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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/14/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
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.
Claims 1, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducker (US 20200060895 A1) in view of Zink (US 20180168888 A1) in view of Chmielewski (US 20220047432 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ducker teaches an absorbent article (100) comprising:
a chassis having opposing front and rear waist portions and a crotch portion extending longitudinally between the front and rear waist portions, where the crotch portion is configured to conform about at least one of a wearer's groin area, perineum, and rear when the chassis is configured in a wearable configuration (paragraph [0090])(figure 13); and
an absorbent core (200b) extending longitudinally along the crotch portion and comprising a laminate (100a), where the laminate is longitudinally folded such that the absorbent core (paragraph [0081] FIGS. 8A, 8B, and 8C) includes:
a lower layer (204c) spanning a portion of a lateral width of the absorbent core, the lower layer including a first portion and a second portion (left and right fold in figure 8B)(paragraph [0081]); and
a plurality of folded layers (204a and 204b) of the laminate disposed over the lower layer and configured to define a non-overlapping channel (paragraph [0079]);
where the absorbent core is disposed between a topsheet and a backsheet (paragraph [0032]).
Ducker fails to teach a plurality of folded layers of the laminate disposed over the lower layer and configured to define at least two non-overlapping channels. Zink teacher an absorbent comprising at least two non-overlapping channels (29)(paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent of Zink so there are two or more non-overlapping channels to enhance comfort and fit (Zinc, paragraph [0006]).
Ducker fails to teach where the at least one non-overlapping channel is defined at least in part by a pair of folds on opposing lateral sides of the at least one non- overlapping channel, with each of the opposing folds extending between two overlapping ones of the folded layers. Chmielewski teaches where the at least one non-overlapping channel (360a ) is defined at least in part by a pair of folds on opposing lateral sides of the at least one non- overlapping channel, with each of the opposing folds extending between two overlapping ones (360d and 360c) of the folded layers (paragraph [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ducker so where the at least one non-overlapping channel is defined at least in part by a pair of folds on opposing lateral sides of the at least one non- overlapping channel, with each of the opposing folds extending between two overlapping ones of the folded layers (paragraph [0067]) so that the channels way drain in different areas, and to different locations.
Regarding Claim 7, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 5. Ducker fails to teach where: the one or more folded layers within the second edge region comprise a sixth folded layer and a seventh folded layer; and the sixth folded layer is disposed between the seventh folded layer and the second portion of the lower layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add a sixth and seventh folded layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, as the layers serve to add thickness to store fluid and so there is sufficient thickness to provide needed void volume to capture and control gushes of liquid (Ducker, paragraph [0013].
Regarding Claim 8, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. The first embodiment of Ducker fails to teach a core cover coupled to the absorbent core. Another embodiment of Ducker further teaches a core cover (paragraph [0086: breathable outer cover material]) coupled to the absorbent core (paragraph [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary embodiment of Ducker to include a core cover similar to that disclosed by an alternative embodiment of Ducker so that the vapor diffusion through layer to reduce moisture build up at the transdermal interface between the patient and pad (Ducker, paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches comprising an acquisition distribution layer (ADL), the ADL coupled to a surface of a core cover of the absorbent core (paragraph [0100]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches where additional layers (30 and 34) of material are incorporated within the chassis (14) (abstract: invention described can be included in pads such as the one described in the prior art (paragraph [0009]) , between the absorbent core and the topsheet, between the absorbent core and the backsheet, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches where each of the at least one non-overlapping channel is configured to provide a flow path to a corresponding void cavity defined by at least some of the plurality of folded layers and the lower layer (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches where a first sub-portion of the first portion of the lower layer and a second sub-portion of the second portion of the lower layer are bonded to the crotch portion (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches wherein the laminate (100a) includes two or more substrate laminae and one or more absorbent laminae (paragraph [0062]); each of the one or more absorbent laminae comprises superabsorbent polymer (SAP) (paragraph [0062]); and a first one of the one or more absorbent laminae is disposed between first and second ones of the two or more substrate laminae (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches wherein the absorbent core (100) further includes at least one absorbent core component that includes one or more folded layers (Fig. 8B and 8C) (paragraph [0081]); and the at least one non-overlapping channel is further defined by the at least one absorbent core component (figure 8B).
Claims 2-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducker (US2020060895A1) in view of Zink (US 20180168888 A1) in view of Chmielewski (US 20150245958 A1) and in view of Chmielewski 2022’(US 20220047432 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewski teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker further teaches where:
the plurality of folded layers comprises one or more folded layers within a middle region, one or more folded layers within a first edge region, and one or more folded layers within a second edge region opposite to the first edge region (annotated figure 8B below);
a first channel of the a non-overlapping channel is defined between the first edge region and the middle region (paragraph [0079]); and
Ducker fails to teach a second channel of the at least one non-overlapping channel is defined between the middle region and the second edge region. Chmielewski teaches an absorbent article with a folded absorbent core where a first channel (C1) of the at least one non-overlapping channel is defined between the first edge region and the middle region (paragraph [0109]))(figure 14B); and a second channel of the at least one non-overlapping channel is defined between the middle region and the second edge region (paragraph [0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent of Ducker to include a second channel similar to that disclosed by Chmielewsk so that the fluid flow may be sourced from different areas of the absorbent.
Ducker fails to teach a plurality of folded layers of the laminate disposed over the lower layer and configured to define at least two non-overlapping channels. Zinc teaches an absorbent comprising at least two non-overlapping channels (29)(paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent of Zinc so there are two or more non-overlapping channels to more efficiently drain fluid.
PNG
media_image1.png
600
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewsk teaches the absorbent article of claim 2. Ducker further teaches wherein the one or more folded layers within the middle region comprise a first folded layer (104), a second folded layer (108), and a third folded layer (112); and the first folded layer and the second folded layer are disposed between the third folded layer and the lower layer (paragraph [0060]) (figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewsk teaches the absorbent article of claim 3. Ducker further teaches where the third folded layer (112) spans the first folded layer (104), the second folded layer (108) , and a gap between the first portion of the lower layer and the second portion of the lower layer (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewsk teaches the absorbent article of claim 3. Ducker further teaches the one or more folded layers within the first edge region comprise a fourth folded layer (124) and a fifth folded layer (128)(paragraph [0069]); and the fourth folded layer is disposed between the fifth folded layer and the first portion of the lower layer (104) .
Regarding Claim 6, Ducker in view of Zink and Chmielewsk teaches the absorbent article of claim 5. Ducker further teaches a longitudinally-extending insert coupled to the laminate (100a) such that a portion of the longitudinally-extending insert is disposed between the first portion of the lower layer and the first and fourth folded layers (paragraph [0069-0070]), where the longitudinally-extending insert comprises at least one of: fluff and superabsorbent polymer (paragraph [0062]); and a through-air bonded polymer nonwoven (paragraph [0073].
Regarding Claim 11, Ducker in view of Zink teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. Ducker fails to teach where a width of each of the at least one non-overlapping channel is approximately 5-20 millimeters. Chmielewsk teaches an absorbent article with a folded absorbent core where a width of each of the at least one non-overlapping channel is approximately 5-20 millimeters (paragraph [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the channels of Ducker so the channel is approximately 5-20 millimeters similar to that disclosed by Chmielewsk in order to compensate for the occasional "ruck" or overlap between the sides of the channel due in part to pressure applied to the sides of the core by the wearer (as motivated by Chmielewsk, paragraph [0124]).
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 KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781