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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willhaus et al (US 2017/0079858).
With reference to claim 1, Willhaus et al. (hereinafter “Willhaus”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24), a liquid impervious backsheet (25), and an absorbent core (28) positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet and the liquid impervious backsheet [0007-0009];
said absorbent article having a first and second longitudinal edge and a first and second transverse edge (figure 1);
wherein the absorbent core comprises a bottom core wrap sheet (16’),
absorbent material (60), and
a liquid management structure (16),
wherein the absorbent material is positioned directly between the bottom core wrap sheet and the liquid management structure (figures 4a-4b);
wherein the liquid management structure (16) is positioned directly between the absorbent material and the liquid pervious topsheet (figure 2); and
wherein the liquid management structure covers an upper surface portion of the of the absorbent material and comprises at least one channel portion (27) forming at least one channel zone in the absorbent core ( figures 4a and 4b), wherein the liquid management structure has a grammage of at least 20 g/m2 as set forth in [0090] where Willhaus incorporates Kirby et al. (US 2014/0121623). It is noted that Willhaus recognizes that the core wrap may be formed entirely by layers having an additional function, including an acquisition layer as set forth in [0042].
Kirby et al. (hereinafter “Kirby”) discloses the fluid transfer layer having a grammage of at least 20 g/m2 as set forth in [0114]. It is also noted that while Kirby recites a fluid transfer layer, the layer functions identically to that of core wrap layer where Kirby specifically recites that the fluid transfer layer may be composed of separate sheets of material which can be utilized to partially or fully encompass the absorbent body as set forth in [0110].
As to claim 2, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein any one of the following conditions or any combination thereof is fulfilled at the at least one channel zone: less absorbent material is present as compared to other regions of the absorbent core, substantially no absorbent material is present, the liquid management structure is attached to the bottom core wrap sheet as shown in figures 4a-4b.
Regarding claim 3, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the at least one channel portion is a connecting portion, which is attached to the bottom core wrap sheet, and wherein the at least one channel zone is an attachment zone where the liquid management structure is attached to the bottom core wrap sheet as set forth in [0078].
With reference to claim 5, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure is essentially free of spunbond nonwoven material as set forth in [0042].
Regarding claim 7, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure is in contact with an upper surface portion of the absorbent material as shown in figures 4a-4b.
With respect to claim 8, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure extends over substantially an entire upper surface of the absorbent material as shown in figures 4a-4b.
As to claim 11, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the at least one channel zone, in particular the at least one attachment zone is formed by heat-sealing the at least one portion of the liquid management structure to the bottom core wrap sheet as set forth in [0078].
With reference to claim 12, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure comprises a liquid acquisition layer and/or a liquid distribution layer (54) as set forth in figure 1.
Regarding claim 13, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein in the at least one channel zone substantially no absorbent material is present between the liquid management structure and the bottom core wrap sheet as shown in figures 4a-4b.
As to claim 14, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the at least one channel zone extends from a crotch region in the direction of the first and/or second transverse edge of the absorbent core, and/or the at least one channel zone extends in the direction from the first longitudinal edge to the second longitudinal edge of the absorbent core as shown in figure 1.
As to claim 16, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the at least one channel zone, in particular the at least one attachment zone formed by the liquid management structure and the bottom core wrap comprises a permanent attachment, which is configured to remain attached when the absorbent material swells upon wetting; and/or wherein the at least one channel zone, in particular the at least one attachment zone formed by the liquid management structure and the bottom core wrap comprises a semi-permanent attachment, which is configured to release when the absorbent material swells upon wetting as set forth in [0056]
With reference to claim 18, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24), a liquid impervious backsheet (25), and an absorbent core (28) positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet and the liquid impervious backsheet [0007-0009]; and
a liquid management structure (16),
said absorbent article having a first and second longitudinal edge and a first and second transverse edge (figure 1);
wherein the absorbent core comprises absorbent material (60), and
wherein the absorbent material is positioned directly between the bottom core wrap sheet and the liquid management structure (figures 4a-4b);
wherein the absorbent material is positioned in direct contact with the liquid management structure (figure 2); and
wherein the liquid management structure (16) covers an upper surface portion of the absorbent material and comprises at least one channel portion (27) forming at least one channel zone in the absorbent core as shown (figures 4a and 4b), wherein the liquid management structure has a grammage of at least 20 g/m2 as set forth in [0090] where Willhaus incorporates Kirby et al. (US 2014/0121623). It is noted that Willhaus recognizes that the core wrap may be formed entirely by layers having an additional function, including an acquisition layer as set forth in [0042].
Kirby discloses the fluid transfer layer having a grammage of at least 20 g/m2 as set forth in [0114]. It is also noted that while Kirby recites a fluid transfer layer, the layer functions identically to that of core wrap layer where Kirby specifically recites that the fluid transfer layer may be composed of separate sheets of material which can be utilized to partially or fully encompass the absorbent body as set forth in [0110].
