DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-3, 5-11 & 16-20) in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that with the added amended language, lack of unity no longer exists. This is not found persuasive because the invention of Group II is directed at a method of manufacturing an absorbent article, in addition to the shared structural features with the product claim(s) that necessarily results from the method, the method additionally requires many steps, i.e., technical features, not shared with the product. Such steps/technical features include: providing a mold having a non-porous insert, the mold being subjected to under-pressure, applying a first nonwoven to the mold, applying an absorbent material over the first nonwoven, removing the absorbent material from areas corresponding to the insert, applying a second nonwoven over the absorbent material, joining the two nonwovens and then laminating them with a topsheet and a backsheet. The previous shared technical features were taught by prior art Willhaus as explained in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 7/29/2025. The limitation that has been added to both Groups I & II in the Response filed on 1/28/2026 requires that the core wrap be made of greater than 80% by weight of synthetic fibers and have a basis weight of 15-50 g/m2. These technical features also do not make a contribution over prior art in view of [0042] in Willhaus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically, the Specification does not provide more/better explanation of where exactly are the two endpoints that define the “distance” recited in Claim 9. The Specification at [0158] and the claim first say “the second end (110’, 111’) of at least one channel is at a distance from the first end (110, 111) of at least one other channel.” Looking at Fig. 4F, this distance would have one endpoint at 110 and the other at 111’ (or one endpoint at 111 and the other at 110’). Such a distance crosses the longitudinal axis of the article. The Specification and the claim then say “at least two spaced apart channels are formed along said longitudinal axis (48) that are offset from a transverse line running perpendicular from said longitudinal axis (48).” Examiner cannot decipher what it means that the two spaced apart channels are offset from a transverse line - maybe that both channels are more anterior/posterior of the transverse center line of the article. Lastly the Specification and the claim say that “said distance taken along the longitudinal axis (48) is less than 18mm.” This seems to mean that the distance between endpoint 110 and endpoint 111’ in the longitudinal direction is less than 18mm. Since the channels appear to be parallel to the longitudinal axis, then said distance is actually equal to the length of the channels (see Fig. 4F). However, given that the channels would have a length of up to 95% of the absorbent core, it does not appear that the channels can also be less than 18mm in length.
Claim 19 is rejected for at least being dependent on Claim 9 and therefore incorporating subject matter that lacks enablement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 9, it cannot be readily understood what is being claimed. Looking into the current Specification, it seems that Claim 9 is describing the configuration of channels as shown in Fig. 4F. However, said figure still does not show where the endpoint of the distance lie. See explanation supra under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 19 is rejected for at least being dependent on Claim 9 and therefore incorporating said indefinite subject matter.
As such, no prior art rejection/analysis can be provided for Claims 9 & 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willhaus (US 2017/0079858). Note that in the rejections below, the parentheses only contain mapping to the reference; none of the current Application’s reference numbers are kept in the claim.
Re Claim 1, Willhaus discloses an absorbent article (diaper 20, Fig. 1) comprising an absorbent core sandwiched between a liquid permeable topsheet (topsheet 24) and a liquid impermeable backsheet (backsheet 25), wherein the absorbent core (absorbent core 28) comprises absorbent material selected from the group consisting of cellulose fibers, superabsorbent polymers and combinations thereof ([0029] “comprises a mixture of fibers and superabsorbent polymer particles”), wherein said absorbent material is contained within at least one core wrap substrate (core wrap 16, 16′, see Fig. 2, [0029] “core wrap may alternatively comprise two separate nonwoven substrates forming the top side and bottom side respectively”) enclosing said absorbent material (absorbent material 60), and wherein a top layer of said core wrap is adhered to a bottom layer of said core wrap ([0049] “The top side 16 of the core wrap may be attached to the bottom side 16′ of the core wrap through the channels by one or a plurality of channel bonds 27.”) to form one or more channels (channels 26, Fig. 2) substantially free of said absorbent material, wherein said channels have a length extending along a longitudinal axis and the absorbent core has a length extending along said longitudinal axis and wherein the length of said channels is from 10% to 95% of the length of said absorbent core ([0051] “The channels 26 may have a length L′ projected on the longitudinal axis 80′ of the core that is at least 10% of the length L of the absorbent article, in particular from 20% to 80%.”) such that each said channels are circumscribed by absorbent material characterized in that said top layer of the core wrap is in direct contact with the topsheet ([0010] disclosing the acquisition layer between the absorbent core and the topsheet is optional), and in that said top layer of the core wrap comprises a spunbond nonwoven ([0042] “in particular those having a laminate web SMS, or SMMS, or SSMMS”) or a carded thermobonded nonwoven, and wherein the top layer of the core wrap comprises synthetic fibers ([0042] “spunmelt polypropylene nonwovens are suitable”), wherein said synthetic fibers are comprised at a level of greater than 80% wt by weight (since it is disclosed that the entire spunmelt nonwoven is of polypropylene) of said core wrap, and wherein said core wrap has a basis weight of from 15 to 50 g/m2 ([0042] “having a basis weight range of about 5 gsm to 15 gsm).
Re Claim 2, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the top layer of the core wrap further comprises a meltblown nonwoven ([0042]).
Re Claim 3, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the top layer of the core wrap is a multi-layered nonwoven and comprises at least one spunbond layer and at least one meltblown layer, and is a nonwoven selected from the group consisting of. SM, SMS, SMMS, and combinations thereof ([0042]).
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus in view of Weber (WO 2018/122234).
Re Claim 5, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but does not disclose that wherein the at least one of the channels extends both along the longitudinal axis and along an axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis, such that a shape is formed that is substantially U-shaped. Weber discloses an absorbent article having a channel that is formed into a U-shape (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to glean from Weber as such an arrangement would guide fluid to flow also in a width direction of the article.
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus in view of Ishiguro et al. (JP 201334860).
Re Claims 6 & 16, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein at least the top layer of the core wrap has a specific volume of less than 13 cm3/g or from 5.5 cm3/g to 12.0 cm3/g. Ishiguro discloses an absorbent article having a core wrap that has a basis weight in the same range as that of Willhaus and a specific volume that falls within the claimed range ([0042] “The density of the core wrap sheet 44 is preferably 0.01 to 0.2 g/cm3, more preferably 0.015 to 0.1 g/cm3.” This yields a specific volume, which is the reciprocal of density, of 5-100 cm3/g or more preferably 10-67 cm3/g.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Willhaus by gleaning from the density or specific volume of the core wrap as disclosed by Ishiguro because such a density has already been established to be useful for keeping an absorbent core intact while allowing for fluid to be taken up by the absorbent material.
Claims 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus in view of Hirose et al. (WO 2017/209072).
Re Claims 7 & 17, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but does not disclose wherein at least the top layer of the core wrap has a mean flow pore size of from 15 pm to 200 pm or from 55 pm to 110 pm. Hirose discloses an absorbent article having a core wrap that has an average pore size of 100 μm or less ([0089] “Further, the average pore diameter of the core wrap sheet 42 is preferably 10 μm or more, more preferably 30 μm or more, and preferably 150 μm or less, more preferably 100 μm or less.”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with the average pore size as disclosed in Hirose since such a size is known to be appropriate for core wraps that maintain the integrity of the absorbent core yet allows fluid to reach the absorbent material.
Re Claim 11, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least the top layer of the core wrap has a thickness of from 0.1 to 0.4mm according to the method described herein. Hirose discloses an absorbent article having a core wrap that is 0.3 mm thick ([0110] second paragraph first sentence: “As the core wrap sheet 42, a thin paper having a basis weight of 16 g / m .sup.2 and a thickness of 0.3 mm was used.”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with the thickness as disclosed in Hirose since such thickness is known to be appropriate for core wraps.
Claims 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus.
Re Claim 8, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the top layer of the core wrap has a first basis weight and the bottom layer of the core wrap has a second basis weight, wherein the first and second basis weights are different. However, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (using the same exact material for the top side and the bottom side of the core wrap or using different materials that may have different basis weights) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (the core wrap holds the absorbent core together and directs fluid into the absorbent core), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. See MPEP 2143 (E).
Re Claim 18, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the top layer of the core wrap has a first basis weight and the bottom layer of the core wrap has a second basis weight, wherein the first basis weight is from 1.2 to 3.5 times the second basis weight. However, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (using the same exact material for the top side and the bottom side of the core wrap, using a larger basis weight on top, or using a larger basis weight on the bottom) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (the core wrap holds the absorbent core together and directs fluid into the absorbent core), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. See MPEP 2143 (E). Additionally, since Willhaus discloses a range of basis weights that are suitable for making the core wrap, wherein the larger end of the disclosed range is 3 times the smaller end of the range, thus guiding one skilled in the art to recognize that the nonwovens chosen for the top and bottom layers of the core wrap can have different basis weights and that one layer can be 3 times the basis weight of the other layer.
Claims 10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willhaus in view of Kuroda et al. (US 2011/0251575).
Re Claim 10, Willhaus discloses Claim 1 and also disclosing wherein the top layer of said core wrap is adhered to a bottom layer of said core wrap, along said channels, at a plurality of discrete joining areas (27). Willhaus does not teach wherein said joining areas form a pattern consisting of elongated oblique members having an angle α from the longitudinal axis, wherein said angle α is greater than 0° and less than 90o, and wherein at least one of said elongated oblique members have a total length which is at least substantially equal to the width of the channel along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Kuroda discloses an absorbent article with channels in the absorbent core and wherein the channels have high compressed areas that bond the topsheet to the bottom of the channels, said high compressed areas form a pattern consisting of elongated oblique members having an angle α from the longitudinal axis, wherein said angle α is greater than 0° and less than 90o (clear from Fig. 1) and wherein at least one of said elongated oblique members have a total length which is at least substantially equal to the width of the channel along an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (also shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with the pattern of Kuroda since it is a known method for keeping a channel in an absorbent core intact.
Re Claim 20, Willhaus and Kuroda combine to discloses Claim 10, and Willhaus further discloses wherein said discrete joining areas are free of adhesive and comprise mechanical bonds ([0049] “mechanical … bonding”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US 2005/0215965) discloses a core wrap is disclosed to be made from SMMS with a basis weight of 7-30 g/m2 ([0043]), wherein the entire SMMS is “synthetic” ([0012]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is (408)918-7575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 Pacific.
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 at 571-270-5879. 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.
/SUSAN S SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
7 March 2026