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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kufner (US 20130174959 A1) in view of Burmester (US 20090258138 A1), Venturino (US 20190099302 A1), Yang (US 20130072889 A1), Insley (US 4755178 A) and CN108348383A (submitted by IDS on 7/17/2026).
As to claim 1, Kufner discloses a method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising:
directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction (via “powder discharging unit 40”), the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side;
spraying, with a first adhesive applicator (“adhesive spray dispensing unit 22”) having a first adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “A powder discharging unit 40 is also mounted such that an outlet 42 of the unit 40 is directed at the area 30 which receives the adhesive 26. The powder discharge unit 40 includes a supply of SAP powder 44 (FIG. 2) that is appropriately metered such as by a metering wheel 46 into a receiving chamber 48. Pressurized air from a source 50 is directed into a discharge outlet passage 52 to intermix with the SAP powder forming an elongate stream of air and powder mixture 56 that intermixes with the adhesive 26. Alternatively, the powder 44 may be scattered or dispersed into the adhesive 26 with any other suitable device.”);
spraying, with a second adhesive applicator (“second adhesive dispensing unit 72”) having a second adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer (see especially Figure 3);
depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The adhesive 26 and powder 44 bind together as an entangled or intermingled network forming an airborne mixture 58 of adhesive and SAP which is then applied to the sheet 18 of material. This forms a superabsorbent layer 60 of the intermingled SAP 44 and sprayed liquid adhesive 26 on the surface 18a of the first sheet 18.”);
covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “These first and second layers 18, 60 of the core structure 12 are then adhered to a third layer, e.g., the second flexible sheet 20 moving on the roller 16.”); and
separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product.”)
Although Kufner discloses that the three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product, one can argue that this subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product is not a separating step.
In any event, Venturino clearly discloses and makes obvious separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures. See paragraph 0116, disclosing “The base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 may later be cut, for instance along cut lines 118, in order to form separated absorbent cores. In at least some embodiments, a knife roll may be used to cut the base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 into separated absorbent cores.”, and paragraph 0140, disclosing “In some embodiments, the shaped absorbent cores 201 may be separated into individual shaped absorbent cores by cutting the length of resulting shaped absorbent cores 201 in the end regions 171.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures as in Venturino in order to create separated and individual disposable personal hygienic products for the consumer market as in Kufner.
Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 2, Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 25, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 25, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 3, Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 30, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 30, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 4, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first height is different from the second height. However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first height is different from the second height in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 5, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first height is located between 4 mm and 40 mm from the first substrate material. However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first height is located between 4 mm and 40 mm from the first substrate material in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 6, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first height is spaced from the second height by between 3 mm and 9.5 mm. However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first height is spaced from the second height by between 3 mm and 9.5 mm in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 7, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first adhesive applicator is oriented at a first angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction. However, Figure 3 is suggestive of a 45 degree angle, and additionally, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first adhesive applicator is oriented at a first angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 8, Kufner does not disclose wherein the second adhesive applicator is oriented at a second angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, and wherein the first angle is the same as the second angle. However, Figure 3 is suggestive of a 45 degree angle, and additionally, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the second adhesive applicator is oriented at a second angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, and wherein the first angle is the same as the second angle in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 9, Kufner discloses a method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising:
directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction (via “powder discharging unit 40”), the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side;
spraying, with a first adhesive applicator (“adhesive spray dispensing unit 22”) having a first adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), one of the first side and the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “A powder discharging unit 40 is also mounted such that an outlet 42 of the unit 40 is directed at the area 30 which receives the adhesive 26. The powder discharge unit 40 includes a supply of SAP powder 44 (FIG. 2) that is appropriately metered such as by a metering wheel 46 into a receiving chamber 48. Pressurized air from a source 50 is directed into a discharge outlet passage 52 to intermix with the SAP powder forming an elongate stream of air and powder mixture 56 that intermixes with the adhesive 26. Alternatively, the powder 44 may be scattered or dispersed into the adhesive 26 with any other suitable device.”);
depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive onto the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The adhesive 26 and powder 44 bind together as an entangled or intermingled network forming an airborne mixture 58 of adhesive and SAP which is then applied to the sheet 18 of material. This forms a superabsorbent layer 60 of the intermingled SAP 44 and sprayed liquid adhesive 26 on the surface 18a of the first sheet 18.”);
spraying, with a second adhesive applicator (“second adhesive dispensing unit 72”) having a second adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer (see especially Figure 3);
depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The adhesive 26 and powder 44 bind together as an entangled or intermingled network forming an airborne mixture 58 of adhesive and SAP which is then applied to the sheet 18 of material. This forms a superabsorbent layer 60 of the intermingled SAP 44 and sprayed liquid adhesive 26 on the surface 18a of the first sheet 18.”);
covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “These first and second layers 18, 60 of the core structure 12 are then adhered to a third layer, e.g., the second flexible sheet 20 moving on the roller 16.”); and
separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product.”)
