0080). Thus, Roe discloses wherein the first position is at a longitudinal outermost end of the elongated attachment zone and the second position is at a second longitudinal outermost end of the elongated attachment zone (the elongated attachment zone extending from front waist region to the crotch region).
Regarding claim 5, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose wherein the width of said elongated attachment zone is measured perpendicular to a center line of the elongated attachment zone; preferably the center line of the channel zone is a straight line, or a curve or a polyline (see Ehrnsperger fig. 1, center line is a curve); and wherein the first longitudinal outermost and the second longitudinal outermost ends are surrounded by absorbent material (fig. 6, ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 7, Roe fails to disclose wherein the distance between the first position at the first longitudinal outermost end and the second position at the second longitudinal outermost end, as measured along a center line of the channel zone is larger than 40% of the length of the absorbent core.
However, Roe discloses that the distance between the first position at the first longitudinal outermost end and the second position at the second longitudinal outermost end, as measured along a center line of the channel zone is larger than 10% of the length of an article (¶ 0079), thus the distance between the first position at the first longitudinal outermost end and the second position at the second longitudinal outermost end, as measured along a center line of the channel zone will fall within the range of larger than 10% of the length of the absorbent core, wherein the distance being larger than 10% of the length of the core falls within the claimed range of larger than 40% of the length of the absorbent core.
In this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed in the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the first position and at the first longitudinal outermost end and the second position at the second longitudinal outermost end, as measured along a center line of the channel zone of Roe such that it is larger than 40% of the length of the absorbent core, as suggested by Roe, in order to provide a channel of sufficient length that improves leakage prevention (¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 10, Roe discloses wherein said channel zone has a third width at a third position (annotated fig. 6), wherein the second position is located between the first position and the third position (annotated fig. 6), wherein said third position is in the rear portion (fig. 1, annotated fig. 6).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the elongated attachment zone of Roe such that it has the shape of Ehrnsperger. Thus, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose wherein the third width is larger than the second width, and the width of the attachment zone increases from the second position to the third position (Ehrnsperger annotated fig. 1).
Regarding the limitation “wherein said channel zone is configured for liquid distribution”, such limitation relates to the function of the system. Since the elongated channel zone of Roe comprises a channel identical to the channel as claimed, it must necessarily function in the identical manner.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Regarding claim 16, Roe discloses wherein the elongated attachment zone is asymmetrical with respect to a transversal centre line of the article (the channel may extend from the crotch region or may be present in the front waist region and/or in the rear waist region ¶ 0080); wherein a contour of said elongated attachment zone is adjacent to absorbent material (fig. 1-2, ¶ 0084), wherein the elongated attachment zone is formed by a continuous attachment zone (¶ 0079); and wherein the absorbent material is present along the whole contour of the elongated attachment zone (fig. 6, ¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 17, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose the absorbent core according to claim 1. Roe discloses an absorbent article (diaper 20) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24) and a liquid impervious backsheet (25) (¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 18, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose wherein the first width and the second width is between 1 mm and 20 mm (Ehrnsperger ¶ 0040) which falls within the claimed range of at least 3 mm and at least 2 mm.
“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (see MPEP §2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 20, Roe discloses wherein said elongated attachment zone having first and second width is a permanent attachment zone which remains attached when wetted (¶ 0088).
Regarding claim 22, Roe discloses (fig. 1-2, 6, annotated fig. 6) an absorbent core (28) comprising an absorbent material (60) between a top core wrap sheet and a back core wrap sheet (substrates 16, 16’) (¶ 0034), said absorbent core having a first (longitudinal side 284) and second longitudinal edge (longitudinal side 286) and a first (front side 280) and second transverse edge (rear side 282) (¶ 0047), wherein the absorbent core is provided with an elongated channel (channel 26) having a center line (fig. 6),
Wherein said elongated channel zone has
A first width at a first position that is a first end of said channel zone (annotated fig. 6) and
A second width at a second position (annotated fig. 6) that is at a second end of the channel zone (the channel may extend from the crotch region or may be present in the front waist region and/or in the rear waist region, ¶ 0080 and can thus end in the crotch region);
Wherein said first width and said second width of said channel zone are measured perpendicular to the center line of said channel zone (fig. 6); and
Wherein the elongated channel zone is formed by a continuous attachment zone with substantially no absorbent material present between the top core wrap sheet and the back core wrap sheet (¶ 0079);
Wherein the first transverse edge is intended to be positioned at a front side of a person, and the second transverse edge is a rear edge intended to be positioned at a rear side of a person (first transverse is front side 280 and second transverse edge is rear side 282, ¶ 0047);
Wherein the absorbent core has a front portion near said front edge (see portion corresponding to front waist region 5), a rear portion near said rear edge (see portion corresponding to rear waist region 6) and a crotch portion in between said front portion and said rear portion (see crotch region 7) (fig. 1);
Wherein the second position is in the crotch portion of the absorbent core (annotated fig. 6) and
Wherein the first position is in the front of the absorbent core (annotated fig. 6).
