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 August 20, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: claim 1 has been amended to recite a nonwoven sheets having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers. These limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The amendment filed November 25, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: claim 208 has been amended to recite a third nonwoven sheet. This limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second fibrous construction. the nonwoven sheet of the first and second fibrous construction comprising a layer having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent particles disposed within the network of fibers and the third nonwoven sheet must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The originally filed specification lacks antecedent basis for the terms “second fibrous construction”, “third nonwoven sheet” and “independent”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
inventor of carrying out his invention.
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, 4-7, 12-14, 17-18, 20-21, 27-28, 66-67 and 207-233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites that each of the first and second fibrous constructions includes a layer of a nonwoven sheet having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent particles disposed within the network of fibers.
Initially, the claim is considered unclear because a “second fibrous construction” is not supported by the originally filed specification. While the drawings support multiple fibrous constructions, it is unclear which fibrous construction is deemed to be a “second” fibrous construction. For example, as best understood and as shown in figure 12G, there are five fibrous constructions (106a-106d and 130). The scope of the claim cannot be determined because the first and second fibrous constructions have not been clearly set forth.
Second to this, if applicant considers first and second fibrous constructions as two fibrous of fibrous constructions (106a-106d), there is no reasonable teaching or suggestion of a nonwoven sheet having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent particles disposed within the network of fibers, While fibrous constructions 106a-106d include nonwoven capture sheets 1208a-1208d, these sheets including a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent particles disposed within the network of fibers is not supported by the originally filed specification.
If applicant intends that one of 106a-106d is a first fibrous construction and layer 130 is a second fibrous construction, then the limitation requiring both the first and second fibrous construction to be positioned between first and second nonwoven sheets that are coupled to each other at locations between adjacent laterally spaced apart fibrous constructions is not supported.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
With respect to claims 66 and 228, the originally filed specification does not support first and second nonwoven sheet encapsulated each fibrous construction. [0143] of the originally filed specification explains that the core is “encased or encapsulated” by the topsheet. However, there is no teaching or suggestion that first and second nonwoven sheet encapsulate each fibrous construction.
As previously noted, there are essentially six fibrous constructions (106a, 106b, 106c, 106d 130). There is no support for the limitation as claimed where the first and second nonwoven sheet separately encapsulate each fibrous construction.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claims 225-228 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.
Claim 225 recites the limitation "the coupling" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, claim 225 refers to the first nonwoven and the second nonwoven in lines 1-2 and refers to “the first and second nonwoven sheets” in lines 3-4. The scope of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the first and second nonwoven recited in lines 1-2 is the same as the first and second nonwoven sheets recited in lines 3-4 or if they are separate elements.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
With respect to claim 232, the use of the pronoun “its” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “its” is being used to replace.
Additionally, the claim refers to “the nonwoven sheet” in line 1. The scope of the claim cannot be determined because independent claim 1, upon which this claim depends, recites at least four nonwoven sheets. It is unclear which nonwoven sheet is referenced in line 1.
Correction and/or clarification are required.
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 1-2, 5-7, 27-28, 66-67, 212-217, 219 and 223-233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582).
With reference to claim 1, Wright et al. (hereinafter “Wright”) discloses an absorbent core (abstract) having a longitudinal centerline and a lateral centerline that is transverse to the longitudinal centerline (figure 9), the absorbent core comprising:
a first absorbent core construction, the first absorbent core construction comprising:
a plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous [0169] constructions (figures 20A-20B), including a first fibrous construction and a second fibrous construction wherein the first fibrous construction is spaced-apart from the second fibrous construction, (see annotated figure 20B below), wherein the first fibrous construction is separate and discrete from the second fibrous construction (at least via intervening fibrous constructions such as 857 as shown in figure 20B),
wherein each fibrous construction extends generally parallel to or coincident with the longitudinal centerline [0162], and
wherein the fibrous constructions are pulpless and fluffless as set forth in [0146].