With reference to claims 19 and 21, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure comprises at least one of a carded nonwoven material with a grammage of at least 15 gsm, a meltblown nonwoven material with a grammage of at least 15 gsm or a spunbond nonwoven material with a grammage of at least 15 gsm as set forth in [0042].
Regarding claim 20, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article wherein the liquid management structure comprises synthetic fibers or cellulosic fibers or a combination of synthetic and cellulosic fibers as set forth in [0042].
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus et al (US 2017/0079858).
With reference to claims 9-10, Willhaus teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As best understood, the difference between Willhaus and claims 9-10 is the provision that the liquid management structure and/or absorbent core have a specific surface area ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the ratio of the liquid management structure in relation to the core in order to provide for a product with the desired absorbency characteristics based on the intended product (i.e., baby diaper, infant diaper, adult diaper, etc) as taught by Willhaus in [0041-0042].
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus et al (US 2017/0079858) and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2016/0206483).
With reference to claim 15, Willhaus teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Willhaus and claim 15 is the provision that the second channel zone extends in the transversal direction of the absorbent core in between the first and second longitudinal edge.
Nishikawa et al. (hereinafter “Nishikawa”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including longitudinal and transverse channels as claimed as shown in figure 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Willhaus with transverse channels as taught by Nishikawa in order to enable the structure to conform more readily the wearer thereby reducing undesirable leakage as taught by Nishikawa in [0089].
With reference to claim 17, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article with at least one continuous channel zone as shown in figure 1.
The difference between Willhaus and claim 17 is the provision that the absorbent core comprises a bridge zone extending between a front and rear channel with a minimum distance between the front and rear channel.
Nishikawa teaches an analogous absorbent article including bridge zone as claimed as shown in annotated figure 19 below.[AltContent: textbox (bridge zone)][AltContent: textbox (rear channel)][AltContent: textbox (front channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
789
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishikawa also teaches the claimed distances between channels as set forth in [0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Willhaus with the channels as taught by Nishikawa in order to enable the structure to conform more readily the wearer thereby reducing undesirable leakage as taught by Nishikawa in [0084] and [0089].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, applicant argues that the Final Office Action mailed December 19, 2026 is improper and requests withdrawal.
The request is considered improper in view of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed April 1, 2025.
The Non Final Rejection mailed April 10, 2025 in response to the RCE contained a typographical error continuing to address claim 4 separately. However, the merits of the claim continued to remain valid as the limitations of claim 4 were added to independent claim 1 and both claims were addressed.
It is also noteworthy to mention that applicant’s response of October 9, 2025 to the Non Final Rejection mailed April 10, 2025 does not address the typographical error and also erroneously recites that claims 1-5 are pending.
The language recited in the rejection of claim 1, while not verbatim to the claim language, encompasses the limitations of the claim and is considered valid.
Applicant is reminded:
Where an Office action contains an error that affects applicant’s ability to reply to the Office action and this error is called to the attention of the Office within 1 month of the mail date of the action, the Office will restart the previously set period for reply to run from the date the error is corrected, if requested to do so by applicant. See MPEP 710.06.
The Final Rejection of December 19, 2025 is considered proper and is maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-14, 16 and 18-21 in view of Willhaus, applicant continues to argue that the current rejection is improper because the rationale stems from Willhaus incorporating Kirby. Applicant argues that the features of claim 1 must be present in a single embodiment and that incorporating a document by referent does not mean the entire document can be used for anticipation.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. MPEP 2163.07 explicitly states that
the information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed.
In this case, the disclosure of Willhaus includes the disclosure of Kirby is the rejection is maintained.
The argument pertaining to top and bottom layers of Willhaus equating to the recited grammage is moot as that rejection is no longer pending
Applicant argument with respect to a “primary” embodiment of Kirby is not persuasive. Kirby explicitly acknowledges a grammage of at least 20 g/m2 as set forth in [0114].
Applicant is also reminded that:
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Applicant argues that the disclosed gsm example of Kirby is incompatible with a core wrap. The disagrees.
In the instant application, Willhaus recognizes that the core wrap may be formed entirely by layers having an additional function, including an acquisition layer (also known as s fluid transfer layer) as set forth in [0042]. Willhaus then incorporates Kirby, and Kirby provides the acquisition/fluid transfer layer with the specific grammage as claimed as set forth in [0114].
Kirby also recognizes a fluid transfer layer that functions identically to that of core wrap layer where Kirby specifically recites that the fluid transfer layer may be composed of separate sheets of material which can be utilized to partially or fully encompass the absorbent body as set forth in [0110].
As such, the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights