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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on December 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification, filed December 16, 2025, have been considered and are hereby entered.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 – 23 have been added.
Claims 1 – 18 and 21 – 23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the objection of claims 10, 11, and 15 as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification, filed December 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the objection to the drawings as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 13 – 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 4 – 10, and 12 – 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2025, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti and further in view of Detani as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed December 16, 2205, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti and further in view of Fujiwara as set forth in the office action filed September 16, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the currently cited art does not teach the film layer bonded directly to the claimed absorbent core as recite din claim 1 nor the particularly bonding methods recited in new claims 21 and 23 because Denti teaches a fluid management layer located between the topsheet and the absorbent core. Applicant notes that in the previous rejection, the Examiner equated the fluid management layer to the claimed absorbent core, and the fluid management layer of Denti is not directly bonded to the film layer as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection below, an alternative interpretation of Denti is that the combination of the fluid management layer and the absorbent core can be interpreted as the claimed absorbent core layer. As claimed, the absorbent core is only required to comprise a carded layer and does not preclude the inclusion of additional layers. When the combination of the layers of Denti is interpreted as the claimed absorbent core, the film layer is directly bonded as claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references provided in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 15, 2025 have been considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this office action.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1, 4 – 10, 12, and 15 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti (US20250127664A1).
As per claims 1, 5 – 7, 15, and 18, Denti teaches:
An absorbent composite, comprising (a) a nonwoven top layer, (b) and absorbent core directly or indirectly attached to the nonwoven top layer, further comprising a film layer bonded directly to the absorbent core, the absorbent core being located directly or indirectly between the film layer and the nonwoven top layer (Abstract: “An absorbent article includes a liquid pervious topsheet, a backsheet at least peripherally joined to the topsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between said topsheet and said backsheet. The absorbent article further includes an integrated nonwoven fluid management layer.” In [0112], Denti teaches that the backsheet can be made from a film. The combination of the fluid management layer and the absorbent core is interpreted as the claimed absorbent core. In [0111], Denti teaches that the backsheet may be joined to the core.)
The nonwoven top layer comprising hydrophilic fibers ([0037]: “In various embodiments, the topsheet is a carded, air-through bonded nonwoven. The nonwoven may comprise a mix of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers.”)
The absorbent core comprising a plurality of layers including (i) at least one physically entangled nonwoven layer and (ii) at least one bonded carded nonwoven layer (Denti teaches that the fluid management layer is an integrated, carded, nonwoven material ([0062]) Denti teaches that integrated fibers of a nonwoven web means that the fibers have been subjected to a plurality of high pressure water jets to entangle fibers ([0020]). This is interpreted as the claimed physically entangled nonwoven layer. Denti teaches that the fluid management layer can comprise one or more carded webs which are fiber integrated with one another ([0062]) and that each carded nonwoven web forms a stratum in the overall fluid management layer ([0064]). This is interpreted as a carded nonwoven layer with a sublayer of a hydroentangled nonwoven layer between each of the carded nonwoven layers. Depending on the amount of nonwoven layers selected, the resulting structures read on the claimed structures of claims 5 – 7.)
Wherein the film layer comprises a water impermeable film and comprises at least one polyolefin ([0112]: “The backsheet 14 may comprise a polymeric film such as thermoplastic films of polyethylene or polypropylene.”)
Regarding the composite-rate of absorption, the composite-run-off value, and composite-absorption capacity, Denti is silent with respect to the claimed properties. Since Denti teaches substantially the same structure and composition as disclosed by Applicant, the properties of composite-rate of absorption, the composite-run-off value, and composite-absorption capacity are considered to naturally flow from the product of the prior art (and would be expected to fall within the range in the claim), absent evidence otherwise. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. When the structure recited in the prior art reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that the reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims.
As per claim 4, Denti teaches:
Wherein the nonwoven top layer comprises at least about 30% by weight of hydrophilic fibers ([0037]: “In some nonlimiting examples, the nonwoven comprises at least about 50%, or at least about 60% hydrophilic fibers by weight of the fibers.”)