Although Kufner discloses that the three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product, one can argue that this subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product is not a separating step.
In any event, Venturino clearly discloses and makes obvious separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures. See paragraph 0116, disclosing “The base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 may later be cut, for instance along cut lines 118, in order to form separated absorbent cores. In at least some embodiments, a knife roll may be used to cut the base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 into separated absorbent cores.”, and paragraph 0140, disclosing “In some embodiments, the shaped absorbent cores 201 may be separated into individual shaped absorbent cores by cutting the length of resulting shaped absorbent cores 201 in the end regions 171.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures as in Venturino in order to create separated and individual disposable personal hygienic products for the consumer market as in Kufner.
Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Kufner also does not disclose directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side. Therefore, Kufner also does not disclose the further full limitations of spraying, with a second adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, one of the first side and the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; covering the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive and the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer.
However, duplication of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, having two streams of superabsorbent particles/adhesives in series along the line of manufacture is also a common process variation in the art. Venturino, for example, teaches in paragraphs 0076 and Fig. 1 using two “particulate material delivery chambers 60a, 60b” and teaches in Figure 12 and paragraph 0146 “The delivery pipes 364, 366 may ultimately form particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b. The delivered particulate material may exit the particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b.” Yang discloses similarly, teaching in paragraph 0034 that “The superabsorbent application station 50 comprises a metering device 52 structured and arranged to apply a selected amount of superabsorbent polymer 22 to a top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12” and in paragraph 0035 that “The absorbent mixture application station 62 includes a metering device 64 for applying a stream of superabsorbent polymer 26 to the top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12”; see also Fig. 2 ref. 52, 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side as well as the further full limitations of spraying, with a second adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, one of the first side and the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; covering the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive and the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer because duplication of parts is often obvious and Venturino and Yang disclose and make obvious utilized directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles in order to achieve absorbent mixtures.
As to claim 10, Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 25, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 25, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 11, Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 30, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 30, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 12, Kufner discloses using two adhesive applicators, but does not disclose the complete limitation of further comprising: spraying, with a third adhesive applicator having a third adhesive nozzle, the other of the first side and the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a third adhesive, the third adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; and spraying, with a fourth adhesive applicator having a fourth adhesive nozzle, the other of the first side and the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a fourth adhesive, the fourth adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive.
However, duplication of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, having two streams of superabsorbent particles/adhesives and one or two applicators in series along the line of manufacture is also a common process variation in the art. Venturino, for example, teaches in paragraphs 0076 and Fig. 1 using two “particulate material delivery chambers 60a, 60b” and teaches in Figure 12 and paragraph 0146 “The delivery pipes 364, 366 may ultimately form particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b. The delivered particulate material may exit the particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b.” Yang discloses similarly, teaching in paragraph 0034 that “The superabsorbent application station 50 comprises a metering device 52 structured and arranged to apply a selected amount of superabsorbent polymer 22 to a top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12” and in paragraph 0035 that “The absorbent mixture application station 62 includes a metering device 64 for applying a stream of superabsorbent polymer 26 to the top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12”; see also Fig. 2 ref. 52, 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized further comprising: spraying, with a third adhesive applicator having a third adhesive nozzle, the other of the first side and the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a third adhesive, the third adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; and spraying, with a fourth adhesive applicator having a fourth adhesive nozzle, the other of the first side and the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a fourth adhesive, the fourth adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive because duplication of parts is often obvious and Venturino and Yang disclose and make obvious utilized directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles in order to achieve absorbent mixtures.
As to claim 13, Kufner does not disclose the further limitation of wherein: the first adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the third adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a third contact point having a third height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacts the second stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the fourth adhesive contacts the second stream of superabsorbent particles at a fourth contact point having a fourth height as measured from the first substrate material layer, and the first height is different from the third height and the second height is different from the fourth height.