Wright discloses that the fibrous constructions may include first (826) and second (818) nonwoven sheets positioned on first and second sides of the fibrous construction wherein each fibrous construction (824) is positioned between the first and second nonwoven sheets as set forth in [0141] and in [0146]. Wright also discloses that the first nonwoven sheet is coupled to the second nonwoven sheet at locations between adjacent laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The difference between Wright and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the first and second fibrous constructions include third and fourth nonwoven sheets having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers.
Wright teaches that the fibrous constructions may include additional nonwoven layers being supplied through optional layers as disclosed in [0082] and in [0107] where Wright discloses that additional layers may be added and may also include layers such as nonwoven acquisition and/or surge layers.
Wright also teaches that the SAP material may include at least one “bulky nonwoven” which provides fibers that extend outward and entangle SAP particles as set forth in [0128-0131].
At least the body side second fabric is a bulky nonwoven (abstract) and multiple fabrics may be provided as discussed in [0082].
Wright also discloses that the SAP is organized into discrete, spaced-apart aggregates or clumps each of which is maintained in a pocket or container and that the non-woven layers are bonded at bond sites or, more specifically, at an arrangement of discrete, spaced-apart bond points thereby ensuring that the bulky non-woven is intermittently secured over the SAP aggregates to help maintain the SAP aggregates in place as set forth in [0148].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to provide the article of Wright with additional nonwoven sheets having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers because Wright suggests providing additional bulky layers which advantageously restrict travel or migration of SAP particles even before use as taught by Wright in [0147-0148].
Likewise, based on the teachings of Wright, one would have expected, or at least been motivated to provide the additional sheets as separate and discrete because Wright discloses that the bond sites maintain the materials within the pocket or container for the purpose of maintaining SAP aggregates in place.
As to claims 2 and 67, Wright discloses an absorbent core further comprising channels at least partially defined by the first nonwoven sheet, wherein each channel is positioned between two adjacent, laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions and above the first nonwoven sheet as set forth in [0116] and shown in at least figures 20A-20B.
With reference to claim 5, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the channels are free of absorbent material as shown in figure 3.
With respect to claim 6, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the first nonwoven sheet is adhered to the second nonwoven sheet at locations between adjacent, laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions as set forth in [0116] and shown in at least figures 20A-20B.
As to claim 7, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the first nonwoven sheet is adhered to the second nonwoven sheet at locations between adjacent, laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions via adhesive beads (i.e. bond points) as set forth in [0148], [0154] and [0178].
With reference to claim 27, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the first nonwoven sheet has an undulating outer surface, the second nonwoven sheet has a flat outer surface, and the plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions are positioned between the inner surfaces of the first and second nonwoven sheets as shown in figures 20A and 20B.
With respect to claim 28, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein each laterally spaced-apart fibrous construction is sealed along the lateral side edges thereof (828) as shown in figure 20C.
With reference to claim 66, Wright discloses an absorbent article [0001-0002] comprising:
an absorbent core (46);
a chassis, including a backsheet and a topsheet [0014];
wherein the absorbent core is positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet [0014] and is coupled with the backsheet [0023];
the absorbent core having a longitudinal centerline and a lateral centerline that is transverse to the longitudinal centerline (figure 9), the absorbent core comprising:
a first absorbent core construction, the first absorbent core construction comprising:
a plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous [0169] constructions (figures 20A-20B), including a first fibrous construction and a second fibrous construction (see annotated figure 20B above), wherein each fibrous construction extends generally parallel to or coincident with the longitudinal centerline [0162], and
wherein the fibrous constructions are pulpless and fluffless as set forth in [0146].
Wright discloses that the fibrous constructions may include first (826) and second (818) nonwoven sheets positioned on first and second sides of the fibrous construction wherein each fibrous construction (824) is positioned between the first and second nonwoven sheets as set forth in [0141] and in [0146] such that the first and second nonwoven sheet separately capsulate each fibrous construction as shown in figure 20B.