Wherein the nonwoven top layer has an air permeability of at least 50 CFM as determined by IST 70.1 (Denti teaches that the topsheet may contain apertures and recessions to enhance air permeability and that the enhanced air permeability provides the wearer with a comfortable and airy feeling product ([0048 – 0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the air permeability to within the claimed levels by the inclusion of apertures and recessions motivated by the desire to predictably improve the comfort and feeling of the resulting product.)
As per claim 8, Denti teaches:
Wherein the first bonded carded nonwoven layer, the second bonded carded nonwoven layer or both independently comprise a plurality of synthetic staple fibers comprising a synthetic polymeric material, the synthetic polymeric material comprises a polyolefin, a polyester, a polyamide, or any combination (Denti teaches that the fluid management layer comprises a combination of stiffening, absorbent and resilient fibers ([0071]). Denti teaches that some examples of suitable stiffening fibers include bi-component fibers comprising polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate components or polyethylene terephthalate and co-polyethylene terephthalate components ([0087]). Similarly, Denti teaches resilient fibers can be any suitable thermoplastic fiber such as polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate with a length of about 20 mm to about 100 mm.)
As per claim 9, Denti teaches:
Wherein the first bonded carded nonwoven layer, the second bonded carded nonwoven layer or both independently have a void volume greater than 9 cc/g (Denti teaches that the increased void volume of the fluid management layer facilitates fluid acquisition and that the fluid management layer should have void volume to drain the topsheet ([0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the void volume to within the claimed levels, motivated by the desire to predictably facilitate fluid acquisition and to drain the topsheet.)
As per claim 10, Denti teaches:
Wherein the first physically entangled nonwoven layer, the second physically entangled nonwoven layer, or both independently include from about 10% to about 90% by weight of synthetic polymeric fibers, wherein the synthetic polymeric fibers comprise a synthetic polymer comprising polyolefin, a polyester, a polyamide, or any combination thereof (Denti teaches that the fluid management layer preferably has between 10 – 60% of absorbent fibers ([0075]). Since the layer comprises stiffening, resilient and absorbent fibers, this converts to an amount of stiffening and resilient fibers between 40 – 90%, which overlaps with the claimed range. As noted above, the stiffening and resilient fibers are the claimed polymers.)
As per claim 12, Denti teaches:
Wherein the first physically entangled nonwoven layer, the second physically entangled nonwoven layer, or both independently include from about 10% to about 90% by weight of cellulosic fibers, wherein the cellulosic fibers comprises cellulose acetate, regenerated cellulose, saponified acetate, or any combination thereof (Denti teaches that the fluid management layer preferably has between 10 – 60% of absorbent fibers ([0075]). Denti teaches that any suitable absorbent material for the absorbent fibers may be utilized, including regenerated cellulose ([0084]).)
As per claim 16, Denti teaches:
Wherein the absorbent core is devoid of pulp, meltblown fibers or both (As Denti does not require meltblown fibres in the absorbent core, the invention of Denti is interpreted as being devoid of meltblown fibers as claimed.)
As per claim 17, Denti teaches:
Wherein the absorbent core is devoid of through-air-bonded nonwoven layers (As Denti does not require a through-air bonded nonwoven layer in the absorbent core, the invention of Denti is interpreted as being devoid of a through-air bonded nonwoven layer fibers as claimed.)
As per claim 21, Denti teaches:
Wherein the film layer is thermally bonded or extrusion coated on the absorbent core ([0111]: “For example, the backsheet 14 may be secured to the absorbent core 15 by a uniform continuous layer of adhesive, a patterned layer of adhesive, or an array of separate lines, spirals, or spots of adhesive. Alternatively, the attachment methods may comprise using heat bonds…”)
As per claim 22, Denti teaches:
Wherein the film layer is adhesively bonded directly to the absorbent core (([0111]: “For example, the backsheet 14 may be secured to the absorbent core 15 by a uniform continuous layer of adhesive…”)
As per claim 23, Denti teaches:
Wherein the plurality of layers of the absorbent core are bonded together via a composite bonding pattern comprising thermally-formed point bonds ([0120]: “The layers may be joined by any suitable means, including for example adhesive bonding, mechanical bonding, ultrasonic bonding and combinations thereof. Bonding may be continuous or discontinuous.”)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti (US20250127664A1) as applied to claims 1, 4 – 10, 12, and 15 – 18 above, and further in view of Detani (US20140171894).