However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the further limitation of wherein: the first adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the third adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a third contact point having a third height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacts the second stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the fourth adhesive contacts the second stream of superabsorbent particles at a fourth contact point having a fourth height as measured from the first substrate material layer, and the first height is different from the third height and the second height is different from the fourth height in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 14, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first height is located between 4 mm and 40 mm from the first substrate material layer.
However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first height is located between 4 mm and 40 mm from the first substrate material layer in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 15, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles produces a first layer of superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm and wherein the second stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles produces a second layer of said superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles produces a first layer of superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm and wherein the second stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles produces a second layer of said superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang.
As to claim 16, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first layer of superabsorbent particles formed by the deposited superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the second layer of superabsorbent particles formed by the deposited superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles differ in basis weights of superabsorbent particles by less than 50 gsm. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first layer of superabsorbent particles formed by the deposited superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the second layer of superabsorbent particles formed by the deposited superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles differ in basis weights of superabsorbent particles by less than 50 gsm because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang.
As to claim 17, Kufner discloses a method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising:
directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction (via “powder discharging unit 40”), the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side;
spraying, with a first adhesive applicator (“adhesive spray dispensing unit 22”) having a first adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), one of the first side and the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “A powder discharging unit 40 is also mounted such that an outlet 42 of the unit 40 is directed at the area 30 which receives the adhesive 26. The powder discharge unit 40 includes a supply of SAP powder 44 (FIG. 2) that is appropriately metered such as by a metering wheel 46 into a receiving chamber 48. Pressurized air from a source 50 is directed into a discharge outlet passage 52 to intermix with the SAP powder forming an elongate stream of air and powder mixture 56 that intermixes with the adhesive 26. Alternatively, the powder 44 may be scattered or dispersed into the adhesive 26 with any other suitable device.”);
spraying, with a second adhesive applicator (“second adhesive dispensing unit 72”) having a second adhesive nozzle (see paragraph 0020, disclosing “Suitable adhesive applicators or valve modules 22a are those sold by Nordson Corporation including the Signature.RTM. nozzle, such as shown and described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0258138 or U.S. Pat. No. 7,798,434, the disclosures of which are hereby fully incorporated by reference herein”), the other of the first side and the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer (see especially Figure 3);
depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The adhesive 26 and powder 44 bind together as an entangled or intermingled network forming an airborne mixture 58 of adhesive and SAP which is then applied to the sheet 18 of material. This forms a superabsorbent layer 60 of the intermingled SAP 44 and sprayed liquid adhesive 26 on the surface 18a of the first sheet 18.”);
covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “These first and second layers 18, 60 of the core structure 12 are then adhered to a third layer, e.g., the second flexible sheet 20 moving on the roller 16.”); and
separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures (see paragraph 0021, disclosing “The three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product.”)
Although Kufner discloses that the three layer composite core structure 12 is then moved downstream from the roller 16 for any subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product, one can argue that this subsequent manufacturing processing, such as for purposes of making a disposable personal hygienic product is not a separating step.
In any event, Venturino clearly discloses and makes obvious separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures. See paragraph 0116, disclosing “The base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 may later be cut, for instance along cut lines 118, in order to form separated absorbent cores. In at least some embodiments, a knife roll may be used to cut the base carrier sheet 70 and the top carrier sheet 75 into separated absorbent cores.”, and paragraph 0140, disclosing “In some embodiments, the shaped absorbent cores 201 may be separated into individual shaped absorbent cores by cutting the length of resulting shaped absorbent cores 201 in the end regions 171.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized separating the mixture of the superabsorbent particles, adhesive, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures as in Venturino in order to create separated and individual disposable personal hygienic products for the consumer market as in Kufner.
Kufner does not disclose wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to between 200 gsm and 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 3% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 3, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to between 200 gsm and 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 3% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 3, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
As to claim 18, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer, and wherein the first height is different from the second height.
However, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacts the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer, and wherein the first height is different from the second height in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 19, Kufner does not disclose wherein the first adhesive applicator is oriented at a first angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, the second adhesive applicator is oriented at a second angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, and the first angle is the same as the second angle.
