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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 3, 2026 has been entered.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Van Gompel et al. (US 6,733,484).
With reference to claims 1 and 15, Van Gompel et al. (hereinafter “Van Gompel”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a chassis having opposing front and rear portions and a crotch portion extending longitudinally between the front and rear portions (figure 1), wherein the crotch portion is configured to conform about at least one of a wearer's groin area, perineum, and rear when the chassis is in a wearable configuration (figure 1);
an absorbent core (6) extending longitudinally along the crotch portion (see figure 1) and comprising a laminate that includes two (col. 10, lines 12-16) substrate laminae (66) and one absorbent laminae (6), wherein:
each of the absorbent laminae comprises superabsorbent polymer (SAP) (col. 8, lines 12-13);
a first one of the absorbent laminae is disposed between first and second ones of the substrate laminae (col. 10, lines 12-16); and
the laminate is longitudinally folded such that the absorbent core includes: a lower layer of the laminate (66) spanning a lateral width of the absorbent core (figure 5B); and
one or more folded layers of the laminate disposed above and overlapping the lower layer of the laminate within each of first and second longitudinally-extending edge regions (see annotated figure 5B below),
wherein a center region (42) of the lower layer is bonded to the crotch portion (figure 5B),
the center region (42) spanning a lateral distance smaller than the width of the absorbent core such that at least a portion of the absorbent core in each of the edge regions is configured to lift away from the chassis when the chassis is in the wearable configuration as discussed in col. 2, liens 45-51 and as shown in figure 5B below.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Van Gompel, through the incorporation of 09/855,182 in col. 11, lines 35-40, discloses first and second longitudinally-extending end edge regions spanning less than 50% of the lateral width of the core.
09/855,182 is published as US 2002/0169432 to Fell et al. In figure 7 of Fell et al. (hereinafter “Fell”), the lateral width of the core is disclosed as 9 units while each longitudinally extending edge region is disclosed as 2 units, thereby providing the edge regions with a span of less than 50%, or at least 20% (cl. 15) of the width as claimed.
As to claim 4, Fell discloses an absorbent article wherein: the absorbent core has and extends longitudinally between first and second ends;
and for each of the first and second ends, an end cap is coupled to the chassis and extends laterally across the end as set forth in [0066] and as shown in figure 1.
With reference to claim 5, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent article wherein the laminate is folded such that for each of the first and second edge regions the one or more folded layers comprise two or more folded layers as shown in figures 6A-6B where each layer includes at least two folds.
Regarding claim 7, Fell discloses an absorbent article wherein for each of the first and second edge regions, a first one of the folded layers is bonded to a second one of the folded layers with an adhesive (78,88) as set forth in [0067-0068].
With respect to claim 8, Van Gompel discloses the first substrate lamina comprise tissue as set forth in col. 10, lines 12-16.
Regarding claim 10, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent article wherein the laminate is folded such that, for each of the first and second edge regions: a lowermost one of the folded layer(s) has and extends laterally between first and second portions, the first portion disposed closer to the other of the edge regions than is the second portion; and the first portion is configured to be disposed on the lower layer when the chassis is in the wearable configuration as shown in figure 5B.
As to claim 12, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent article wherein the SAP of each of the absorbent lamina has a basis weight between 60 and 75 grams per square meter (gsm) as set forth in col. 8, lines 55-57.
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 2-3, 13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gompel et al. (US 6,733,484) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2015/0230997).
With respect to claim 2, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 2 is the provision that the absorbent article comprises first and second longitudinally-extending cuffs, each having: a first portion coupled to the crotch portion; and
a second portion bonded to at least one of the folded layer(s) of a respective one of the first and second edge regions;
wherein the second portion is configured to lift away from the chassis when the chassis is in the wearable configuration such that the cuff urges at least a portion of the absorbent core away from the chassis.
Suzuki et al. (hereinafter “Suzuki”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a first portion coupled (38e) to the crotch portion; and
a second portion bonded (26h) to at least one of the folded layer(s) of a respective one of the first and second edge regions;
wherein the second portion is configured to lift away from the chassis when the chassis is in the wearable configuration such that the cuff urges at least a portion of the absorbent core away from the chassis as shown in figure 12B and as disclosed in [0206].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Van Gompel with the leg cuffs as taught by Suzuki in order to provide the wearer with additional leakage protection without a feeling and restraint and without allowing excreted fluids to remain in contact with the wearer’s skin thus reducing the occurrence of a hot and stuffy state while suppressing undesirable rashes as taught by Suzuki in [0011].
With respect to claim 3, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 3 is the provision that the absorbent article comprises first and second longitudinally-extending cuffs, each bonded to an uppermost one of the folded layer(s) of a respective one of the first and second edge regions such that:
a first side of the cuff is disposed closer to the other of the edge regions than is a second side of the cuff; and
the second side is configured to lift away from the chassis when the chassis is in the wearable configuration such that: the second side is further from the chassis than is the first side; and
the cuff urges at least a portion of the absorbent core away from the chassis.
Suzuki teaches an analogous absorbent article including first and second longitudinally-extending cuffs, each bonded (26d) to an uppermost one of the folded layer(s) of a respective one of the first and second edge regions such that:
a first side of the cuff (i.e. lower portion) is disposed closer to the other of the edge regions than is a second side of the cuff; and
the second side (i.e., upper portion) is configured to lift away from the chassis when the chassis is in the wearable configuration such that:
the second side is further from the chassis than is the first side (figure 7d); and
the cuff urges at least a portion of the absorbent core away from the chassis as set forth in [0206].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Van Gompel with the leg cuffs as taught by Suzuki in order to provide the wearer with additional leakage protection without a feeling and restraint and without allowing excreted fluids to remain in contact with the wearer’s skin thus reducing the occurrence of a hot a stuffy state while suppressing undesirable rashes as taught by Suzuki in [0011].
With respect to claim 13, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 13 is the provision that the absorbent article includes a longitudinally-extending insert coupled to the laminate such that for each of the first and second edge regions a portion of the insert is disposed above the lower layer and below at least one of the folded layer(s); wherein the insert comprises at least one of: fluff and SAP; and a through-air bonded polymer nonwoven.
Suzuki teaches an analogous absorbent article including a longitudinally-extending insert (34a) coupled (38e) to the laminate such that for each of the first and second edge regions a portion of the insert is disposed above the lower layer and below at least one of the folded layer(s) as shown in annotated figure 13B below;
wherein the insert comprises at least one of: fluff and SAP; and a through-air bonded polymer nonwoven as set forth in [0180] and [0260-0264].
PNG
media_image2.png
434
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Van Gompel with the insert as taught by Suzuki in order to provide the wearer with additional leakage protection without a feeling and restraint and without allowing excreted fluids to remain in contact with the wearer’s skin thus reducing the occurrence of a hot a stuffy state while suppressing undesirable rashes as taught by Suzuki in [0011].
With reference to claim 16, Van Gompel discloses an absorbent article wherein the laminate is folded such that for each of the first and second edge regions the one or more folded layers comprise two or more folded layers as shown in figures 4A-4B.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gompel et al. (US 6,733,484) and further in view of Riegel et al. (US 2011/0118114).
With respect to claim 11, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 11 is the provision that the
SAP of each of the absorbent lamina(e) has a centrifuge retention capacity between 33 and 52 grams per gram (g/g).
Riegel et al. (hereinafter “Riegel”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including an SAP having a centrifuge retention capacity between 33 and 52 grams per gram (g/g) as set forth in [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the SAP of Van Gompel with the specific CRC as taught by Riegel to provide the article with a stable SAP which resists discoloration as taught by Riegel in [0006] and in [0012].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gompel et al. (US 6,733,484).
With respect to claim 14, Van Gompel teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Van Gompel and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that the laminate includes a specific amount of layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the laminate of Van Gompel with the desired number of layers to achieve the desired results since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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