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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
Any rejections made in the previous Office Action mailed on 4/8/2026 and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment and arguments filed in the response dated 8/10/2026.
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 12 and 22 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.
Claims 12 and 22 recite the limitation "the laminate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this is referring to the absorbent laminate, the first laminate layer or the second laminate layer. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 13-15, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducker (US 2015/0320617) [hereinafter Ducker ‘617] in view of Ducker et al. (WO 2018/112229A1) [hereinafter Ducker ‘229] and further in view of Chmielewski (US 6,632,209).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4 and 18, Ducker ‘617 discloses an absorbent core comprising an absorbent laminate (Fig. 1) that comprises: a first laminate layer (upper substrate A) comprising a tissue or nonwoven (paragraph [0024]); a second laminate layer (layer C) comprising a spunlace nonwoven (paragraph [0035]); and an absorbent layer (layer B) positioned between the first and second laminate layers (Fig. 1), the absorbent layer comprising adhesive and super absorbent polymer (SAP; paragraphs [0025-0029]); where at least one of the first and second laminate layers comprises a through-air dried (TAD) tissue (paragraphs [0024] and [0035]), where the absorbent layer (upper layer B) is a first absorbent layer (Fig. 1), and the absorbent laminate further comprises a third laminate layer (lower substrate A) comprising a spunlace nonwoven (paragraph [0024]) and disposed on an opposite side of the second laminate layer (layer C) relative to the first laminate layer (upper substrate A), where the third laminate layer (lower substrate A) defines an outermost surface (Fig. 1), and a second absorbent layer (lower layer B) disposed between the second and third laminate layers (Fig. 1).
Ducker ‘617 fails to teach the first and second absorbent layers having greater than about 90 percent by weight super absorbent polymer; and lateral portions of the absorbent laminate being folded inward toward a central longitudinal axis of the absorbent laminate such that multiple layers of absorbent laminate define a longitudinally folded absorbent core.
Chmielewski teaches an absorbent core for a disposable absorbent garment wherein the absorbent layer includes 50 to 95 percent by weight of superabsorbent polymer for the purpose of maintaining high SAP efficiency (abstract; col. 3, lines 39-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SAP in the absorbent layers in Ducker ‘617 to be greater than about 90 percent by weight (about 90 to about 95 percent by weight) as suggested by Chmielewski in order to maintain a high SAP efficiency if so desired.
Additionally, Ducker ‘229 teaches an absorbent laminate where the lateral portions of the absorbent laminate are folded inward toward a central longitudinal axis of the absorbent laminate such that multiple layers of absorbent laminate define a longitudinally folded absorbent core, where the longitudinally folded absorbent core defines a longitudinal channel for the purpose of allowing the fluid to flow laterally between the layers so as to distribute fluid over a relatively larger area of each layer for absorption (Figs. 7A-7B and 8A-8C; paragraphs [0079-0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent laminate in Ducker ‘617 to have the lateral portions of the absorbent laminate folded inward toward a central longitudinal axis of the absorbent laminate such that multiple layers of absorbent laminate define a longitudinally folded absorbent core, where the longitudinally folded absorbent core defines a longitudinal channel as suggested by Ducker ‘229 in order to allow the fluid to flow laterally between the layers so as to distribute fluid over a relatively larger area of each layer for absorption if so desired.
Regarding claim 5, Ducker ‘229 discloses the channel having width of from 10 mm to 30 mm (paragraph [0081]; Fig.8b-8c).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ducker ‘617 discloses the first laminate layer comprising tissue (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Ducker ‘617 discloses the first and second absorbent layers each comprising from 40 gsm to 80 gsm of the SAP (paragraphs [0010] and [0027]).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Ducker ‘617 discloses the total SAP content of all layers of the longitudinally folded absorbent core is from 200 gsm to 600 gsm (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Ducker ‘617 discloses a basis weight of the second laminate layer is greater than a basis weight of the third laminate layer (paragraphs [0024], [0044-0048] and [0056-0060]).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Ducker ‘229 discloses the longitudinally folded absorbent core has three or more layers of the absorbent laminate (Figs. 7A-7B and Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 13, Ducker ‘229 discloses where the longitudinally folded absorbent core has a plurality of sheets of the absorbent laminate (Figs. 3 and 8b-8c; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, Ducker ‘229 discloses where the absorbent core comprises a surge core and a base core, and at least one of the surge and base cores is defined by the longitudinally folded absorbent laminate (Figs. 3 and 8b-8c).
Regarding claim 15, Ducker ‘617 fails to specifically teach less than 3 percent of the weight of the SAP comes from particles that will not pass through a 500 µm screen. Ducker ‘617 teaches that the particle size of the SAP may vary, but typically falls between about 20 microns to about 1000 microns (paragraph [0026]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size of the SAP in Ducker’617 to where less than 3 percent of the weight of the SAP comes from particles that will not pass through a 500 µm screen, if so desired, in order to form the absorbent core. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graef et al. (US 2002/0007169A1) [hereinafter Graef].
Ducker ‘617 fails to teach the absorbent laminate being mechanically softened by calendaring or temporary corrugating.
Graef teaches that it is well known in the absorbent laminate art to soften an absorbent laminate by calendaring in various patterns without compromising the laminates’ liquid wicking properties and its strength (paragraph [0062]) in order to provide a more comfortable absorbent article.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent laminate in Ducker ‘617 to be mechanically softened by calendaring as suggested by Graef in order to provide an absorbent article that is more comfortable to the user.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 2017/0135866A1) [hereinafter Tamura].
Ducker ‘617 and Ducker ‘229 fail to teach the absorbent core having a plurality of slits through at least one layer of the laminate, the slits extending from the lateral edges toward the central longitudinal axis.
Tamura teaches an absorbent article having slits extending from the lateral edges toward the central longitudinal axis for the purpose of providing sufficient flexibility which allows the absorbent body to more easily deform along the body shape of the wearer and therefore allows a comfortable feel during wear (Figs. 2-3; paragraphs [0009] and [0023-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent laminate in Ducker ‘617 to include a plurality of slits through at least one layer of the laminate where the slits extend from the lateral edges toward the central longitudinal axis as suggested by Tamura in order to provide the absorbent laminate with sufficient flexibility which would allow the absorbent laminate to more easily deform along the body shape of the wearer, thereby allowing a comfortable feel during wear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/10/2026, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 18-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejections which are presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
