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 .
In light of the amendments to the claims previously filed 10/23/2025 in which claim 10 was amended, claims 10-12 and 14-20 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to Foreign Patent Application no. CONC2019/0003528 filed on 04/09/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Priority is given to claims 10-12 and 14-20 to the filing date of the previously filed application, 04/09/2019.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-12 and 14-20 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.
The applicant has specifically argued against Lindstroem teaching absorbent sections extending continuously and integrally from the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end of the absorbent core. Lindstroem is not used in this Office Action to read on the limitation at issue.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12 and 14-20 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 10 recites the limitation “the absorbent core having an oblong shape with two longitudinal ends, where one of the longitudinal ends has a triangular shape…extending wherein the absorbent section is an extension of the absorbent core, which extends continuously and integrally from the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end towards the exterior of the absorbent article” in ln. 4-10. This limitation is indefinite in that it is unclear whether the absorbent core is a singular part that has a one longitudinal end having a triangular shape or the absorbent core is a singular part that has one longitudinal end with two absorbent sections that extend from a central section of the absorbent core and can be folded to create a middle section of the absorbent core that has a generally triangular shape. The examiner has previously treated the claim as though it is meant to read as the second interpretation to be in line with the specification, but the language is still unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art and should be amended.
Further, claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the absorbent core has a section corresponding to an absorbent section” in ln. 7. This limitation is indefinite in that it is unclear whether the absorbent core comprises the absorbent sections or has some portion of its body that could be considered similar to an absorbent section. The examiner has previously treated the claim as though it is meant to read as the first interpretation to be in line with the specification, but the language is still unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art and should be amended.
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
736
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 1 of Fernandez Fig. 6-7
Claims 10-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US/2002/0177832 A1 to Fernandez-Kleinlein (hereinafter referred to as Fernandez) in view of EP/0570016 A1 to Schleinz.
Regarding claim 10, Fernandez discloses an adjustable absorbent article (Fig. 6, absorbent article 10) comprising:
a top sheet (para. 0031-0032, cover overlaying the absorbent core forming the body-facing side of the absorbent article);
a bottom sheet (para. 0024-0025, backsheet forms the garment-facing surface of the absorbent article);
an absorbent core located between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (Fig. 6, absorbent core 20; para. 0024-0025, backsheet forms garment-facing surface; para. 0031-0032, cover forms the body-facing surface; absorbent core is then considered to be between the two surfaces), the absorbent core having an oblong shape with two longitudinal ends (Fig. 6, absorbent core 20 as an oblong shape; Ex. Fig. 1), where one of the longitudinal ends has a triangular shape (Ex. Fig. 1 showing generally triangular shape of one end of the absorbent core 20 after folding back of the absorbent sections of the absorbent core 20; para. 0048, shapes of the first and second [front and back sections over line of symmetry A] portions of absorbent core 20 may vary as desired and may have the overall shape of a bulb, triangle, or rounded),
wherein the absorbent article has a section corresponding to an absorbent section, wherein the absorbent section is an extension of the absorbent core, which extends continuously and integrally from the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end towards the exterior of the absorbent article (Ex. Fig. 1 showing absorbent sections as portion of absorbent core that is beyond fold line 30; considered to extend continuously and integrally as fold line 30 may be stitching, embossing, crimping, or perforation that would not separate absorbent sections from the rest of the absorbent core); and
an acquisition layer (para. 0034-0036, transfer layer for accepting fluid and allowing passage of fluid through its mass to be absorbed by an adjacent absorbent core) between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (para. 0034-0036, acquisition layer must be adjacent to absorbent core 20 to allow for fluid passage; absorbent core 20 is considered to be between the topsheet and the backsheet);
wherein, the absorbent section folds to fit different types of garments (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first and second absorbent sections folded back along fold line 30).
Fernandez differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Fernandez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition layer extends partially over the absorbent core.
Schleinz teaches an absorbent article comprising an acquisition layer that may extend over the entirety of the absorbent body of the article or over only 1/3-2/3 of the total length of the article to provide better utilization of the absorbent core (Fig. 2, absorbent article 10 comprising absorbent core 18 and acquisition layer 20; col. 14 ln. 10-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent article of Fernandez to modify the extension of the acquisition layer as taught by Schleinz, because Schleinz teaches that an acquisition layer extending partially over the absorbent core allows for liquid applied to the acquisition layer to transfer through the length of the layer and out the ends to areas of the absorbent core remote from the area most likely to receive insults (col. 14 ln. 10-29), which allows for better utilization of the absorbent core.
Further, Fernandez differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Fernandez fails to explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition layer extends over the absorbent core and the absorbent section beyond the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end towards the exterior of the absorbent article.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the position of the acquisition layer so it extends over both the absorbent core center section and the absorbent core extended sections since this claimed position of the acquisition layer does not change the layer’s ability to intake and distribute fluid along the absorbent core. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the position of the acquisition layer disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the position of a claimed element and altering the position of that claimed element would not have modified the operation of the device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device because it merely involved the rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Further still, Fernandez differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Fernandez fails to explicitly disclose that the acquisition layer folds to fit different types of garments.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the acquisition layer folds to fit different types of garments”, as that Fernandez discloses substantially identical structure to the claimed prior art, the claimed results are considered to be inherent. As supported in MPEP 2112.01, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” The acquisition layer of Fernandez as being comprised of fibrous webs or open-celled foam structures would be considered able to fold (para. 0034-0036).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Fernandez further discloses: wherein the triangular-shaped longitudinal end has a rounded vertex (Ex. Fig. 1 showing generally triangular shape of one end of the absorbent core 20 after folding back of the absorbent sections of the absorbent core 20; para. 0048, shapes of the first and second [front and back sections over line of symmetry A] portions of absorbent core 20 may vary as desired and may have the overall shape of a bulb, triangle, or rounded).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Fernandez further discloses: wherein between the two longitudinal ends of the absorbent core there is a longitudinal axis, where on one side of the longitudinal axis there is a first absorbent section, and on the other side of the longitudinal axis there is a second absorbent section symmetrical to the first absorbent section, wherein each of the absorbent sections extend from the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end of the absorbent core (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first and second absorbent sections extending symmetrically along a longitudinal axis from the periphery of the triangular-shaped longitudinal end of the absorbent core 20; para. 0048, shapes of the first and second [front and back sections over line of symmetry A] portions of absorbent core 20 may vary as desired and may have the overall shape of a bulb, triangle, or rounded).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Fernandez further discloses: wherein the absorbent core has absorbent granules (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Fernandez further discloses: wherein the triangular-shaped longitudinal end towards the exterior of the absorbent article has a rounded vertex, the absorbent section is tangent to the rounded vertex (Ex. Fig. 1 showing generally triangular shape of one end of the absorbent core 20 after folding back of the absorbent sections of the absorbent core 20; para. 0048, shapes of the first and second [front and back sections over line of symmetry A] portions of absorbent core 20 may vary as desired and may have the overall shape of a bulb, triangle, or rounded; any portion of the absorbent core may be considered when understanding the language of tangent to the rounded vertex).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Schleinz as applied above, and further in view of WO/2007/111539 A to Lindstroem.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to suggest wherein the absorbent section has a smaller thickness compared to the rest of the absorbent article.
Lindstroem teaches absorbent sections (Fig. 1, foldable absorbent sections 15/16) having a smaller thickness compared to the rest of the absorbent core to make the absorbent article more comfortable and flexible along the folds (pg. 14 lines 19-29, absorption material concentrated in central section 14, folded sections 15/16 are made as thin as possible; Fig. 1, central absorbent section 14).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent section of Krautkramer and Ochi to have a smaller thickness than the rest of the absorbent core as taught by Lindstroem, because Lindstroem teaches that providing a thinner foldable absorbent section creates an absorbent article that is more comfortable and flexible than an article comprising a thicker foldable absorbent section (see pg. 14 lines 19-25).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Schleinz as applied above, and further in view of US/2005/0059942 A1 to Krautkramer.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to suggest wherein the absorbent article has wings.
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article comprising wings to improve hold of the article within a wearer’s undergarment (para. 0002; para. 0149-0150; Fig. 2, absorbent article 20 comprising wings 42).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent article of Fernandez and Schleinz to comprise wings as taught by Krautkramer, because Krautkramer teaches that wings help to hold an absorbent article at a selected location in a wearer’s undergarment (para. 0002; para. 0149-0150).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to suggest wherein any of the absorbent core, top sheet, and bottom sheet has at least one marking.
Krautkramer teaches an absorbent article wherein the absorbent core has at least one marking to provide channels that control movement of liquids along a prescribed path or direction (para. 0148; Fig. 2, absorbent article 20 comprising absorbent core 30).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent article of Fernandez and Schleinz to comprise a marking as taught by Krautkramer, because Krautkramer teaches that providing markings on the absorbent body provides operative channels that can help block, direct, or otherwise control a desired movement of liquids along a bodyside surface of the article and may also provide an aesthetic benefit to the consumer (para. 0148).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Schleinz as applied above, and further in view of US/2017/0304130 A1 to Christon.
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fail to suggest wherein any of the absorbent core, top sheet, and bottom sheet has at least one imprint.
Christon teaches an absorbent article wherein either of the absorbent core or topsheet has at least one imprint to provide reassurance to a user that the product will draw fluid away from a user’s body (para. 0002; para. 0010; Fig. 1, printing 40 on topsheet 25).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent article of Fernandez and Schleinz to comprise an imprint as taught by Christon, because Christon teaches that multi-toned printing on the top surface of the article creates a perception of depth which reassures a user that prior to and during use fluid will be drawn into the product and away from a user’s body (para. 0002).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez and Schleinz as applied above, and further in view of US/2017/0246045 A1 to Schmoker.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to suggest wherein the acquisition layer has at least one marking.
Schmoker teaches an absorbent article comprising an acquisition layer that has at least one marking that provides improved body conformance of the absorbent article (para. 0046; Fig. 3; Fig. 7, fluid intake layer 52 comprising embossment haunches 182).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the acquisition layer of the absorbent article of Fernandez and Schleinz to further comprising at least one marking as taught by Schmoker, because Schmoker teaches that the markings of their invention may provide increased body conformance of the acquisition layer to the body of the wearer (para. 0046).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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 on (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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 9 February 2026