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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/13/2026 is accepted and entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112b rejections and the previous 112b rejections have been withdraw. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous 112a rejection has been found persuasive and the previous 112a rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. The combination of Daniel/Ohtake is now cited to disclose the features of Claim 1, as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
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 specific AUL test methods or absorption speed test methods to read on the claim language.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 11, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al (US 2020/0121521) in view of Ohtake (US 2021/0000659).
Regarding Claim 1, Daniel discloses an absorbent article (Fig. 16B; ¶ [0458]) comprising:
a liquid permeable topsheet (A, Fig. 16B; ¶ [0060, 0760, 0764]; the specific embodiment relied upon for this rejection is the embodiment of Example 9 disclosed in ¶ [0764], which has the structure disclosed ¶ [0760-0763] with a different SAP in the bottom layer),
a liquid impermeable backsheet (B, Fig. 16B; ¶ [0060]), and
an absorbent core (C, Fig. 16B; ¶ [0760-0764]) positioned between said topsheet (A, Fig. 16B) and said topsheet (B, Fig. 16B),
wherein the absorbent core (C, Fig. 16B) comprises an absorbent material, said absorbent material comprising a mixture, or blend, of cellulose fibers and superabsorbent polymers (cellulose fibers and SAP particles, ¶ [0760-0762, 0764]),
wherein the absorbent core (C, Fig. 16B) comprises at least a top layer (K, Fig. 16B) and a bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) wherein the bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) is positioned between the top layer (K, Fig. 16B) and the backsheet (B, Fig. 16B),
and wherein said absorbent material (¶ [0760-0762, 0754) is contained within at least one core wrap substrate (¶ [0458-0459]) enclosing said absorbent material therein (¶ [0458-0459, 0760-0762, 0764]), characterized in that the at least top layer (K, Fig. 16B) and the bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) are directly stacked one on top of the other to form a contact zone where the top layer (K, Fig. 16B) directly adjoins to the bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B),
and in that the top layer (K, Fig. 16B) comprises one or more first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; the top layer uses Hysorb®7085) and the bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) comprises one or more second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; the bottom layer uses the SAP of example 4), wherein the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 have an AUL that is greater than the AUL of second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP 2 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; SAP1 AUL at 0.7 psi which is the same testing pressure as in Applicant’s specification is 22.5 g/g and SAP2 AUL at 0.7 psi is 11.7 g/g), and wherein the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP 1 have an AUL, as measured according to the test method herein, of greater than 15 g/g (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; SAP1 AUL is 22.5 g/g).
Daniel is silent whether the top layer has a first ratio (R1) of SAP1 to cellulose fibers and the bottom layer has a second ratio (R2) of SAP2 to cellulose fibers and wherein R2 is less than R1.
Ohtake teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an absorbent core comprising a top layer (23A, Figs. 6-7) and a bottom layer (23B, Figs. 6-7), wherein the top layer (23A, Figs. 6-7) has a first ratio of SAP to cellulose fibers and the bottom layer (23B, Figs. 6-7) has a second ratio of SAP to cellulose fibers, and wherein the second ratio is less than the first ratio (¶ [0071]). Having the ratio of SAP to cellulose fibers be lower in the bottom layer than the top layer makes gel blocking less likely to occur in the absorbent core (¶ [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first ratio of SAP1/cellulose fibers and the second ratio of SAP2/cellulose fibers of Daniel to have the second ratio be less than the first ratio, as taught by Ohtake, to make gel blocking less likely to occur and therefore improve the absorbent capabilities of the absorbent core (as motivated by Ohtake ¶ [0071]).
Regarding Claim 2, Daniel further discloses the first and second superabsorbent polymers are in the form of particles (¶ [0761-0764]).
Regarding Claim 3, Daniel further discloses the second superabsorbent polymer grades have an AUL of from 5 g/g to 14 g/g (¶ [0764]; Table 9 shows the SAP of Example 4 has an AUL of 11.7 g/g).
Regarding Claim 4, Daniel further discloses the first superabsorbent polymer grades have an AUL of greater than 18 g/g (¶ [0761, 0764]; Table 9 shows Hysorb®7085 has an AUL of 22.5 g/g).
Regarding Claim 7, Daniel further discloses the AUL ratio of the first superabsorbent polymer grades and second superabsorbent polymer grades is greater than 1.4 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; 22.5 divided by 11.7 is a ratio of 1.92).
Regarding Claim 8, Daniel further discloses the contact zone comprises a blend of first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 and second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 that are intermixed such that a layered absorbent core is formed having a top layer (K, Fig. 16B) wherein the superabsorbent polymer consists of said first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1, a bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) wherein the superabsorbent polymer consists of said second superabsorbent polymer SAP2, and a contact zone between said top (K, Fig. 16B) and bottom layers (L, Fig. 16B) comprising a mixture of first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 and second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; the contact zone can be considered the bottom most portion of K and the top most portion of L, and therefore the contact zone is considered a blend of intermixed polymers that form a first layer of one SAP and a second layer of the other SAP).
