DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 regarding amended independent claims 9 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1) still reads on the limitations of fiber density. Yoshimasa teaches nonwovens that have a fiber density from a range of 1.1-4.4 DTex and 1.6-4.4 DTex (para. [0098, 0101, 0102]). Even though the applicant argues the claimed range is critical, the prior art still discloses values that fall within the claimed range of 1.7-10 DTex, and it is not clear how Yoshimasa does not teach such a parameter or why it cannot be relied on to teach the claimed range.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 9-13, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino et al. (US 20070250026 A1, hereafter “Venturino”) in view of Yoshimasa et al. (US 20050080391 A1, hereafter “Yoshimasa”).
Regarding claim 1, Venturino discloses a disposable absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet (92 liquid pervious liner para. [0022]);
a backsheet (93 liquid impervious back sheet para. [0022, 0128]); and
an absorbent core structure (core 91 made of absorbent web 32, para. [0091]) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (para. [0022, 0128]), wherein the absorbent core structure (32) comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer (22) comprising polymer fibers (para. [0088]);
b. a lower nonwoven layer (30) comprising polymer fibers (para. [0088]); and
c. an inner core layer (28) disposed between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer (para. [0036]), wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 50% to about 85% cellulosic fibers, by weight of the inner core layer (para. [0022, 0106]), and superabsorbent particles (para. [0107]); wherein the inner core layer (28) is contained within the nonwoven layers by substantially sealing at least a left side region and a right side region of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer at a perimeter seal (figs. 5, 8, para. [0073, 0075]).
However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein a middle region of the absorbent core structure is substantially free of structural bond sites, and wherein the middle region is at least partially surrounded by structural bond sites and/or embossing.
Yoshimasa teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein a middle region (see areas 10 and 15 of fig. 9) of the absorbent core structure is substantially free of structural bond sites (32, fig. 9), and wherein the middle region is at least partially surrounded by structural bond sites and/or embossing (para. [0143-0144]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Venturino by limiting the structural bond sites to the periphery of the center of the article as shown in Yoshimasa to have a larger free surface area for fluid intake while stick fixing the nonwoven layers together (para. [0143-0144], fig. 9).
However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between about 10 N.mm2 to about 30 N.mm2 as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method and a Total 1FF + SFF value of between about 20 mg and about 200 mg as measuring according to the Acquisition Time and Rewet Method.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the absorbent article exhibits the same CD Dry Bending Stiffness and Total IFF + SFF because Venturino’s article is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to explicitly recite a Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 Point Bend Method and Acquisition Time and Rewet Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1. However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery of between about 29% and about 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the absorbent article exhibits the same 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery because Venturino’s article is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1. Venturino further discloses wherein the topsheet (92) is in direct contact with the upper nonwoven layer (22, core 91 is made of web 32 which has the upper and lower nonwoven layers, para. [0091]), and the upper nonwoven layer (22) is in direct contact with the inner core layer (28, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1. However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a Dry Caliper of from about 2.0 mm to about 6.0 mm as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3-Point Method.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the absorbent article exhibits the same Dry Caliper because Venturino’s article is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Wet and Dry CD and MD 3-Point Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the absorbent article has an average density of between about 0.045 g/cm3 and about 0.15 g/cm3.
Firstly, Venturino’s absorbent core has a density within the claimed range (para. 0109]), and the structure of Venturino is substantially similar to the claimed invention (two nonwovens made of same types of fibers that sandwich an absorbent core also made of the same proportion of fibers (cellulose to SAP). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article accordingly to have an average density within the claimed range with predictable results. Further, Venturino discloses their absorbent core has a substantially uniform density within the claimed average range of the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, Venturino discloses a disposable absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet (92 liquid pervious liner para. [0022]);
a backsheet (93 liquid impervious back sheet para. [0022, 0128]); and
an absorbent core structure (core 91 made of absorbent web 32, para. [0091]) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (para. [0022, 0128]), wherein the absorbent core structure (32) comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer (22) comprising polymer fibers (para. [0088]),
b. a lower nonwoven layer (30) comprising polymer fibers and having a basis weight of from about 10 gsm to about 40 gsm (para. [0088]); and
c. an inner core (28) layer disposed between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer (para. [0036]), wherein the inner core layer comprises a mixture of cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles (para. [0022, 0106, 0107]); wherein the inner core layer is contained within the nonwoven layers by substantially sealing at least a left side region and a right side region of the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer at a perimeter seal (figs. 5, 8, para. [0073, 0075, 0081]).
However, Venturino fails to expressly disclose wherein the perimeter seal comprises a seal width of from about 1 mm and about 10 mm. In figure 4 and paragraphs [0080-0081], the side edges of the core webs are sealed together, but the specific width of the seal is not disclosed it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venturino to have a sealing width between 1 mm and 10 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the width may be between 1-10mm, 2-3mm, or 3-6mm.
However, Venturino fails to disclose an upper nonwoven layer having a basis weight of from about 35 gsm to about 85 gsm and wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer have a fiber diameter of from about 2.0 DTex to about 10 DTex, and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer have a fiber diameter of from about 1.7 DTex to about 5DTex.
Yoshimasa teaches having a basis weight of from about 35 gsm to about 85 gsm (para. [0098]) and wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer have a fiber diameter of from about 2.0 DTex to about 10 DTex (para. [0098, 0101]), and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer have a fiber diameter of from about 1.7 DTex to about 5 DTex (para. [0098, 0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the upper nonwoven layer of Venturino with the nonwoven fabric of Yoshimasa yielding predictable results, namely, a soft and absorbent fabric on top of a core with varying basis weight and fiber fineness based on the desired needs of the article. MPEP 2143.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a CD Dry Bending Stiffness between about 10 N.mm2 to about 30 N.mm2 as measured according to the Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 PointBend Method and a Light Touch Rewet of from 0 to about 0.15 grams as measured according to the Light Touch Rewet Method.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). The incorporated nonwoven of Yoshimasa has the same material (polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate), fiber length, fiber diameter, composition of fibers (synthetic and natural fibers) and basis weight as the claimed invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce is it likely that the absorbent article exhibits the same CD Dry bending Stiffness and a Light Touch Rewet because the incorporated Yoshimasa’s nonwoven and Venturino’s structure is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite Wet and Dry CD and MD 3 PointBend Method and the Light Touch Rewet Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 9. Venturino further discloses wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 50% to about 85% cellulosic fibers, by weight of the inner core layer, and from about 15% to about 50% superabsorbent particles, by weight of the inner core layer (para. [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 9. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a Thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure of from about 0.3 mm to about 1.3 mm as measured according to the Thickness - Pressure Method.
The incorporated nonwoven of Yoshimasa has the same material (polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate), fiber length, fiber diameter, composition of fibers (synthetic and natural fibers) and basis weight as the claimed invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce is it likely that the upper nonwoven exhibits the same Thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure because the incorporated nonwoven is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the Thickness - Pressure Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 9. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a Thickness at 70 g/cm2 pressure of from about 0.2 mm to about 0.7 mm as measured according to the Thickness - Pressure Method.
The incorporated nonwoven of Yoshimasa has the same material (polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate), fiber length, fiber diameter, composition of fibers (synthetic and natural fibers) and basis weight as the claimed invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce is it likely that the upper nonwoven exhibits the same Thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure because the incorporated nonwoven is substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite the Thickness - Pressure Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 9. However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the absorbent article has a 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery of between about 29% and about 40% as measured according to the Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). The incorporated nonwoven of Yoshimasa has the same material (polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate), fiber length, fiber diameter, composition of fibers (synthetic and natural fibers) and basis weight as the claimed invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the absorbent article exhibits the same 5th Cycle Wet % Recovery because Venturino’s article and Yoshimasa’s incorporated nonwoven are substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Wet and Dry Bunched Compression Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa disclose the article of claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer comprises a Permanent Strain of about 0.005 mm/mm to about 0.013 mm/mm.
The absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). The incorporated nonwoven of Yoshimasa has the same material (polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate), fiber length, fiber diameter, composition of fibers (synthetic and natural fibers) and basis weight as the claimed invention. Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the nonwoven exhibits the same strain because Venturino’s article and Yoshimasa’s incorporated nonwoven are substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a specific Permanent Strain parameter but may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1. Venturino further discloses wherein the polymer fibers in the upper nonwoven layer and the polymer fibers of the lower nonwoven layer are different (“dissimilar materials” para. [0087]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino (US 20070250026 A1) in view of Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1) and in further view of Takai et al. (US 20010026861 A1, hereafter “Takai”).
The combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1. However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer comprise from about 70% to about 100% synthetic fibers, and from about 0% to about 40% regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising rayon.
Takai teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the polymer fibers of the upper nonwoven layer comprise from about 70% to about 100% synthetic fibers, and from about 0% to about 40% regenerated cellulosic fibers comprising rayon (para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the cellulose and synthetic fiber ratio. Venturino’s nonwovens are made of natural and or synthetic fibers. The substitution would yield predictable results and modifying the composition of fibers would change the desired densities or other material properties as needed.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino (US 20070250026 A1) and Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1) in view of Wohlke et al. (US 20110087185 A1, hereafter “Wohlke”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven.
Wohlke teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the nonwoven is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven (para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention- to have replaced the upper nonwoven layer of Venturino with the hydroentangled or air-through bonded nonwoven fabric of Wohlke yielding predictable results, namely, a soft and absorbent fabric on top of an absorbent core. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Venturino, Yoshimasa, and Wohlke discloses the article of claim 3, but Venturino fails to disclose wherein the lower nonwoven layer is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven.
Wohlke teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the nonwoven is an air through bonded nonwoven or a hydroentangled nonwoven (para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the lower nonwoven layer of Venturino with the hydroentangled or air-through bonded nonwoven fabric of Wohlke yielding predictable results, namely, a soft and absorbent fabric on top of an absorbent core. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino (US 20070250026 A1) in view of Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1), and in further view of Bast et al. (US 20020151857 A1, hereafter “Bast”).
The combination of Venturino and Yoshimasa discloses the article of claim 9. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the topsheet comprises an anti-stick agent.
Bast teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein at least a portion of the topsheet comprises an anti-stick agent (para. [0076, 0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the article of Venturino and incorporate the anti-stick agent of Bast to reduce the adherence of bowl movement material to the skin (para. [0134]).
Claim(s) 15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino (US 20070250026 A1) in view of Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1), and in further view of Dutkiewicz et al. (US 20180001591 A1, hereafter “Dutkiewicz”).
Regarding claim 15, Venturino discloses a disposable absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet (92, para. [0128]);
a backsheet (93, para. [0128]); and
an absorbent core structure (core 91 made of absorbent web 32, para. [0091]) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (para. [0022, 0128]), wherein the absorbent core structure comprises:
a. an upper nonwoven layer (22) comprising polymer fibers (para. [0088]);
b. a lower nonwoven layer (30) comprising polymer fibers (para. [0088]), and a basis weight equal to or less than a basis weight of the upper nonwoven layer (para. [0088]), and
c. an inner core layer (28) disposed between the upper nonwoven layer and the lower nonwoven layer (para. [0036]).
However, Venturino fails to disclose polymer fibers comprising a diameter of from greater than about 2.0 DTex to about 10.0 DTex and from about 1.7DTex to about 5.0 DTex.
Yoshimasa teaches polymer fibers comprising a diameter of from about 2.0 DTex to about 10 DTex (para. [0098, 0101]) and from about 1.7 DTex to about 5 DTex (para. [0098, 0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the upper nonwoven layer of Venturino with the nonwoven fabric of Yoshimasa yielding predictable results, namely, a soft and absorbent fabric on top of a core with varying basis weight and fiber fineness based on the desired needs of the article. MPEP 2143.
However, Venturino fails to disclose wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 125 gsm to about 400 gsm cellulosic fibers.
Dutkiewicz teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 125 gsm to about 400 gsm cellulosic fibers (para. [0108]).
Venturino discloses a core made of cellulosic fibers but quantifies the amount based on percentage by weight of the core, not gsm. Dutkiewicz teaches a typical number of cellulosic fibers contained within an absorbent core that may have already been contemplated by Venturino within its percentage by weight amounts. Further, Venturino’s absorbent core has the same density as the claimed invention. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 125 gsm to about 400 gsm of cellulosic fibers within an absorbent core as taught by Dutkiewicz to have an appropriate amount of naturally absorbent fibers within a core to retain incoming moisture (para. [0064, 0108]).
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a Thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure of from about 0.3 mm to about 1.3 mm as measured according to the Thickness - Pressure Method, wherein the lower nonwoven layer has a Thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure of from about 0.1 mm to about 1.3 mm as measured according to the Thickness - Pressure Method and abasis weight equal to or less than a basis weight of the upper nonwoven layer, and wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a Wet Penetration Time of less than about 4 seconds as measured according to the Wet Penetration Time Method.
Venturino’s nonwoven layers are made of the same material and fiber composition as the claimed invention. Further, the absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the upper nonwoven exhibits the same thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure and wet penetration time, and the lower nonwoven exhibits the same thickness at 7 g/cm2 pressure because Venturino’s article and nonwovens are substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Thickness - Pressure Method and Wet Penetration Time Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Venturino, Yoshimasa, and Dutkiewicz discloses the article of claim 15. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a permeability of from about 150 Darcy to about 1000 Darcy as measured according to the Permeability Measurement Method.
Venturino’s nonwoven layers are made of the same material and fiber composition as the claimed invention. Further, the absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the upper nonwoven exhibits the same permeability because Venturino’s article and nonwovens are substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Permeability Measurement Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Venturino, Yoshimasa, and Dutkiewicz discloses the article of claim 15. However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the upper nonwoven layer has a Capillary Work Potential of from about 200 mJ/m2 to about 400 mJ/m2 as measured according to the Pore Volume Distribution Method.
Venturino’s nonwoven layers are made of the same material and fiber composition as the claimed invention. Further, the absorbent article of Venturino is similarly made of two nonwovens sandwiching an absorbent core surrounded by a top sheet and a bottom sheet, and the core is made of the same proportion of materials (cellulosic fibers and superabsorbent particles). Therefore, one skilled in the art can deduce it is likely that the upper nonwoven exhibits the same capillary work potential because Venturino’s article and nonwovens are substantially similar to the instant application. Further, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite a Pore Volume Distribution Method yet may exhibit the claimed property when subjected to the same testing method.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venturino (US 20070250026 A1) in view of Yoshimasa (US 20050080391 A1), Bast (US 20020151857 A1), and in further view of Dutkiewicz (US 20180001591 A1).
The combination of Venturino, Yoshimasa, and Bast discloses the article of claim 14.
However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 20 gsm to about 100 gsm superabsorbent particles.
Dutkiewicz teaches a similar device in the same field of endeavor wherein the inner core layer comprises from about 20 gsm to about 100 gsm superabsorbent particles (para. [0108]).
Venturino discloses a core made of cellulosic fibers but quantifies the amount based on percentage by weight of the core, not gsm. Dutkiewicz teaches a typical amount of SAP particles contained within an absorbent core that may have already been contemplated by Venturino within its percentage by weight amounts. Further, Venturino’s absorbent core has the same density as the claimed invention. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 20 gsm to about 100 gsm of cellulosic fibers within an absorbent core as taught by Dutkiewicz to have an appropriate number of superabsorbent particles within a core to retain incoming moisture (para. [0093, 0108]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN A KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-4738. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIN A KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SUSAN S SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 11 December 2025