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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
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 7-9 and 15 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 7 recites the limitation "the absorbent layers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the third laminate layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the less than 3 percent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducker et al. (WO2018/112229A1) [hereinafter Ducker] in view of Chmielewski (US 6,632,209).
Regarding claim 1, Ducker discloses an absorbent core comprising an absorbent laminate (Fig. 3 or 4D, laminate 100a) that comprises: a first laminate layer comprising a tissue or nonwoven (layer 124 or layer 128; paragraph [0070]); a second laminate layer comprising a spunlace nonwoven (layer 112; paragraph [0061]); and an absorbent layer (layer 104 or layer 108) positioned between the first and second laminate layers, the absorbent layer comprising adhesive and super absorbent polymer (SAP; paragraph [0062]); where at least one of the first and second laminate layers comprises a through-air dried (TAD) tissue (paragraphs [0061] and [0070]); where 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 (Figs. 8B-8C; paragraph [0081]).
Ducker fails to teach the absorbent layer having greater than about 90 percent by weight super absorbent polymer.
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 layer in Ducker 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.
Regarding claim 2, Ducker discloses the absorbent layer (layer 104) is a first absorbent layer, and the absorbent laminate further comprises: a third laminate layer (128) comprising a spunlace nonwoven and disposed on an opposite side of the second laminate layer (112) relative to the first laminate layer; and a second absorbent layer (108) disposed between the second and third laminate layers (112 and 128), the second absorbent layer comprising adhesive and super absorbent polymer (paragraph [0062]).
Ducker fails to teach the second absorbent layer having greater than about 90 percent by weight super absorbent polymer.
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 second absorbent layer in Ducker 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.
Regarding claim 3, Ducker discloses where the third laminate layer defines an outermost surface of the longitudinally folded absorbent core (Fig. 3, layer 128).
Regarding claim 4, Ducker discloses the longitudinally folded absorbent core defines a longitudinal channel (Figs. 8a-8b; paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Ducker discloses the channel having width of from 10mm to 30 mm (paragraph [0081]; Fig.8b-8c).
Regarding claim 6, Ducker discloses the first laminate layer comprising tissue (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Ducker discloses the absorbent layer comprising from 40 gsm to 80 gsm of the SAP (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Ducker discloses the total SAP content of all layers of the longitudinally folded absorbent core is from 200 gsm to 600 gsm (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 9, Ducker discloses a basis weight of the second laminate being greater than a basis weight of the third laminate layer (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 10, Ducker discloses the longitudinally folded absorbent core has three or more layers of the absorbent laminate (Fig. 3; paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 11, Ducker discloses the absorbent laminate has been mechanically softened by calendaring or temporary corrugating (paragraph [00109]).
Regarding claim 12, Ducker discloses the folding of the lateral portions of the laminate define folded lateral edges of the absorbent core, and the absorbent core defines a plurality of slits through at least one layer of the laminate, the slits extending from the lateral edges toward the central longitudinal axis. (Figs. 8b-8c; paragraph [00103]; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 13, Ducker discloses where the longitudinally folded absorbent core has a plurality of sheets of the absorbent laminate (Figs. 3 and 8b-8c; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 14, Ducker 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 discloses wherein the less than 3 percent of the weight of the SAP comes from particles that will not pass through a 500 µm screen (paragraphs [0062] and [0066]).
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