Regarding Claim 11, Daniel further discloses the cellulose fibers are comprised at a level of at least 20%wt by total weight of the absorbent material (¶ [0761, 0762, 0764]; cellulose fibers comprise 7g/(7+13)g = 35% by total weight of the absorbent material of the core).
Regarding Claim 14, Daniel further discloses an acquisition distribution layer (D, Fig. 16B; ¶ [0763-0764]) positioned between the topsheet (A, Fig. 16B) and the core wrap (¶ [0458]), and wherein the majority of the surface of said acquisition distribution layer (D, Fig. 16B) is in direct contact with at least said core wrap substrate (¶ [0458]; a binder between the core wrap tissue and the ADL is optional); and wherein the acquisition distribution layer comprises a spunbond nonwoven (¶ [0603] indicates the ADL can be a fiber web like those mentioned as useful for the topsheet, and ¶ [0603] indicates the topsheet can be a spunbond nonwoven).
Regarding Claim 15, Daniel is silent whether the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 have an absorption speed, according to the test method herein, of more than 50 seconds, and wherein the second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 have an absorption speed, according to the test method herein, of less than 45 seconds. However, the absorption speeds reported for SAP1 and SAP2 of Daniel are obtained using a different testing method than that of Applicant (¶ [0699] of Daniel compared to ¶ [0114-0130] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, since the testing methods differ, it would be expected that the absorption speed result would differ. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, since Daniel discloses the substantially identical structure and composition of the claim, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed absorption speeds would be an inherent property of SAPs of Daniel had the exact same testing methods been used.
In the alternative, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the absorption speeds of the first and second superabsorbent polymers to be inherent, it would have been obvious to modify the first and second superabsorbent polymers to have the claimed absorption speeds, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 16, Daniel further discloses the SAP ratio is from 0.3 to 3 (¶ [0761-0762, 0764]; there are 6.5 grams of SAP in the bottom layer and 6.5 grams of SAP in the top layer, yielding a SAP ratio of 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Daniel further discloses the SAP ratio is less than 1; and/or wherein SAP1 is comprised at a level of from more than 10%wt to 50%wt by total weight of the superabsorbent polymer (¶ [0761-0762, 0764]; there are 6.5 grams of SAP in the bottom layer and 6.5 grams of SAP in the top layer, yielding a SAP1 %wt of 6.5g/(6.5+6.5)g x 100 = 50%wt SAP1 which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 18, Daniel further discloses the at least top layer (K, Fig. 16B) and bottom layer (L, Fig. 16B) each comprise an absorbent material, said absorbent material comprising a mixture, or blend, of cellulose fibers and superabsorbent polymers (¶ [0760-0764]).
Regarding Claim 19, Daniel further discloses the first superabsorbent polymer grades have an AUL of from 19 g/g to 55 g/g (¶ [0761, 0764]; Table 9 shows Hysorb®7085 has an AUL of 22.5 g/g).
Regarding Claim 20, Daniel further discloses the AUL ratio of the first superabsorbent polymer grades and second superabsorbent polymer grades is from 1.6 to 5 (¶ [0761, 0764], Table 9; 22.5 divided by 11.7 is a ratio of 1.92).
Regarding Claim 21, Daniel further discloses the cellulose fibers are comprised at a level of from 25%wt to 40wt% by total weight of the absorbent material ((¶ [0761, 0762, 0764]; cellulose fibers comprise 7g/(7+13)g = 35% by total weight of the absorbent material of the core).
Regarding Claim 22, Daniel is silent whether the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 have an absorption speed, according to the test method herein, of from 60 seconds to 150 seconds, and wherein the second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 have an absorption speed, according to the test method herein, of from 5 seconds to 40 seconds. However, the absorption speeds reported for SAP1 and SAP2 of Daniel are obtained using a different testing method than that of Applicant (¶ [0699] of Daniel compared to ¶ [0114-0130] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, since the testing methods differ, it would be expected that the absorption speed result would differ. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, since Daniel discloses the substantially identical structure and composition of the claim, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed absorption speeds would be an inherent property of SAPs of Daniel had the exact same testing methods been used.
In the alternative, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found the absorption speeds of the first and second superabsorbent polymers to be inherent, it would have been obvious to modify the first and second superabsorbent polymers to have the claimed absorption speeds, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 23, Daniel further discloses the SAP ratio is from 0.2 to 0.9; and/or wherein SAP1 is comprised at a level of from more than 10%wt to 50%wt by total weight of the superabsorbent polymer (¶ [0761-0762, 0764]; there are 6.5 grams of SAP in the bottom layer and 6.5 grams of SAP in the top layer, yielding a SAP1 %wt of 6.5g/(6.5+6.5)g x 100 = 50%wt SAP1 which is within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al (US 2020/0121521) in view of Ohtake (US 2021/0000659) further in view of Chan et al (US 2020/0054782).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Daniel/Ohtake is silent whether the top layer comprises a plurality of superabsorbent polymer grades, and wherein the difference in AUL between said grades is less than 15%, and whether the bottom layer comprises a plurality of superabsorbent polymer grades, and wherein the difference in AUL between said grades is from 0% to 50%.
