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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 1-2, and 16 are currently amended.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 20200397631 A1) in view of Drylock (DE 202017007127 U1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weber teaches an absorbent structure for use in an absorbent article, the absorbent structure (701) comprising:
a lower core (703) comprising a first lower core channel formed entirely through the lower core extending from a lower core top surface to a lower core bottom surface (paragraph [0206]); and
an upper core (702) comprising an upper core bottom surface that is positioned adjacent to the lower core top surface, the upper core further comprising an upper core channel formed entirely through the upper core (paragraph [0206]) extending from an upper core top surface to the upper core bottom surface (paragraphs [0001], [0161], [0164]; figures 23, 25A, 25B).;
wherein the upper core channel is positioned such that a portion of the lower core top surface is accessible through the upper core channel (paragraph [0162]); and
Weber fails to explicitly teach first lower core channel extending beyond a periphery of an upper core. However Weber does teach that said channel 106, 106′, forms a shape having an open end in the form of two diverging ends or a funnel-shape and a closed end opposite thereto formed by the connecting channel portion 109 (exemplary shown in FIG. 25A), preferably wherein in the first core layer 502, 602, 702 the open end is positioned proximal to the front portion 122 of the absorbent core and distal from said closed end and in the second core layer 503, 603, 703 the open end is positioned proximal to the back portion 124 of the absorbent core and distal from said closed end (paragraph [0166]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first lower core channel extending beyond a periphery of an upper core since applicant has not disclosed that extension solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with equal size layers.
Weber fails to teach forming an absorbent core separate from the lower core and wherein the upper core channel does not intersect with the lower core channel. Drylock teaches an absorbent article with channels forming an absorbent core (130) separate from the lower core (page 12, paragraph 4)and wherein the upper core channel does not intersect with the lower core channel (page 38, paragraph 6: “The absorbent core is preferred 130 with a plurality of attachment zones 140 . 150 . 160 . 170 where the upper core-wrapping layer is attached to the lower core-wrapping layer and where preferably substantially no absorbent material is present. In the longitudinal direction of the absorbent 1 core 130 Seen from the front edge 133 to the rear edge 134 includes the absorbent core 133 successively a first, second, third, fourth and fifth zoneZ1 . Z2 . Z3 . Z4 . Z5”) (figure 13A). 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 Weber to teach forming an absorbent core separate from the lower core and wherein the upper core channel does not intersect with the lower core channel similar to Drylock to control flow of absorption.
Regarding Claim 2, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the lower core further comprises a second lower core (Drylock, lower core wrapping layer) channel formed through the lower core extending from the lower core top surface to the lower core bottom surface (Weber, paragraph [0166])(figure 25A).
Regarding Claim 3, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 2. Weber fails to teach wherein the second lower core channel does not intersect with the first lower core channel. Drylock teaches wherein the second lower core channel does not intersect with the first lower core channel (page 38, paragraph 6: “The absorbent core is preferred130 with a plurality of attachment zones 140 . 150 . 160 . 170 where the upper core-wrapping layer is attached to the lower core-wrapping layer and where preferably substantially no absorbent material is present. In the longitudinal direction of the absorbent 1core 130 Seen from the front edge 133 to the rear edge 134 includes the absorbent core 133 successively a first, second, third, fourth and fifth zoneZ1 . Z2 . Z3 . Z4 . Z5”) (figure 13A). 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 Weber to teach forming an absorbent core separate from the lower core and wherein the upper core channel does not intersect with the lower core channel similar to Drylock to control flow of absorption.
Regarding Claim 4, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the upper core channel comprises a first end having a radiused profile (paragraph [0186])(figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the upper core channel extends a length that is less than a length of the upper core in a longitudinal direction (paragraph [0162]) (figure 1: lateral direction (109) of core is shorted than longitudinal direction (108) of core).
Regarding Claim 6, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 5. Weber further teaches wherein the upper core channel extends in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the upper core (paragraph [0162]) (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the upper core channel allows fluid to pass through the upper core to be absorbed by the lower core (paragraph [0164]).
Regarding Claim 8, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the first lower core channel comprises a section having an arcuate shape (paragraph [0166])(figure 25A).
Regarding Claim 9, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the first lower core channel comprises a section having an arcuate shape such that ends of the lower core channel are farther from a longitudinal axis of the lower core than is a central portion of the lower core channel (paragraphs [0166], [0198]; figures 4, 25A).
Regarding Claim 10, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 9. Weber further teaches wherein the lower core further comprises a second channel formed through the lower core extending from the lower core top surface to the lower core bottom surface, and wherein the second lower core channel comprises a section having an arcuate shape (paragraphs [0166], [0198]; figures 4, 25A).
Regarding Claim 11, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 10. Weber further teaches wherein the second lower core channel is not parallel to the first lower core channel (figure 25A: curving in opposite directions.).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 10. Weber further teaches wherein the second lower core channel is reflectively symmetrical with the first lower core channel across a longitudinal axis of the lower core (figure 25a).
Regarding Claim 13, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber further teaches wherein the first lower core channel and the upper core channel intersect at one or more points (708) such that a section of the first lower core channel and a section of the upper core channel form a through passage from the upper core top surface to the lower core bottom surface (paragraphs [0164], [0169])(figures 25A, 25B).
Regarding Claim 14, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 13. Weber further teaches wherein the first lower core channel section is parallel the upper core channel section (paragraphs [0164], [0169])(figures 25A, 25B).
Regarding Claim 15, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 14. Weber further teaches wherein the first lower core channel section has a width that is the same as a width of the upper core section (paragraphs [0164], [0169])(figures 25A, 25B).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 20200397631 A1) in view of Drylock (DE 202017007127 U1) in view of Smid (US 20190290505 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 1. Weber fails to teach wherein the first lower core channel comprises a central channel from which a first branch channel extends. Smid teaches an absorbent core for incorporation into a disposable absorbent article, comprising two absorbent material (AM) layers including fluid channels (FL), wherein the configuration of the fluid channel makes use of linear pathways and free lanes extending from the linear pathways and directed at an angle (neither longitudinally directed nor laterally directed) (see paragraphs [0103], [0113], [0148], [0152]; claims 1, 3, 7, 8; figures 4G, 7G). 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 structure of Weber so the lower core first channel comprises a central channel from which a first branch channel extends similar to Smid so that channels my reach various regions on the absorbent for more efficient absorption.
Regarding Claim 17, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 16. Weber fails to teach wherein the branch channel extends from an end of the central channel. Smid teaches wherein the branch channel extends from an end of the central channel (figures 4G, 7G). 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 structure of Weber so the branch channel extends from an end of the central channel similar to Smid so that channels my reach various regions on the absorbent for more efficient absorption.
Regarding Claim 18, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 17. Weber fails to teach a second branch channel. Smid teaches a second branch channel (figures 4G, 7G). 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 structure of Weber to have a second branch channel similar to Smid so that channels my reach various regions on the absorbent for more efficient absorption.
Regarding Claim 19, Weber in view of Drylock teaches the absorbent structure of claim 18. Weber fails to teach wherein the first branch channel extends from the end of the central channel at an angle that is nonparallel to the central channel, and wherein the second branch channel extends from the end of the central channel at an angle that is nonparallel to the central channel and that is nonparallel to the first branch channel. Smid teaches wherein the first branch channel extends from the end of the central channel at an angle that is nonparallel to the central channel (figures 4G, 7G), and wherein the second branch channel extends from the end of the central channel at an angle that is nonparallel to the central channel and that is nonparallel to the first branch channel (figures 4G, 7G). 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 structure of Weber to have branch channels similar to Smid so that channels my reach various regions on the absorbent for more efficient absorption.
Conclusion
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