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 light of the amendments to the claims filed 10/16/2025 in which claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended, claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-24 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to EP/21172970.2 filed on 05/10/2021.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-24 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 05/10/2021.
Response to Arguments
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the applicant generally asserts that the prior art to Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, Stelzig, Kamphus, Hippe, Clark, Carstens, and Cipriani fail to teach, suggest, or disclose the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that the prior art to Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, Stelzig, Kamphus, Hippe, Clark, Carstens, and Cipriani were not used in the prior Office Action filed 07/16/2025 to read on the newly added limitations.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 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 1-3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2015/002934 A2 to Wright in view of US/2009/0099541 A1 to Qin.
Regarding claim 1, Wright discloses a process for forming a composite absorbent structure (pg. 34 ln. 27-34; pg. 39 ln. 1-16; pg. 41 ln. 1-34 and pg. 42 ln. 1-5), the process comprising the steps of: advancing a nonwoven web in a machine direction (pg. 35 ln. 12-14; Fig. 11, absorbent composite 1110), wherein the nonwoven web has a first surface and an opposing second surface (Fig. 11, first surface considered outer surface of NW3 and opposing second surface considered outer surface of NW1), wherein the first and second surfaces define a substrate comprising void spaces (Fig. 11 showing void spaces within NW1-3; Fig. 11 showing NW1-3 defining absorbent composite 1110);
distributing superabsorbent particles on to the first surface of the nonwoven web (pg. 35 ln. 2-4 and 23-27, separation of SAP particles through the different density nonwovens would not occur if SAP particles were dispersed on the second surface comprising a higher density than the first surface comprising a lower density, as seen in Fig. 11, the pockets in NW1 which corresponds to the second surface are too small to allow dispersal of large and medium size SAP particles to NW2-3);
drawing at least some of the superabsorbent particles into void spaces of the nonwoven web substrate to form the composite absorbent structure (pg. 27 ln. 11-20; pg. 35 ln. 2-4; Fig. 11, superabsorbent particles S1-3 drawn into void spaces of substrate), and
wherein the nonwoven web comprises superabsorbent fibers after distribution of the superabsorbent particles (pg. 38 ln. 22-29);
at least partially heating the composite absorbent structure (pg. 35 ln. 15-22); and
attaching a tissue or nonwoven to at least one of the first surface and the opposing second surface (pg. 37 ln. 27-30; pg. 41 ln. 1-34 and pg. 42 ln. 1-5);
wherein fibers in the nonwoven web are aligned predominantly in the machine direction (pg. 9 ln. 18-22; pg. 32 ln. 24-33 and pg. 33 ln. 1-2);
wherein the nonwoven web comprises a fairly open, fibrous network with pores (pg. 32 ln. 3-33 and pg. 33 ln. 1-2; Fig. 11, absorbent composite 1110 comprising void spaces/pores for containment of SAP particles).
Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose the nonwoven web comprising from about 20% to about 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers.
Qin teaches an absorbent composite comprising a nonwoven web comprising 10-100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers to provide improved fluid wicking and wet integrity (Fig. 6, absorbent composite 44; para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13; para. 0229).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright to comprise the claimed range of superabsorbent fibers as taught by Qin, because Qin teaches that this range provides improved benefits to an absorbent composite such that it can exhibit fluid wicking capability and wet integrity better than that of an absorbent comprising only superabsorbent particles (para. 0133 ln. 6-13; para. 0229).
Further, the current embodiment of Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the current embodiment of Wright fails to disclose wherein the composite absorbent structure comprises channels that are substantially free of superabsorbent particles.
In another embodiment of Wright, Wright discloses an SAP dispenser comprising dispensing apertures that are positioned at spaced apart points to create laterally spaced apart lanes of SAP and SAP-free lanes to provide channels for quickly directing liquid (pg. 29 ln. 7-22; Fig. 14, SAP dispenser 1480; SAP lanes 1437; SAP-free lanes 1439).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the current embodiment of Wright to further comprise channels substantially free of SAP as taught in another embodiment of Wright, because Wright discloses that SAP-free lanes can act as channels for quickly directing liquid received therein (pg. 29 ln. 20-22).