However, Figure 3 does suggest an angle near 45 degrees, and additionally, Kufner does disclose that the angle of the convergence may be changed. See paragraph 0023, teaching “Like the first dispensing unit 22, this second dispensing unit 72 may also be adjustable as indicated by arrow 74 such that the angle of convergence between the first and second discharged streams 26, 76 of adhesive may be changed to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place.” Additionally, changes in size and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Routine optimization is also often obvious. MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein the first adhesive applicator is oriented at a first angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, the second adhesive applicator is oriented at a second angle of between 45 degrees and 75 degrees with respect to the machine direction, and the first angle is the same as the second angle in order to optimize the intermingling and mixing of the adhesive and SAP powder in the area 30 in which intermingling takes place as taught by Kufner and as a routine optimization and change in size and shape.
As to claim 20, Kufner does not disclose the additional limitations of further comprising, prior to covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer: directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a third adhesive applicator having a third adhesive nozzle, the first side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a third adhesive, the third adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive; spraying, with a fourth adhesive applicator having a fourth adhesive nozzle, the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a fourth adhesive, the fourth adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles, the second adhesive, and the fourth adhesive onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive; covering both the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive and the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles, the second adhesive, and the fourth adhesive with a second substrate material layer; and separating the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles, adhesives, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures.
However, duplication of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, having two streams of superabsorbent particles/adhesives in series along the line of manufacture is also a common process variation in the art. Venturino, for example, teaches in paragraphs 0076 and Fig. 1 using two “particulate material delivery chambers 60a, 60b” and teaches in Figure 12 and paragraph 0146 “The delivery pipes 364, 366 may ultimately form particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b. The delivered particulate material may exit the particulate material delivery conduits 362a, 362b within the material delivery chambers 360a, 360b.” Yang discloses similarly, teaching in paragraph 0034 that “The superabsorbent application station 50 comprises a metering device 52 structured and arranged to apply a selected amount of superabsorbent polymer 22 to a top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12” and in paragraph 0035 that “The absorbent mixture application station 62 includes a metering device 64 for applying a stream of superabsorbent polymer 26 to the top surface 18 of the fibrous material 12”; see also Fig. 2 ref. 52, 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized further comprising, prior to covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer: directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a third adhesive applicator having a third adhesive nozzle, the first side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a third adhesive, the third adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive; spraying, with a fourth adhesive applicator having a fourth adhesive nozzle, the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a fourth adhesive, the fourth adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles, the second adhesive, and the fourth adhesive onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive; covering both the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the third adhesive and the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles, the second adhesive, and the fourth adhesive with a second substrate material layer; and separating the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles, adhesives, the first substrate material layer, and the second substrate material layer into individual absorbent structures because duplication of parts is often obvious and Venturino and Yang disclose and make obvious utilized directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles in order to achieve absorbent mixtures.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of US 12527697 B2 (previously over claim 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/042584) in view of Kufner (US 20130174959 A1) in view of Burmester (US 20090258138 A1), Venturino (US 20190099302 A1), Yang (US 20130072889 A1) and Insley (US 4755178 A) and CN108348383A (submitted by IDS on 7/17/2026).
As to claims 1-20, the 697 patent claims nearly identical subject matter, as evidence by claim 1, 11 and 19 below:
Claims 1
1. A method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising: directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction, the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a first adhesive applicator having a first adhesive nozzle, the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer; spraying, with a second adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer, the first height being different from the second height; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer; and covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer.
Claim 11
11. A method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising: directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer, the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a first adhesive applicator having a first adhesive nozzle, the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive onto the first substrate material layer; directing a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a second adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, one of the first side and the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive onto the deposited mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive; and covering the deposited mixtures of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles and the first adhesive and the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer, wherein the first stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles produces a first layer of superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm and wherein the second stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles produces a second layer of said superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of between 100 gsm and 300 gsm, and wherein the absorbent structure comprises 100% superabsorbent particles, by total weight of absorbent material of the absorbent structure.
Claim 18
18. A method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising: directing a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer, the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side, wherein the first stream of superabsorbent particles is fed such that the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles produces a first layer of superabsorbent particles having a basis weight of superabsorbent particles of greater than 200 gsm; spraying, with a first adhesive applicator having a first adhesive nozzle, the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; spraying, with a second first adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer, wherein the total amount of adhesive intermixed with the superabsorbent particles of the first layer of superabsorbent particles is less than 5%, by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles within the first layer of superabsorbent particles; and covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer wherein the absorbent structure comprises 100% superabsorbent particles, by total weight of absorbent material of the absorbent structure.
Additionally, the ‘697 patent does not claim wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 1 above (see the art rejection of claim 9 and 17 above for obviousness statements.
Similarly, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 can be rejected either by the dependent claims of the ‘697 patent, or can be rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 2-8, 10-16 and 16-20 in the art rejections above utilizing claim 1, 11 or 18 of the ‘697 patent as the base reference/claim (see the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103a above for obviousness statements.)
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10-20 of copending Application No. 18/042585 (now allowed as of 7/20/2026 notice of allowance) in view of Kufner (US 20130174959 A1) in view of Burmester (US 20090258138 A1), Venturino (US 20190099302 A1), Yang (US 20130072889 A1) and Insley (US 4755178 A) and CN108348383A (submitted by IDS on 7/17/2026).
As to claims 1-20, the ‘585 application claims nearly identical subject matter, as evidence by claim 10 below:
Claim 10
10. A method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising: feeding a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction, the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; forming a mixture of superabsorbent particles, a first adhesive, and a second adhesive by: spraying, with a first adhesive applicator having a first adhesive nozzle, the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with the first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a first contact point having a first height as measured from the first substrate material layer; spraying, with a second adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles at a second contact point having a second height as measured from the first substrate material layer; forming a layered assembly by:
depositing the mixture; and
covering the mixture with a second substrate material layer; and
separating the layered assembly into individual absorbent structures,
wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 300 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount greater than 3% and less than 4%, by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have CD Gray Level Variability (CD GL Var.) values less than or equal to 675, according to the Pad Uniformity Test.
Claim 19
19. The method of claim 10,
the method further comprising further comprising, prior to covering the first mixture with the second substrate material layer:
feeding a second stream of superabsorbent particles toward the first substrate material layer with the first mixture, the second stream of superabsorbent particles having a third side and a fourth side;
forming a second mixture of superabsorbent particles, a third adhesive and a fourth adhesive by;
spraying, with a third adhesive applicator having a third adhesive nozzle, the first side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a third adhesive, the third adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first mixture;
spraying, with a fourth adhesive applicator having a fourth adhesive nozzle, the second side of the second stream of superabsorbent particles with a fourth adhesive, the fourth adhesive contacting the second stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the second stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first mixture; and
depositing the second mixture onto the first mixture; and
wherein the covering the first mixture includes covering the second mixture with the second substrate material layer,
Additionally, the ‘585 application does not claim wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 1 above (see the art rejection of claim 9 and 17 above for obviousness statements).
Similarly, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 can be rejected either by the dependent claims 11-20 of the ‘585 application, or can be rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 2-8, 10-16 and 16-20 in the art rejections above utilizing claim 10 and/or 19 of the ‘585 reference as the base reference/claim (see the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103a above for obviousness statements.)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-16 of US 12653731 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/042587) in view of Kufner (US 20130174959 A1) in view of Burmester (US 20090258138 A1), Venturino (US 20190099302 A1), Yang (US 20130072889 A1) and Insley (US 4755178 A) and CN108348383A (submitted by IDS on 7/17/2026).
As to claims 1-20, the ‘731 patent (previously, the ‘587 application) claims nearly identical subject matter, as evidenced by claim 12 below:
Claim 12:
12. A method of manufacturing an absorbent structure, the method comprising: feeding a first stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer moving in a machine direction, the first stream of superabsorbent particles having a first side and a second side; spraying, with a first adhesive applicator having a first adhesive nozzle, the first side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a first adhesive, the first adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; spraying, with a second first adhesive applicator having a second adhesive nozzle, the second side of the first stream of superabsorbent particles with a second adhesive, the second adhesive contacting the first stream of superabsorbent particles and intermixing with the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles prior to said superabsorbent particles depositing onto the first substrate material layer; depositing the intermixed superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, first adhesive, and second adhesive onto the first substrate material layer; and covering the mixture of the superabsorbent particles of the first stream of superabsorbent particles, the first adhesive, and the second adhesive with a second substrate material layer, wherein the superabsorbent particles are disposed within the absorbent structure in an amount greater than 400 gsm and less than 600 gsm, and wherein the adhesive is disposed in an amount greater than 4% and less than 5%, by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, and wherein the absorbent structure has a SAM Capture Value greater than 98, according to the SAM Capture Test Method.
Additionally, the ‘584 application does not claim wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method. However, Kufner does aim at solving the problem associated with poor wet integrity in conventional absorbent structure (see paragraph 0004, disclosing “often cellulosic core structures suffer from having poor storage and in addition poor wet integrity”).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). See also MPEP 2144.05 II A.
In this case, the amount of superabsorbent particles and adhesive used are in a range which is known/typical in the art, such as in the teachings of Insley and Yang. Insley, for example, in Col. 5 Line 67 to Col. 6 Line 24 teaches that:
The amount of sorbent particles included in a sheet product of the invention will depend on the particular use to be made of the product and will involve balancing the amount of sorbency desired with other properties, such as integrity or strength of the web, or desired web thickness. Generally, sorbent particles account for at least about 20 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, more typically 150 to 300 g/m.sup.2 for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber, and can account for as much as 500 g/m.sup.2 or more for 100 g/m.sup.2 of the blown fiber.
To achieve high loading of sorbent particles, a binding material is preferably added to the product. The binding material should be sufficiently sticky to tack the fibers and particles together, but not bond the web structure itself. The binding material is preferably hydrophilic. The end use of the product may also be considered in selecting the binding material. Materials which may be used as binding material include glycerol, polyethylene glycol, polyols, and polyethers. A small amount of the binding material, such as about 0.5 to 5% by weight of the sheet product, preferably about 0.5 to 2% by weight, is generally sufficient to provide the additional cohesion necessary to retain the sorbent particle within the web when using sorbent particle loadings of 500 weight percent or more based on the weight of the blown fiber.
Yang for example, in paragraph 0023 teaches that:
[0023] The fibrous material 12 preferably has a basis weight in the range of about 50 gsm (g/m.sup.2) to about 150 gsm, preferably from about 60 gsm to about 90 gsm (including the binder material). The fibrous material 12 preferably has a thickness of between about 2 mm to about 6 mm as measured by a Ames Micrometer (Ames Waltman Mass., Model ADP1132, 175 g on the 11/8'' foot=0.384 psi). A fibrous material 12 particularly suitable for use in the present invention is a material made from a randomized web sprayed with binder from both sides of the web, having a basis weight of 86 gsm, formed from 100% 6 denier polyester fibers, having a thickness of about 3 mm, and including about 40% latex binder by weight, commercially available under product code SCN09-038 from Kem-Wove, Inc., Charlotte, N.C.
Additionally, CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test. See paragraph 0073 and 0076, which discloses:
[0073] As used herein, "superabsorbent polymer" refers to an absorbent material that is a cross-linked polymer material capable of absorbing at least 10 times its own weight in a 0.9% saline solution containing water, as measured using a centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) test (EDANA method WSP 241.2-05). These polymers are typically used in granular form ("SAP") to ensure they are flowable in a dry state. The term "granules" refers to granules, fibers, flakes, spheres, powders, sheets, and other shapes and forms known to those skilled in the art of superabsorbent polymer granules.
…
[0076] The centrifugal retention capacity (CRC) measures the amount of liquid absorbed by superabsorbent polymer particles during free swelling in excess liquid. As measured according to EDANA method WSP 241.2-05, superabsorbent polymer particles can have a CRC value of more than 18 g/g, or more than 20 g/g, or more than 22 g/g, or more than 24 g/g, for example, up to 50 g/g, or up to 40 g/g, or up to 30 g/g. The CRC value does not reflect any external pressure applied to the absorbent material, such as the superabsorbent polymer particles. Superabsorbent polymer particles with high CRC values may be preferred because fewer superabsorbent polymer particles are needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention wherein absorbent structures produced by this method having superabsorbent particles disposed in an amount equal to 500 gsm and adhesive disposed in an amount equal to 7% by weight, of the weight of the superabsorbent particles, have Wet Pad Integrity values greater than or equal to 20, according to the Wet Pad Integrity Test Method because aforementioned differences are therefore deemed obvious for the skilled person to arrive at during routine optimization depending on application requirements such as those in Insley and Yang and because CN108348383A discloses a wet pad integrity test in the form of a centrifugal retention capacity test which enables fewer superabsorbent polymer particles to be needed to achieve the overall capacity required for optimal liquid absorption.
Claim 17 are rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 1 above (see the art rejection of claim 17 above for obviousness statements.
Similarly, claims 2-16 and 18-20 can be rejected either by the dependent claims of the ‘731 patent, or can be rejected on a similar basis as that in claim 2-8, 10-16 and 16-20 in the art rejections utilizing claim 15 of the ‘731 patent as the base reference/claim (see the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103a above for obviousness statements.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE R KOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5807. The examiner can also be reached by E-mail at george.koch@uspto.gov if the applicant grants written authorization for e-mails. Authorization can be granted by filling out the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PHILIP C TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
GRK
Prosecution Insights