As per claims 2 and 3, Denti does not teach:
Wherein the nonwoven top layer comprises a spunmelt nonwoven
Wherein the spunmelt nonwoven comprises a S1a-Mb-S2c structure
Detani teaches a bodily fluid absorbent article comprising an absorbent matrix in between a liquid permeable topsheet and a liquid-impermeable backsheet (Abstract). Detani further teaches:
The nonwoven top layer comprises a spunmelt nonwoven, wherein the spunmelt nonwoven comprises S1a-Mb-S2c structure; wherein S1 is a first spunbond material, “M” is a meltblown material, “S2” is a second spunbond material, and “a”, “b”, and “c” indicate the number of respective layers and each independently have a value of 1 – 5 ([0033]: “The topsheet may be formed of commonly used materials in the relevant technical field. For example, a nonwoven fabric made of thermoplastic synthetic fibers such as… an SMS nonwoven fabric composed of a spunbonded nonwoven fabric, a melt blown nonwoven fabric and a spun bonded nonwoven fabric laminated together in this order... may be used.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the topsheet of Denti in the SMS layered fashion as taught by Detani. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Detani teaches that this layer of nonwoven fabrics is known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use as a topsheet in absorbent composites, such as those taught by Denti. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 19660), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemcial Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP §2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti (US20250127664A1) as applied to claims 1, 4 – 10, 12, and 15 – 18 above, and further in view of Fujiwara (US5951535).
As per claim 11, Denti does not teach:
Wherein the synthetic polymeric fibers comprise from about 20% to about 100% by weight of hydrophilic fibers
Fujiwara teaches an absorptive article for retaining a body fluid comprising a nonwoven fabric (Abstract). Fujiwara further teaches that the nonwoven fabric can comprise a mixture of hydrophilic fibers to improve liquid absorption and holt-melt adhesive fibers, such as core and sheath fibers (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 3), similar to those in Denti. Fujiwara further teaches:
Wherein the synthetic polymeric fibers comprise from about 20% to about 100% by weight of hydrophilic fibers (Column 9, Lines 24 – 31: “Repeated permeation-absorption of the body fluids becomes superior by mixing the hydrophilic fibers, but when the mixing ratio of the hydrophilic short fibers exceed 70% by weight, the ratio of the hot-melt-adhesive short fibers becomes less than 30% by weight, and as a result, the shape retention of the short fiber non-woven fabric based on the melt adhesion of the holt-melt-adhesive composite short fibers becomes difficult.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the absorbent core of Denti, and to include hydrophilic fibers, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Fujiwara. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Fujiwara teaches that the addition of hydrophilic fibers to thermoplastic fibers predictably improves the absorption behavior (Column 9, Lines 24 – 31).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denti (US20250127664A1) as applied to claims 1, 4 – 10, 12, and 15 – 18 above, and further in view of Merckel (US20220062059A1).
As per claims 13 and 14, Denti does not teach:
Wherein the first physically entangled nonwoven layer, the second physically entangled nonwoven layer, or both comprises a plurality of apertures extending through an entire thickness in the z-direction
Wherein the plurality of apertures define an open area, the open area comprises from about 1% to about 30%
The plurality of apertures have an average diameter from about 0.1 mm to about 2 mm
Merckel teaches absorbent composites that comprise a back layer, a top layer, and an absorbent layer (Abstract). This is similar to the structure of the nonwoven composite of Denti. Merckel further teaches that the composites comprise apertures for the passage of exudate through the composite ([0055]). Merckel teaches that these apertures define an open area of about 10 to 30% ([0059]) and that the apertures have an average diameter of between 0.2 mm and 3.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide apertures in the absorbent composite of Denti, motivated by the desire to predictably provide passage of exudate as taught by Merckel ([0055]). It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apertures in the claimed size and amount because Denti teaches these sizes and amounts are predictably suitable for similar nonwoven absorbent composites.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on (571) 270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789