Further still, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nonwoven web comprises a porosity of at least 90%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nonwoven web of Wright to have a porosity of at least 90% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wright would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since Wright discloses that the nonwoven web comprises a fairly open, fibrous network with pores the device would function appropriately having the claimed porosity. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the porosity “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pg. 3 ln. 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art suggests the method of claim 1. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is a high loft web having a density of less than about 0.20 g/cm3 (pg. 32 ln. 5-10; pg. 36 ln. 9-14; Table 1); however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to explicitly disclose that the nonwoven web is a high loft web having a density at a pressure of about 0.83 kPa (0.12 psi) of less than about 0.20 g/cm3.
While Wright, as modified by Qin, does not explicitly suggest the limitation at issue, Wright clearly contemplates the use of densities below 0.20 g/cm3; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Wright and Qin to keep the density below said threshold under pressure to achieve the predictable result of maintaining the desired density and allowing for the SAP particles to separate and sort to the correct layer of the substrate.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art suggests the method of claim 1. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is at least one of a needle-punched nonwoven web, a carded nonwoven web, and a bonded nonwoven (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 36 ln. 15-17).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art suggests the method of claim 1. The combination of the cited prior art further suggests: wherein the nonwoven web comprises from about 20% to about 80% by weight of superabsorbent fibers and from about 20 to about 80% of other synthetic fibers or the nonwoven web comprises from about 20% to about 80% by weight of superabsorbent fibers and from about 20 to about 80% of bicomponent fibers (as explained below).
Wright discloses that the nonwoven web is made from PP/PE/PET fibers (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; disclosed in applicant’s spec pg. 5 ln. 20-22 as synthetic fibers). Qin discloses a nonwoven web of 10% to 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers (para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13). Wright, as modified by Qin, would thus comprise 10% to 100% by weight of PP/PE/PET fibers and 10% to 100% by weight of synthetic fibers.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art suggests the method of claim 1. Wright further discloses: wherein the step of drawing at least some of the superabsorbent particles into void spaces of the nonwoven web substrate comprises the step of applying centrifugal forces, mechanical vibration, sound, vacuum, or applying any combination of those forces (pg. 27 ln. 11-20; pg. 35 ln. 2-4).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Qin as applied above, and further in view of US/2003/0181884 A1 to Carstens.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is a carded and bonded nonwoven web (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 36 ln. 15-17); however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose wherein the nonwoven web is a needle-punched nonwoven web.
Carstens teaches an absorbent comprised of a nonwoven web that is needle-punched to provide increased flexibility to the core (para. 0076-0077; Fig. 2, absorbent nonwoven web 32).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright and Qin to be needle-punched as taught by Carstens, because Carstens teaches that needle-punching provides flexibility to the core, such that the more needles used, the higher the flexibility of the finished nonwoven (para. 0077 ln. 16-18), which provides a more comfortable fit for a nonwoven web in an absorbent article.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright and Qin as applied above, and further in view of US/2017/0095379 A1 to Cipriani.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art suggests the method of claim 1; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose wherein at least the first surface of the nonwoven web is disrupted to increase the void space of the nonwoven web in the region of the first surface by applying a brush roll, toothed wheel or comb to the first surface.
Cipriani teaches an absorbent structure comprising a nonwoven web (Fig. 1, absorbent structure 10 comprising nonwoven web 12) which is disrupted to increase the void space of the nonwoven web in a region of a first surface by applying a toothed wheel to increase the specific volume of the nonwoven (para. 0048; para. 0050; Fig. 1, nonwoven web 12 comprising first surface 20).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web and method of Wright and Qin to comprise application of a toothed wheel to disrupt the nonwoven web as taught by Cipriani, because Cipriani teaches that this increases the specific volume of the nonwoven, which in conjunction with application of force, produces a deep penetration of superabsorbent particles and a substantial increase in the density of superabsorbent particles that can be distributed in the nonwoven (para. 0050).
Claims 10-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2015/002934 A1 to Wright in view of US/2009/0099541 A1 to Qin, US/2002/013762 A1 to Ishikawa, and US/2009/0076473 A1 to Kasai.
Regarding claim 10, Wright discloses a composite absorbent structure (Fig. 11, absorbent composite 1110) comprising:
a nonwoven web comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 37 ln. 16-23; Fig. 11, first surface considered outer surface of NW3 and opposing second surface considered outer surface of NW1), wherein the first and second surfaces define a substrate comprising void spaces (Fig. 11 showing void spaces within NW1-3; Fig. 11 showing NW1-3 defining absorbent composite 1110), and wherein the nonwoven web comprises superabsorbent fibers (pg. 38 ln. 22-29);
wherein superabsorbent particles are distributed within at least some of the void spaces of the substrate (pg. 27 ln. 11-20; pg. 35 ln. 2-4; Fig. 11, superabsorbent particles S1-3 drawn into void spaces of substrate) and
wherein the superabsorbent particles are distributed heterogeneously in the vertical direction between the first and second surfaces (Fig. 11 showing S1-3 distributed heterogeneously in the vertical direction between the first and second surfaces; largest SAP particles S3 in NW3, medium-sized SAP particles S2 in NW2, smallest S1 particles in NW1); and
wherein the superabsorbent particles are less than 1 mm in any dimension (pg. 36 Table 1 and pg. 37 ln. 1-23, particles may have an average size dimension 0-850 microns in a 3 layer absorbent composite; 1 mm = 1000 microns).
Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Webster fails to disclose the nonwoven web comprising from about 20% to about 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers, the superabsorbent fibers having a capacity of at least 7 g/g as measured according to the Centrifuge Retention Capacity Test, and the superabsorbent fibers having a permeability of greater than about 6 x 10-7 cm3.s/g to about 70 x 10-7 cm3.s/g as determined according to the Urine Permeability Measurement Test Method.
Qin teaches an absorbent composite comprising a nonwoven web comprising 10-100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers to provide improved fluid wicking and wet integrity (Fig. 6, absorbent composite 44; para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13; para. 0229), the superabsorbent fibers having a capacity of 10-40 g/g as measured according to a Centrifuge Retention Capacity Test (para. 0036-0039; para. 0184), and the components of the web providing a desired permeability (para. 0135).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright to comprise the claimed range of superabsorbent fibers as taught by Qin, because Qin teaches that this range provides improved benefits to an absorbent composite such that it can exhibit fluid wicking capability and wet integrity better than that of an absorbent comprising superabsorbent particles (para. 0133 ln. 6-13; para. 0229).
While the combined invention of Wright and Qin does not suggest the superabsorbent fibers having a capacity of at least 7 g/g as measured according to the Centrifuge Retention Capacity Test and having a permeability of greater than about 6 x 10-7 cm3.s/g to about 70 x 10-7 cm3.s/g as determined according to the Urine Permeability Measurement Test Method as claimed, Qin teaches that higher capacity and permeability are desired properties in superabsorbent fibers (para. 0036-0039; para. 0135; para. 0184). Increased capacity is concerned with improving absorption ability, and it is known in the art to improve absorption ability. Increased permeability is concerned with improving liquid transit, and it is known in the art to improve liquid transit. It would therefore have been obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the superabsorbent fibers of Wright and Qin with a capacity of at least 7 g/g as measure according to the Centrifuge Retention Capacity Test and permeability of greater than about 6 x 10-7 cm3.s/g to about 70 x 10-7 cm3.s/g as determined according to the Urine Permeability Measurement Test Method to achieve the predictable results of increasing the absorbent capacity of the absorbent composite, improving liquid transit through the fibers, and allowing for increased use time of the article. Further, it is the Office' s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the Centrifuge Retention Capacity Test to determine the capacity of the superabsorbent fibers or the Urine Permeability Measurement Test Method to determine the permeability of the superabsorbent fibers to read on the claim language.
Further, the current embodiment of Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the current embodiment of Wright fails to disclose wherein the superabsorbent particles are distributed heterogeneously to form channels that are substantially free of superabsorbent particles.
In another embodiment of Wright, Wright discloses an SAP dispenser comprising dispensing apertures that are positioned at spaced apart points to create laterally spaced apart lanes of SAP and SAP-free lanes to provide channels for quickly directly liquid (pg. 29 ln. 7-22; Fig. 14, SAP dispenser 1480; SAP lanes 1437; SAP-free lanes 1439).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the current embodiment of Wright to further comprise channels substantially free of SAP as taught in another embodiment of Wright, because Wright discloses that SAP-free lanes can act as channels for quickly directing liquid received therein (pg. 29 ln. 20-22).
Further still, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose the superabsorbent fibers comprise a dtex of from about 3 to about 12.
Ishikawa teaches an absorbent material for an absorbent core comprising superabsorbent fibers in a range of 1.5-100 dtex in order to maximize usability (Fig. 6, absorbent materials 23a-b comprising absorbent core; para. 0052).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent fibers of Wright to be from 1.5-100 dtex as taught by Ishikawa, because Ishikawa teaches that at a dtex lower than 1.5, the fibers would readily be damaged, and at a dtex greater than 100, the fibers are too stiff (para. 0052).
Ishikawa discloses (para. 0052) that the dtex of the fibers needs to be optimized such that the “super-absorbent fibers…[are not] readily damaged…[and] the desired flexibility of the absorbent…[is] expected.” Therefore, the dtex is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the dtex changes the strength of the fibers and the flexibility of the absorbent which affects absorption and comfortability. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wright and Ishikawa device to have a fiber fineness (dtex) within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Wright and Ishikawa by making the dtex of the fibers be between 3 and 12 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Even further still, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose that the superabsorbent fibers comprise a ratio of largest dimension to smallest dimension of at least 15:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superabsorbent fibers of Wright to have a ratio of a largest dimension to a smallest dimension of at least 15:1 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wright would not operate differently with the claimed ratio and since the superabsorbent fibers are displaced over the top of the composite absorbent the device would function appropriately having the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ratio claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is preferably 15:1 (specification pg. 5 ln. 1-4).
Even further still, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose wherein the nonwoven web comprises a fiber orientation in a z direction and a predominant fiber orientation in at least one of an x direction and a y direction, wherein the fiber orientation and the predominant fiber orientation are different.
Kasai teaches an absorbent core wherein a fibrous web comprises a fiber orientation in a z direction and predominant fiber orientation in at least one of an x direction and a y direction (Fig. 1, absorbent core 1 comprising fibrous web 2; para. 0044-0045), wherein the fiber orientation and the predominant fiber orientation are different, preventing side leakage from the article (para. 0044; Fig. 1, up and down direction is the z direction and side to side direction is the y direction).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright to comprise the fiber orientation of Kasai, because Kasai teaches that generally unidirectional fiber orientation diffuses absorbed liquid preferentially in the orientation direction of the continuous fibers while liquid diffusion in the direction perpendicular to the orientation direction of the continuous fibers is suppressed, which effectively prevents side leakage from the article (para. 0044).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein larger superabsorbent particles are predominantly distributed close to the first surface of the substrate and smaller superabsorbent particles penetrate deeper within the void spaces of the substrate of the nonwoven web (Fig. 11 showing S3 larger SAP particles distributed closest to outer surface of NW3 and S1 smallest SAP particles distributed closest to outer surface of NW1).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is a high loft web having a density of less than about 0.20 g/cm3 (pg. 32 ln. 5-10; pg. 36 ln. 9-14; Table 1); however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to explicitly disclose that the nonwoven web is a high loft web having a density at a pressure of about 0.83 kPa (0.12 psi) of less than about 0.20 g/cm3.
While Wright, as modified by Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai, does not explicitly suggest the limitation at issue, Wright clearly contemplates the use of densities below 0.20 g/cm3; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to keep the density below said threshold under pressure to achieve the predictable result of maintaining the desired density and allowing for the SAP particles to separate and sort to the correct layer of the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is at least one of a needle-punched nonwoven web, a carded nonwoven web, and a bonded nonwoven web (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 36 ln. 15-17).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10, the combination further suggests: wherein the nonwoven web comprises from about 20% to about 80% by weight of superabsorbent fibers and from about 20 to about 80% of other synthetic fibers (as explained below).
Wright discloses the nonwoven web made from PP/PE/PET fibers (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; disclosed in applicant’s spec pg. 5 ln. 20-22 as synthetic fibers). Qin discloses a nonwoven web of 10% to 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers (para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13). Wright, as modified by Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai, would thus comprise 10% to 100% by weight of PP/PE/PET fibers and 10% to 100% by weight of synthetic fibers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai as applied above, and further in view of US/2003/0181884 A1 to Carstens.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein the nonwoven web is a carded and bonded nonwoven web (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 36 ln. 15-17); however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose wherein the nonwoven web is a needle-punched nonwoven web.
Carstens teaches absorbent structure comprised of a nonwoven web that is needle-punched to provide increased flexibility to the core (para. 0076-0077; Fig. 2, absorbent nonwoven web 32).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to be needle-punched as taught by Carstens, because Carstens teaches that needle-punching provides flexibility to the core, such that the more needles used, the higher the flexibility of the finished nonwoven (para. 0077 ln. 16-18), which provides a more comfortable fit for a nonwoven web in an absorbent article.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai as applied above, and further in view of WO/03/052190 A1 to Clark.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10, the combination further suggests: wherein the nonwoven web comprises from about 20% to about 80% by weight of superabsorbent fibers and from about 20 to about 80% of other synthetic fibers (as explained below).
Wright discloses the nonwoven web made from PP/PE/PET fibers (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; disclosed in applicant’s spec pg. 5 ln. 20-22 as synthetic fibers). Qin discloses a nonwoven web of 10% to 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers (para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13). Wright, as modified by Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai, would thus comprise 10% to 100% by weight of PP/PE/PET fibers and 10% to 100% by weight of synthetic fibers.
However, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that they fail to disclose the nonwoven web comprising about 20% to about 80% of bicomponent fibers.
Clark teaches an absorbent nonwoven web comprising bicomponent fibers (pg. 7 para. 10 ln. 1-3) comprising PP/PET in the core (pg. 9 para. 1 ln. 1-3) and further synthetic polymers as the sheath in order to increase durability (pg. 9 para. 2 ln. 1-3).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the synthetic fibers of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to be bicomponent fibers as taught by Clark, because Clark teaches that the use of the sheath polymer contributes durability to the nonwoven web that is absent in nonwoven webs made from the core polymer alone (pg. 8 para. 2 ln. 3-6; pg. 9 para. 1 ln. 8-12).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2015/002934 A1 to Wright in view of US/2009/0099541 A1 to Qin and US/2002/013762 A1 to Ishikawa.
Regarding claim 19, Wright discloses an absorbent article (pg. 36 ln. 4-7) comprising:
a substantially liquid permeable topsheet (pg. 1 ln. 20-21; pg. 36 ln. 4-7; pg. 37 ln. 21-23);
a substantially liquid impermeable backsheet (pg. 1 ln. 22-25; pg. 36 ln. 4-7); and
a composite absorbent structure (Fig. 11, absorbent composite nonwoven web 1110 formed from layers of nonwoven NW1-3) comprising:
a nonwoven web comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface (pg. 35 ln. 5-14; pg. 37 ln. 16-23; Fig. 11, first surface considered outer surface of NW3 and opposing second surface considered outer surface of NW1), wherein the first and second surfaces define a substrate comprising void spaces (Fig. 11 showing void spaces within NW1-3; Fig. 11 showing NW1-3 defining absorbent composite 1110), and wherein the nonwoven web comprises superabsorbent fibers (pg. 38 ln. 22-29); wherein superabsorbent particles are distributed within at least some of the void spaces of the substrate (pg. 27 ln. 11-20; pg. 35 ln. 2-4; Fig. 11, S1-3 superabsorbent particles drawn into void spaces of substrate) and wherein the superabsorbent particles are distributed heterogeneously in the vertical direction between the first and second surfaces (Fig. 11 showing S1-3 distributed heterogeneously in the vertical direction between the first and second surfaces; largest SAP particles S3 in NW3, medium-sized SAP particles S2 in NW2, smallest S1 particles in NW1),
wherein a tissue or nonwoven layer is laminated on at least one of the first surface and the opposing second surface (pg. 37 ln. 27-30; pg. 42 ln. 1-34 and pg. 42 ln. 1-5), and
wherein the superabsorbent particles comprise a distribution pattern inside the nonwoven web comprising two or more peaks of density separated by at least one buffer zone (pg. 27 ln. 11-20; pg. 35 ln. 2-4, absorbent composite may be subjected to vacuum to encourage particle separation; pg. 35 ln. 2-4 and 23-27, separation of SAP particles through different density nonwoven layer of absorbent composite nonwoven web 1110; Fig. 11, NW1-3 layers of three-layer composite absorbent structure, this creates three peak density areas in each layer and two buffer zones between the layers), and
wherein the composite absorbent structure lies between the topsheet and the backsheet (pg. 36 ln. 5-7), wherein the first surface is located on the side of the absorbent article closest to the topsheet, so that larger superabsorbent particles are predominantly distributed closest to a body side of the absorbent article (pg. 37 ln. 21-23, NW3 located closest to the topsheet such that S3 largest SAP particles are distributed closest to the body side of the absorbent article).
Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Webster fails to disclose the nonwoven web comprising from about 20% to about 100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers.
Qin teaches an absorbent composite comprising a nonwoven web comprising 10-100% by weight of superabsorbent fibers to provide improved fluid wicking and wet integrity (Fig. 6, absorbent composite 44; para. 0127; para. 0133 ln. 3-13; para. 0229).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the nonwoven web of Wright to comprise the claimed range of superabsorbent fibers as taught by Qin, because Qin teaches that this range provides improved benefits to an absorbent composite such that it can exhibit fluid wicking capability and wet integrity better than that of an absorbent comprising superabsorbent particles (para. 0133 ln. 6-13; para. 0229).
Further, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose the superabsorbent fibers comprise a dtex of from about 3 to about 12.
Ishikawa teaches an absorbent material for an absorbent core comprising superabsorbent fibers in a range of 1.5-100 dtex in order to maximize usability (Fig. 6, absorbent materials 23a-b comprising absorbent core; para. 0052).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent fibers of Wright to be from 1.5-100 dtex as taught by Ishikawa, because Ishikawa teaches that at a dtex lower than 1.5, the fibers would readily be damaged, and at a dtex greater than 100, the fibers are too stiff (para. 0052).
Ishikawa discloses (para. 0052) that the dtex of the fibers needs to be optimized such that the “super-absorbent fibers…[are not] readily damaged…[and] the desired flexibility of the absorbent…[is] expected.” Therefore, the dtex is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the dtex changes the strength of the fibers and the flexibility of the absorbent which affects absorption and comfortability. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wright and Ishikawa device to have a fiber fineness (dtex) within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Wright and Ishikawa by making the dtex of the fibers be between 3 and 12 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further still, Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Wright fails to disclose that the superabsorbent fibers comprise a ratio of largest dimension to smallest dimension of at least 15:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superabsorbent fibers of Wright to have a ratio of a largest dimension to a smallest dimension of at least 15:1 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wright would not operate differently with the claimed ratio and since the superabsorbent fibers are displaced over the top of the composite absorbent the device would function appropriately having the claimed ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ratio claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is preferably 15:1 (specification pg. 5 ln. 1-4).
Even further still, the current embodiment of Wright differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the current embodiment of Wright fails to disclose wherein the composite absorbent structure comprises one or more channels, wherein the channels are substantially free of superabsorbent particles.
In another embodiment of Wright, Wright discloses an SAP dispenser comprising dispensing apertures that are positioned at spaced apart points to create laterally spaced apart lanes of SAP and SAP-free lanes for quickly directing liquid (pg. 29 ln. 7-22; Fig. 14, SAP dispenser 1480; SAP lanes 1437; SAP-free lanes 1439). This would also create a distribution patten inside the nonwoven web that comprises two or more peaks of density separated by at least one buffer zone (Fig. 14, buffer zones would be considered SAP-free lanes 1439 and density peaks would be considered SAP lanes 1437).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the current embodiment of Wright to further comprise channels substantially free of SAP as taught in another embodiment of Wright, because Wright discloses that SAP-free lanes can act as channels for quickly directing liquid received therein (pg. 29 ln. 20-22).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai as applied above, and further in view of US/2012/0316523 A1 to Hippe.
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein the superabsorbent particles comprise at least one or polyacrylates and polyacrylic acid polymers, wherein the polyacrylates and polyacrylic acid polymers are cross-linked (pg. 1 ln. 33-34); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the polymers are at least one of internally and surface cross-linked.
Hippe teaches an absorbent comprising superabsorbent polymer particles comprising surface cross-linked polyacrylic polymers to enhance fluid transmission (para. 0055-0056; para. 0070-0077; Fig. 3-4).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent particles of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to be surface cross-linked as taught by Hippe, because Hippe teaches that a commonly applied way to reduce gel blocking that inhibits fluid transmission is to make particles stiffer by surface cross-linking (para. 0075-0077).
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai as applied above, and further in view of WO/2018/194782 A1 to Kamphus.
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10. Wright further discloses: wherein the superabsorbent particles may be in the form of agglomerates (para. 0005); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the superabsorbent particles comprise at least 5%, by weight, agglomerated superabsorbent particles.
Kamphus teaches an absorbent comprising a mixture of superabsorbent particles and agglomerated superabsorbent particles, wherein the agglomerated superabsorbent particles comprise at least 10% of the total superabsorbent particles to improve absorption (Fig. 1, absorbent core 28; pg. 38 ln. 1-7).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent particles of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to comprise at least 10% agglomerated superabsorbent particles as taught by Kamphus, because Kamphus teaches that the agglomerated superabsorbent polymer particles of their invention show good performance properties such as a good absorption capacity and a high absorption speed (pg. 3 ln. 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of agglomerated superabsorbent particles from at least 10% to at least 5% as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pg. 8 ln. 16-19 indicating the superabsorbent particles “may” comprise at least 5% agglomerated superabsorbent particles) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art suggest the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the superabsorbent particles comprise clay platelets with at least one of modified surfaces and modified edges.
Kamphus teaches superabsorbent particles comprising clay platelets with at least one of modified surfaces and modified edges (Fig. 1, absorbent core 28; pg. 38 ln. 1-7; pg. 63-67, method of making agglomerated superabsorbent polymer particles comprising clay platelets [specifically montmorillonite]) in order to increase hydrophilicity.
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent particles of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to comprise clay platelets as taught by Kamphus, because Kamphus teaches that clay platelets with surface modifications serve to strongly bind to the monomers comprising the superabsorbent polymers (pg. 21 ln. 24-32 and pg. 22 ln. 1-6) and may further enhance the hydrophilicity, and hence the affinity for hydrophilic fluids of the agglomerated superabsorbent polymer particles (pg. 21 ln. 3-10).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai as applied above, and further in view of US/2015/0174280 A1 to Stelzig.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art suggest the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein a basis weight of the superabsorbent particles is at least 50 g/m2.
Stelzig teaches an absorbent comprising superabsorbent particles with a basis weight of at least 50 g/m2 dependent upon expected usage (Fig. 1-3, absorbent structure 70; para. 0068).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the superabsorbent particles of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to have a basis weight of at least 50 g/m2 as taught by Stelzig, because Stelzig teaches a similar article to that of the instant invention such that this basis weight is known in the art to be an appropriate basis weight for superabsorbent particles in absorbent cores and teaches that the total amount of SAP in an absorbent core may be varied dependent upon expected usage (para. 0068).
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the absorbent core comprises at least 60%, by weight, superabsorbent particles.
Stelzig teaches an absorbent comprising 80-100%, by weight, superabsorbent particles dependent upon expected usage (Fig. 1-3, absorbent structure 70; para. 0032).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the absorbent and the superabsorbent particles of Wright, Qin, Ishikawa, and Kasai to comprise 80-100%, by weight, superabsorbent particles as taught by Stelzig, because Stelzig teaches a similar article to that of the instant invention such that this weight percentage is known in the art to be an appropriate weight percentage for superabsorbent particles in absorbent cores and teaches that the total amount of SAP in an absorbent core may be varied dependent upon expected usage (para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of superabsorbent particles in the absorbent of Wright, as modified by Qin, Ishikawa, Kasai, and Stelzig, from between 80-100% to at least 60% as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pg. 9 ln. 13-14 indicating the core “may” comprise the weight) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571)272-7159. 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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 3 February 2026