Chan teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where mixtures of biocompostable and non-biocompostable superabsorbents are used to increase the biodegradability of the absorbent article while also improving the performance of the article (¶ [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second superabsorbent polymer grades to both be a plurality of superabsorbent polymer grades, as taught by Chan, to allow the core to have increased biodegradability and therefore be more environmentally friendly (as motivated by Chan ¶ [0047, 0064, 0172]). The combination of Daniel/Ohtake/Chan would have the AULs of the plurality of first superabsorbent polymers be the same, and the AULs of the plurality of second superabsorbent polymers to be the same, so as to not interfere with the effects of the differences in AULs within the core of Daniel/Ohtake/Chan.
Regarding Claim 9, Daniel/Ohtake is silent whether the second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 comprises Low-AUL Bio-SAP.
Chan teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a Low-AUL Bio-SAP (¶ [0047, 0064]) to allow the absorbent article to be biocompostable and therefore more environmentally friendly (¶ [0047, 0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second superabsorbent polymer grades SAP2 to comprise Low-AUL Bio-SAP, as taught by Chan, to allow the absorbent article to be biocompostable and therefore more environmentally friendly (as motivated by Chan ¶ [0047, 0064]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al (US 2020/0121521) in view of Ohtake (US 2021/0000659) further in view of Hird et al (US 2007/0219521).
Regarding Claim 10, Daniel/Ohtake is silent whether the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 are free of Low-AUL Bio-SAP; and/or comprise High-AUL Bio-SAP.
Hird teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a High-AUL Bio-SAP (¶ [0020, 0073]) to allow the absorbent article to be biocompostable and therefore environmentally friendly (¶ [0051-0052, 0066-0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first superabsorbent polymer grades SAP1 to comprise High-AUL Bio-SAP, as taught by Hird, to allow the absorbent article to be biocompostable and therefore more environmentally friendly (as motivated by Hird ¶ [0051-0052, 0066-0068]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al (US 2020/0121521) in view of Ohtake (US 2021/0000659) further in view of Roe et al (US 2016/0354260).
Regarding Claim 12, Daniel/Ohtake is silent whether the core wrap substrate comprises upper and lower layers that are joined together by one or more adhesives; and/or by one or more mechanical bonds selected from the group consisting of ultrasonic bonds, thermal bonds, pressure bonds, and combinations thereof; and wherein said upper and lower layers of the core wrap substrate are joined together at one or more attachment zones to form one or more channels substantially free of absorbent material, and wherein the channel(s) have a shape such to form at least two clusters of absorbent material circumscribed by said attachment zones and wherein the at least two clusters are spaced apart along a dimension parallel to the longitudinal axis and wherein the two or more clusters are connected by one or more attachment zones bridging between said clusters and extending substantially along said longitudinal axis.
Roe teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a core wrap substrate comprises upper (16, Fig. 2) and lower (16’, Fig. 2) layers that are joined together by one or more adhesives (¶ [0089]), and wherein said upper and lower layers (16 and 16’, Fig. 2) are joined together at one or more attachment zones (bondings forming channels 26, 26’, 55, Figs. 2 and 23) to form one or more channels (26, 26’, 55, Fig. 23; ¶ [0108]) substantially free of absorbent material (¶ [0089]), and wherein the channels (26, 26’, 55, Fig. 23) have a shape such to form at least two clusters (top and bottom lateral struts 128, Fig. 23) of absorbent material (¶ [0108]) circumscribed by said attachment zones (bondings forming channels 26, 26’, 55, Figs. 2 and 23) and wherein the at least two clusters (top and bottom lateral struts 128, Fig. 23) are spaced apart along a dimension parallel to the longitudinal axis (80’, Fig. 23), and wherein the two or more clusters (top and bottom lateral struts 128, Fig. 23) are connected by one or more attachment zones (bondings forming channels 26, 26’, 55, Fig. 13) bridging between said clusters (top and bottom lateral struts 128, Fig. 23) and extending substantially along said longitudinal axis (80’, Fig. 23). This structure improves the ability of the article to recover from in-use deformation which therefore improves performance (¶ [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the core wrap substrate of Daniel/Ohtake to comprise upper and lower layers that are joined together by adhesives, and wherein said upper and lower layers are joined together at one or more attachment zones to form one or more channels substantially free of absorbent material, and wherein the channels have a shape such to form at least two clusters of absorbent material circumscribed by said attachment zones and wherein the at least two clusters are spaced apart along a dimension parallel to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the two or more clusters are connected by one or more attachment zones bridging between said clusters and extending substantially along said longitudinal axis, as taught by Roe (Fig. 23). This structure improves the ability of the article to recover from in-use deformation which therefore improves performance (as motivated by Roe ¶ [0119]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Daniel/Ohtake/Roe discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 12.
The combination of Daniel/Ohtake/Roe further discloses the upper layer is joined to the bottom layer at one or more bonding points positioned inboard of a perimeter of the absorbent core, and wherein said bonding points have an aspect ratio of less than 3 (the bondings that form the channels 26, 26’, and 55 of Roe can be divided into a plurality of bonding points that have an equal size in the longitudinal and lateral directions and therefore having an aspect ratio of less than 3; Fig. 23 of Roe).
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 Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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 at 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights