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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim previously recites the word mixture, the claim did not previously establish that the particles, adhesive, and first and second substrates form a mixture.
Claim 10 recites “adhesive” in line 25, but does not define whether this refers to first, second, or both adhesive. This will be read as “the first and second adhesive”.
Claim 19 recites “second stream … third adhesive and the fourth adhesive” in lines 19-20, which is not defined because the claim previously refers to the intermixed second stream as comprising second and fourth adhesives.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each limitation in the claims is already encompassed by the parent claimed, so do not further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Parent claim 10 recites superabsorbent particles, adhesive amount, and gray level variability of 300 gsm, 3-4% by weight, and less than or equal to 675, respectively. Each of claims 12-15 require superabsorbent particle amounts equal to 400, 500, and 600 gsm, where the parent defines the requirement to be 300. Similarly, the values of adhesive and gray level variability of claims 12-15 require values different from those already claimed in the parent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the 112(b) rejections of the previous action have been overcome with the present amendments. Applicant has correctly clarified the limitations, but additional indefiniteness rejections are present in this rejection. Applicant argues that the limitations of claims 12-15 further limit the parent claim because the limitations are in addition to similar structures of claim 10. The claims do not require additional structures, and only refer to the same limitations of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 112(d) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: KUFNER et al. (US 2013/0174959) teaches feeding a stream of superabsorbent particles toward a first substrate material layer, spraying a first and second adhesive from respective applicators to opposing sides of the superabsorbent particle stream to intermix, depositing the intermixed particles on a substrate, applying a second substrate layer, and separating into individual superabsorbent articles. The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a method as claimed wherein the superabsorbent particles are disposed in an amount equal to 300 gsm and an adhesive in an amount between 3% and 4% by weight of the superabsorbent particles to produce articles having a CD Gray Level Variability less than or equal to 675 according to the Pad Uniformity Test.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745