The difference between Wright and claim 66 is the explicit recitation that the first fibrous construction includes a layer of a first bulky nonwoven sheet having a network of hydrophilic and non-absorbent fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers of the layer of the first bulky nonwoven sheet and wherein the second fibrous construction includes a second bulky nonwoven sheet having a network of hydrophilic and non-absorbent fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers of the layer of the second bulky nonwoven sheet wherein the first bulky nonwoven sheet is separate, discrete and spaced-apart from the second bulky nonwoven sheet.
Wright teaches that the fibrous constructions may include additional nonwoven layers being supplied through optional layers as disclosed in [0082] and in [0107] where Wright discloses that additional layers may be added and may also include layers such as nonwoven acquisition and/or surge layers.
Wright also teaches that the SAP material may include at least one “bulky nonwoven” which provides fibers that extend outward and entangle SAP particles as set forth in [0128-0131]. The bulky nonwoven is an open, fibrous network or web of hydrophilic but non-absorbent fibers [0169].
The article may include a bulky nonwoven as a bottom substrate and as a top substrate as set forth in [0141].
In this instance, a first fibrous construction includes a first bulky nonwoven (i.e., top substrate) and the second fibrous construction includes a second bulky nonwoven (i.e., bottom substrate) where the first and second bulky nonwovens are separate, discrete and spaced apart (via intermediate absorbent particles).
Wright also discloses that the SAP is organized into discrete, spaced-apart aggregates or clumps each of which is maintained in a pocket or container and that the non-woven layers are bonded at bond sites or, more specifically, at an arrangement of discrete, spaced-apart bond points thereby ensuring that the bulky non-woven is intermittently secured over the SAP aggregates to help maintain the SAP aggregates in place as set forth in [0148].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to provide the article of Wright with additional nonwoven sheets having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers because Wright suggests providing additional bulky layers which advantageously restrict travel or migration of SAP particles even before use as taught by Wright in [0147-0148].
Likewise, based on the teachings of Wright, one would have expected, or at least been motivated to provide the additional sheets as separate and discrete because Wright discloses that the bond sites maintain the materials within the pocket or container for the purpose of maintaining SAP aggregates in place.
With respect to claim 212, Wright discloses a bulky nonwoven comprising air-through nonwoven as set forth in [0127].
With respect to claim 213, Wright discloses a bulky nonwoven comprising synthetic nonwoven as set forth in [0127].
With respect to claim 214, Wright discloses a bulky nonwoven comprising meltblown/spunbond nonwoven as set forth in [0141].
With respect to claims 215-216, Wright discloses a bulky nonwoven comprising polyolefin and/or polyethylene (cl. 216) fibers as set forth in [0170].
With respect to claim 217, Wright discloses a bulky nonwoven comprising an open fibrous network oof hydrophilic, non-absorbent fibers as set forth in [0169].
With respect to claim 219, Wright discloses an absorbent core where each fibrous construction may lack an absorbent matrix as set forth in [0015].
As to claim 223, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the first nonwoven sheet is coupled with the second nonwoven sheet at locations between adjacent, laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions as set forth in [0022].
Regarding claim 224, see the rejection of claims 1 and 66 wherein Wright discloses the use of multiple bulky nonwoven layers each of which may contain superabsorbent polymer particles within the network of fibers. Additionally, each layer of the nonwoven sheet of the first and second fibrous constructions has a top and bottom surface where the superabsorbent polymer particles are contained within the network of fibers between top and bottom surfaces of each layer of nonwoven sheets of the first and second fibrous constructions as set forth in annotated figure 20B above.
Additionally, it is noted that Wright also discloses that the SAP is organized into discrete, spaced-apart aggregates or clumps each of which is maintained in a pocket or container as set forth in [0148].
As to claim 225, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the coupling of the first nonwoven to the second nonwoven defines spaces between the first and second nonwoven, and wherein each fibrous construction is contained within one of the spaces between the first and second nonwoven sheets as shown in figure 20B.
With reference to claim 226, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein each layer of the nonwoven sheets of the first and second fibrous constructions has a top surface and a bottom surface, and wherein each fibrous construction, from the top surface to the bottom surface thereof, is positioned within one of the spaces between the first and second nonwoven sheets as shown in figure 20B.
Regarding claims 227 and 229, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein each space defines a tube (see annotated figure 20B above) that extends generally parallel to or coincident with the longitudinal centerline from a first longitudinal edge of the absorbent core to a second longitudinal edge of the absorbent core, and wherein each fibrous construction is contained within one of the tubes as set forth in [0184] and as shown in figure 28.
With reference to claim 228, see the rejection of claim 66.
As to claim 230, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein adherence of the first nonwoven sheet to the second nonwoven sheet forms seals that encapsulate the fibrous constructions between the first nonwoven sheet and the second nonwoven sheet as set forth in [0022].
With respect to claim 231, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the channels are formed by gaps (i.e., openings or spaces) between adjacent fibrous constructions as shown in figure 20B.
As to claim 232, see figure 20B of Wright where upper and lower nonwoven sheets, covering each fibrous construction, are independent and distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 233, see the rejection of claims 1 and 225-232.
Claims 4, 12-14, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and further in view of Ehrnsperger et al. (US 2016/0235595).
With reference to claims 4 and 12, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2.
The difference between Wright and claim 4 is the explicit recitation that the channel is coincident with a fold line of the nonwoven sheet.
Ehrnsperger et al. (hereinafter “Ehrnsperger”) teaches an analogous absorbent core wherein each channel is coincident with a fold line of the first nonwoven sheet as set forth in [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the channel of Wright with a fold line as taught by Ehrnsperger in order to facilitate folding of the core to form a shape that is efficient for preventing leakage as taught by Ehrnsperger in [0037-0040].
With reference to claim 13, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2.
The difference between Wright and claim 13 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent core is at least partially foldable along the fold lines.
Ehrnsperger teaches an analogous absorbent core the absorbent core is at least partially foldable along the fold lines as shown in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Wright with a partially foldable core as taught by Ehrnsperger in order to facilitate folding of the core to form a shape that is efficient for preventing leakage as taught by Ehrnsperger in [0037-0040].
With reference to claim 14, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 13.
The difference between Wright and claim 14 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent core has a first lateral extent prior to folding along the fold lines and a second lateral extend after folding along the fold lines, and wherein the first lateral extent is greater than the second lateral extent.
Ehrnsperger teaches an analogous absorbent core having a first lateral extent prior to folding along the fold lines (extent of 61,60,62 as shown in figure 2) and a second lateral extend after folding along the fold lines (extent of 60 as shown in figure 4), and wherein the first lateral extent is greater than the second lateral extent as shown in figures 2 and 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Wright with folding as taught by Ehrnsperger in order to facilitate folding of the core to form a shape that is efficient for preventing leakage as taught by Ehrnsperger in [0037-0040].
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein, when folded along the fold lines, the absorbent core has a generally W-shaped lateral cross-section within a crotch region of the core (cl. 18) as set forth in [0098].
With reference to claim 20, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 13.
The difference between Wright and claim 20 is the explicit recitation that the absorbent core wherein, when folded, two of the plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions form laterally positioned wing sections of the absorbent core.
Ehrnsperger teaches an analogous absorbent core that, when folded, two of the plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions form laterally positioned wing sections of the absorbent core as shown in figures 1 and 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the core of Wright with folded sections as taught by Ehrnsperger in order to facilitate folding of the core to form a shape that is efficient for preventing leakage as taught by Ehrnsperger in [0037-0040].
As to claim 21, Wright modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 20.
The difference between Wright modified and claim 21 is the provision that the wing sections have specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the wing sections as desired since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of elements previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 207 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and further in view of Glaug et al. (US 5,151,091).
With reference to claim 207, Wright teaches the invention substantially a claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Wright and claim 207 is the provision that the absorbent core includes nonwoven capture sheets.
Glaug et al. (hereinafter “Glaug”) teaches an analogous absorbent core including nonwoven capture sheets (160) coupled with each section of a fibrous construction (165), wherein each nonwoven capture sheet is positioned between one of the fibrous constructions and a second nonwoven sheet (140), wherein each nonwoven capture sheet in one of the fibrous constructions has a density that is higher than a density of the layer of nonwoven in that fibrous constructions (165) as set forth in col. 4, lines 53-62.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the fibrous construction of Wright with a higher density material as taught by Glaug in order to provide a reservoir for holding absorbed body fluid as taught by Glaug in col. 4, lines 53-62.
Claim 208 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and further in view of Weber et al. (US 6,221,460).
With reference to claim 208, Wright teaches the invention substantially a claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Wright and claim 208 is the provision that the absorbent core further comprising a second absorbent core construction coupled to the second nonwoven sheet, the second absorbent core construction comprising pulp on a third nonwoven sheet, wherein the pulp is mixed with SAP.
Weber et al. (hereinafter “Weber”) teaches an analogous absorbent core further including further comprising a second absorbent core construction (24) coupled to the second nonwoven sheet (14), the second absorbent core construction comprising pulp on a third nonwoven sheet, wherein the pulp is mixed with SAP col. 15, lines 60-64) and wherein the second core construction is positioned below the second nonwoven sheet such that the first absorbent core construction and the second absorbent core construction are arranged in a stacked configuration as shown in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the fibrous construction of Wright with the second core construction as taught by Weber in order to provide the core with an additional, absorbent support layer which both allows for the upper core to remain close the skin of a wearer while allowing waste to separate from the user thereby reducing wearer discomfort and promoting skin hydration as taught by Weber in col. 2, lines 6-65.
Claim 209 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and Cole (US 2004/0087923) and further in view of Kellenberger et al. (US 4,699,823).
As to claim 209, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Wright and claim 209 is the disclosure of a superabsorbent gradient and an adhesive gradient.
Cole teaches an analogous absorbent article including providing a nonwoven having a first surface and a second surface (a nonwoven substrate core 11 comprises opposing surfaces 2 and 4; figure 1, paragraph [0027]) and passing a forced airstream containing absorbent material onto and through the first surface of the nonwoven (adhesive 16, which optionally may contain SAP particles, is applied to the porous substrate 18, by methods known in the art, such as by one or more spray nozzles 17 (forced airstream); figure 4; paragraph (0050]). At least some of the absorbent material is captured within the nonwoven (the adhesive 16 may penetrate into the interstices of porous substrate 18, thereby providing sites where SAP 14 may be affixed to the matrix; figure 1; paragraph [0050]), between the first surf ace and the second surface (the loading of adhesive 16 and SAP 14 may be distributed in a gradient or layered manner through the thickness of core 11; figure 1; paragraph [0032]); and filtering at least some of the absorbent material at least partially through the nonwoven such that a gradient distribution of the absorbent material is formed within the nonwoven, between the first surface and the second surface (the loading of adhesive 16 and SAP 14 may be distributed in a gradient or layered manner through the thickness of core 11; figure 1; paragraph [0032]).
Cole further discloses wherein tackifying includes incorporating adhesive within the nonwoven (the loading of adhesive 16 and SAP 14 may be distributed in a gradient or layered manner through the thickness of core 11; figure 1; paragraph [0032)).
Cole does not disclose a gradient distribution of particle sizes.
Kellenberger et al. (hereinafter “Kellenberger”) teaches a gradient distribution of particle sizes (larger superabsorbent particles 24 are shown positioned closer to sheet 9 than sheet 11; figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided the article of Wright with the teaches of Cole in view of Kellenberger for the advantage of improving the reliability of the distribution of liquid throughout the quantity of superabsorbent material (Kellenberger, column 3, lines 15-23).
Claims 210-211 and 220-222 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and further in view of Roe et al. (US 2015/0065975).
With reference to claim 220, Wright discloses an absorbent article [0001-0002] comprising:
an absorbent core (46);
a chassis, including a backsheet and a topsheet [0014];
wherein the absorbent core is positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet [0014] and is coupled with the backsheet [0023];
the absorbent core having a longitudinal centerline and a lateral centerline that is transverse to the longitudinal centerline (figure 9), the absorbent core comprising:
a first absorbent core construction, the first absorbent core construction comprising:
a plurality of laterally spaced-apart fibrous [0169] constructions (figures 20A-20B), including a fist fibrous construction and a second fibrous construction (see annotated figure 20B above), wherein each fibrous construction extends generally parallel to or coincident with the longitudinal centerline as set forth in [0162].
Wright discloses that the core may include first and second nonwoven sheets positioned on first and second sides of the fibrous construction wherein each fibrous construction is positioned between the first and second nonwoven sheets as set forth in [0141] where Wright discloses that the either the first and/or second fabric may be a bulky nonwoven. An additional nonwoven layer is also supplied through optional layers as disclosed in [010] where Wright discloses that nonwoven acquisition and/or surge layers may be included.
Wright discloses an absorbent core wherein the first nonwoven sheet is adhered to the second nonwoven sheet at locations between adjacent, laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions as set forth in [0116] and shown in at least figures 20A-20B.
Wright also provides a plurality of fold lines (i.e., areas between pockets 857) in the first absorbent core construction on an outer surface of the first nonwoven sheet, wherein each fold line is positioned between two of the laterally spaced apart fibrous constructions as shown in figures 20A-20B. These fold lines may be interpreted as first and second fold lines.
The difference between Wright and claim 220 is the explicit recitation that the first fibrous construction includes a nonwoven sheet of the first fibrous construction having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers and wherein the second fibrous construction includes a nonwoven sheet having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers wherein the sheets are separate, discrete and spaced-apart from each other and herein the third and fourth nonwoven sheet and the absorbent material are positioned between the first and second nonwoven sheets and including absorbent core that is coupled to the backsheet along a first fold line and free of the backsheet along a second fold line such that an airflow channels is formed between the absorbent core and the backsheet beneath the second fold line.
Wright teaches that the fibrous constructions may include additional nonwoven layers being supplied through optional layers as disclosed in [0082] and in [0107] where Wright discloses that additional layers may be added and may also include layers such as nonwoven acquisition and/or surge layers.
Wright also teaches that the SAP material may include at least one “bulky nonwoven” which provides fibers that extend outward and entangle SAP particles as set forth in [0128-0131]. The bulky nonwoven is an open, fibrous network or web of hydrophilic but non-absorbent fibers [0169].
The article may include a bulky nonwoven as a bottom substrate and as a top substrate as set forth in [0141].
In this instance, a first fibrous construction includes a nonwoven (i.e., top substrate) and the second fibrous construction includes a nonwoven (i.e., bottom substrate) where the bulky nonwovens are separate, discrete and spaced apart (via intermediate absorbent particles and/or via seals between pockets) and may be located between first and second nonwoven layers based on the disclosure of multiple layers as taught by Wright.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to provide the article of Wright with a third and fourth nonwoven sheets having a network of fibers and absorbent material including superabsorbent polymer particles disposed within the network of fibers because Wright suggests providing additional bulky layers which advantageously restrict travel or migration of SAP particles even before use as taught by Wright in [0147-0148].
With respect to the absorbent core being free of the backsheet along a second fold line, Roe et al. (hereinafter “Roe”) teaches an analogous absorbent core including a plurality of fold lines (i.e., channels) that may be intermittently bonded with the backsheet as set forth in [0086] thereby providing a fixed fold (i.e., bonded portions) and an unfixed fold (i.e., unbonded portion) as claimed. The core of Roe has at least two fold lines thereby providing an absorbent core that is considered to couple to backsheet in bonded portions of a first fold line and an absorbent core that is considered free of backsheet in unbonded portions of a second fold line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Wright with the intermittently bonded fold lines and/or with bonded and unbonded fold lines as taught by Roe in order to further improved urine and feces management and leakage prevention as well as to provide improved wearer comfort as taught by Roe in [0007].
Additionally, the absorbent core of Roe is shown as free of coupling with the backsheet as shown in annotated figure 5 below.
[0137] of the instant specification states that the channel may function as an airflow channel.
Inasmuch as applicant has defined an airflow channel, Roe supplies the same.
With respect to claims 221-222, see the rejection of claim 220.
The difference between Wright modified and claims 221-222 is the provision that the article includes a plurality of fixed and unfixed fold lines.
Roe teaches a plurality of fold lines (i.e., channels) and teaches that the fold lines may be intermittently bonded with the backsheet [0086] thereby providing a plurality of fixed (i.e., bonded) and unfixed (i.e., unbonded) fold lines. Roe also teaches air channel (26) between the absorbent core and the backsheet as shown in figure 2 and Roe teaches that the channels may extend toward lateral edges 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 Wright with the intermittently bonded fold lines as taught by Roe in order to further improved urine and feces management and leakage prevention as well as to provide improved wearer comfort as taught by Roe in [0007].
As to claims 210 and 211, see the rejection of claims 220-222.
Additionally, with respect to claim 211, The absorbent core of Roe is shown as free of coupling with the backsheet as shown in annotated figure 5 below.
[0137] of the instant specification states that the channel may function as an airflow channel.
Inasmuch as applicant has defined an airflow channel, Roe supplies the same.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 218 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2014/0303582) and further in view of Daley et al. (US 6,348,253).
As to claim 218, Wright teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Wright and claim 218 is the explicit recitation that the bulky nonwoven comprises crepe spunbond.
Daley et al. (hereinafter “Daley”) teaches an analogous absorbent core including a crepe spunbond as set forth in the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the bulky nonwoven of Wright in the form of a crepe spunbond as taught by Daley in order to create benefits that can be leveraged in the design of a gush management absorbent core as taught by Daley in col. 16, lines 38-41.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-7, 12-14, 17-18, 20-21, 27-28, 66-67 and 207-233 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, applicant continues to argue that Wright does not teaches laterally spaced-apart fibrous constructions. As noted by applicant, Wright provides a bulky nonwoven that is compressed at bonding points. It is the position of the Office that the bonding points themselves create separate and discrete structures. The bonding points separate adjacent fibrous constructions. The fact that the material of the layer is made of the same material does not preclude the bonding points from forming separate and discrete structures.
Wright also discloses that the SAP is organized into discrete, spaced-apart aggregates or clumps each of which is maintained in a pocket or container and that the non-woven layers are bonded at bond sites or, more specifically, at an arrangement of discrete, spaced-apart bond points as set forth in [0148].
Applicant also argues that the additional layers of Wright would not be laterally spaced-apart between nonwovens, but would rather include stacking additional layers.
The examiner disagrees.
Based on the teachings of Wright, one would have expected, or at least been motivated to provide the additional sheets as separate and discrete because Wright discloses that the bond sites maintain the materials within the pocket or container for the purpose of maintaining SAP aggregates in place.
With respect to claim 6, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 6 contends that the bulky nonwoven is one of the first and second nonwoven sheets. The argument is not persuasive because of the layers are joined at seals between adjacent fibrous constructions as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
The applicant argues Costa. However, Costa is not formally cited in the current rejection.
Applicant argues that Roe does not teach both fixed and unfixed fold lines.
Wright provides the fold lines. The teaching of Roe relating to intermittent bonding, with the broadest reasonable interpretation, may be considered as fixed (i.e., bonded) and unfixed (i.e., unbonded). Applicant has failed to set forth how intermittent bonding differs from being fixed and unfixed.
Conclusion
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 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 at 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