Roe fails to disclose wherein the width of said channel zone increases from the second position to the first position such that the first width is larger than the second width.
Ehrnsperger teaches (fig. 1, annotated fig. 1) an absorbent core (28) and thus in the same field of endeavor, wherein the absorbent core is provided with an elongated channel zone (folding guide 1), wherein said elongated channel zone is formed by a continuous attachment zone with substantially no absorbent material present between a front core wrap sheet (top layer 16) and a back core wrap sheet (bottom layer 16’) (fig. 2, ¶ 0037); Wherein said elongated attachment zone has a first width at a first position (maximum width D, annotated fig. 1) and a second width at a second position (minimum width d, annotated fig. 1) (¶ 0037), wherein the width of said channel increases from said second position to said first position such that the first width is larger than the second width (annotated fig. 1, ¶ 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify elongated channel zone of Roe such that the width of said channel zone increases from the second position to the first position such that the first width is larger than the second width, as taught by Ehrnsperger, in order facilitate folding of the absorbent core so that the core forms three-dimensional shape similar to a basin (Ehrnsperger, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 24, Roe discloses wherein the absorbent core is provided with a further elongated channel zone (channel 26’), wherein said elongated channel zone and said further elongated channel zone extend next to each other from the crotch portion in the direction of the first and/or second transverse edge (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, Roe discloses (fig. 19) wherein the elongated channel zone is connected to the further elongated channel zone through at least one semi- permanent channel zone (see channel 37, channels may be semi-permanent ¶ 0088), preferably extending in a transverse direction (fig. 19).
Regarding the limitation “wherein said semi-permanent channel zone connects the elongated channel zone and the further elongated channel zone so as to allow a liquid mass flow between the elongated channel zone and the further elongated channel zone”, such limitation relates to the function of the system. Since the absorbent article of Roe comprises a semi-permanent channel zone that connects the elongated channel zone and the further elongated channel zone is identical to the channel configuration as claimed, it must necessarily function in the identical manner.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Regarding claim 27, Roe discloses (annotated fig. 6) wherein a contour of the elongated attachment zone is adjacent to absorbent material (¶ 0079) and wherein said elongated attachment zone is continuous to allow liquid distribution throughout the elongated channel zone (¶ 0079);
Wherein the first position is at a first end of the attachment zone (annotated fig. 6) and
Wherein the channel zone has a third width at a third position (annotated fig. 6),
Wherein the third position is at a second end of the attachment zone (annotated fig. 6),
Wherein the second position is located between the first position and the third position (annotated fig. 6).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the elongated attachment zone of Roe such that it has the shape of Ehrnsperger. Thus, Roe in view of Ehrnsperger disclose wherein the third width is larger than the second width (Ehrnsperger annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Roe teaches (fig. 19, annotated fig. 19) wherein the elongated channel zone is connected to the further elongated channel zone through at least a permanent or semi-permanent attached channel zone as a bridge zone (channel 37, ¶ 0088), wherein said bridge zone connects the elongated channel zone (fig. fig. 19), wherein the bridge zone connects the second position of the elongated channel zone to the second position of the further elongated channel zone (fig. 19), wherein said further elongated channel has a further first width at a further first position in the front region and a further second width at a further second position in the crotch region (annotated fig. 19).
PNG
media_image5.png
638
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Roe annotated fig. 19
Regarding the limitation “wherein said bridge zone allows a liquid mass flow between the elongated channel zone and the further elongated channel zone”, such limitation relates to the function of the system. Since the absorbent article of Roe comprises a bridge zone that connects the elongated channel zone and the further elongated channel zone is identical to the channel configuration as claimed, it must necessarily function in the identical manner.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Roe in view of Ehrnsperger fail to disclose wherein the first further width is larger than the further second width.
Ehrnsperger teaches (annotated fig. 1b) a further elongated channel (folding guide 262), wherein said further elongated channel zone has a further first width at a first position and a further second width at a further second position, wherein the first width is larger than the second width (annotated fig. 1b, ¶ 0037).
PNG
media_image6.png
359
756
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ehrnsperger annotated fig. 1b
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the further elongated channel of Roe in view of Ehrnsperger such that the first further width is larger than the further second width, as taught by Ehrnsperger, in order facilitate folding of the absorbent core so that the core forms three-dimensional shape similar to a basin (Ehrnsperger, ¶ 0037).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-22 under 35 USC §102 and claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 14, 16-18, 20, 24-25, 27-29 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Roe in view of newly cited art Ehrnsperger and newly cited Sillerstrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackels (Pub. No.: US 2015/0342798 A1) discloses an absorbent core having an elongated channel zone. Ehrnsperger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0235594 A1) discloses an absorbent core having an elongated channel zone.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781