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 1, 3-18, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to an area around the one or more channel”, and the claim also recites “preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the second layer has a lower basis weight than first layer”, and the claim also recites “ preferably at least 1g/m2 lower” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation “average dtex value is between 1 and 3”, and the claim also recites “ preferably between 1.3 and 2.8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites the broad recitation “average dtex value is between 1 and 3”, and the claim also recites “ preferably between 1.3 and 2.8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “a basis weight between 10 and 30 g/m2”, and the claim also recites “ preferably between 15 and 25g/m2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 16 also recites the broad recitation “A trough air bonded carded web (TABCW)” and the claim also recites “preferable the through air bonded carded web comprises polyethylene/polypropylene bi-component staple fibers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 16 also recites “the topsheet is bonded to the capillary acceleration sheet” and the claim also recites “preferably at least in a portion of the one or more channels”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the capillary acceleration sheet and/or the top core wrap sheet, if present, is attached to the back core wrap sheet”, and the claim also recites “ preferably the one or more attachment zones are formed by any one of the following or a combination thereof: pressure bonding, thermal bonding, sonic bonding, chemical bonding, adhesive” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a first channel and a second channel .. are each extending in the direction of a first and/or transverse edge of the bottom core wrap sheet”, and the claim also recites “ preferably the first and second channel are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction of the bottom core wrap sheet” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 21 also recites the broad recitation “the capillary acceleration sheet at least partially covers the first and second channel” and the claim also recites “preferably the distance between the first and second channel is between 10mm and 50mm”; “preferably between 15 mm and 30mm” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 21 also recites the broad recitation “the length of the first and the second channel is larger than 60 mm”; and the claim also recites “preferably larger than 70 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 23 recites the broad recitation “a third and a fourth channel located at a distance of each other and at a distance of the first and second channel”, and the claim also recites “preferably the distance between the first and the second channel is different from the distance between the third and the fourth channel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 28 recites the broad recitation “the one or more channels together extend over a channel length which is at least 20%”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 30%”; preferably at least 40%”; “more preferably at least 50%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation
The aforementioned claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 is 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. Regarding claim14, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-18, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0065976 in view of Cree et al. USPN 5591149.
As to claim 1, Roe teaches an absorbent article 20 comprising a liquid pervious topsheet 24,
a liquid impervious backsheet 25,
absorbent material 28 typically comprising superabsorbent polymer particles (para. 0047), positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet and the liquid impervious backsheet (para. 0034), and
a capillary acceleration sheet 50 (Roe’s LMS 50) between the absorbent material 28 and the liquid pervious topsheet 24 (para. 0098),
wherein the absorbent material 28 is arranged on a bottom core wrap sheet 16’ such that one or more channels 26, 26’, 27, 27’ are formed (Figs. 2,7; paragraphs 0039, 0063-0065, 0070, 0084);
wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels 26 compared to an area around the one or more channels (Figs. 4-7; para. 0075),
wherein preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels 26 (Figs. 4-7; paragraphs 0009,0075);
wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 comprises a first layer 52 and a second layer 54 (Roe para. 0098, 0107).
Roe does not specifically teach the claimed dtex values of the first and second layers. Cree teaches an absorbent article from the same field of endeavor having a multicomponent acquisition layer 34. Cree teaches the acquisition layer 34 comprises a hydrophilic spunbonded or carded polypropylene web having a basis weight of between about 16-32 grams/yd2 (19.1 to 38.2 grams/m2) (Cree col. 24, lines 63-65). Cree further teaches the acquisition layer 34 can comprise a two layer composite structure comprising a hydrophilic carded or spunbonded fabric polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, that has meltblown fibers or a meltblown web attached to the underside of the spunbonded web. Cree teaches attaching hydrophilic micro denier fibers directly onto the spunbonded fabric eliminates adhesives therebetween which is believed to improve the transportation of liquids into the absorbent core (col. 31, lines 25-61). Cree further teaches rather than a two layer composite structure, the acquisition layer 34 could comprise a nonwoven web made from two or more groups of fibers having different deniers. For instance, the acquisition layer can be comprised of a first group of fibers have a first relatively large denier, ranging from 2.2 to 6.9 denier (1.98 to 6.21 dtex) and a second group of fibers having a second smaller denier, for example 0.1 o 2.2 dpf (0.09 to 1.98 dtex). Cree teaches the nonwoven could be constructed so that the first group of fibers lie above (nearest the topsheet) the second group of fibers, (which are closer to the absorbent material) to provide a capillary gradient in the acquisition system. While Cree does not specifically teach a first layer and second layer with the claimed dtex values, Cree does teach the general condition of the first group of fibers underneath the topsheet and the second group of fibers underlying the first group of fibers having different linear densities, within the claimed range of dtex values, for the benefit of providing a capillary gradient to the article. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the first layer 52 and second layer 54 of Roe to have the claimed dtex values of the integral acquisition layer 34 of Cree, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
As to claims 2 and 14, Roe teaches an absorbent article 20 comprising:
a liquid pervious topsheet 24,
a liquid impervious backsheet 25,
absorbent material 28 typically comprising superabsorbent polymer particles (para. 0047), positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet and the liquid impervious backsheet (para. 0034), and
a capillary acceleration sheet 50 (Roe’s LMS 50) between the absorbent material 28 and the liquid pervious topsheet 24 (para. 0098),
wherein the absorbent material 28 is arranged on a bottom core wrap sheet 16’ such that one or more channels 26, 26’, 27, 27’ are formed (Figs. 2,7; paragraphs 0039, 0063-0065, 0070, 0084);
wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels 26 compared to an area around the one or more channels (Figs. 4-7; para. 0075),
wherein preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels 26 (Figs. 4-7; paras. 0009,0075),
wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 comprises a first layer 52 and a second layer 54, and
Roe does not specifically teach the capillary acceleration sheet comprises first fibers in the first layer having an average first diameter above 20 micron, and second fibers in the second layer having an average second diameter below 20 micron. Cree teaches a two layer composite acquisition layer where the second layer comprises micro denier fibers (Cree col. 31, lines 39-41). Cree further teaches fibers suitable for use in meltblowing processes include, but are not limited to polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers and nylon fibers having a diameter ranging from about 1 to about 100 microns, preferably about 1 to about 20 microns. Cree teaches such fibers are generally known as “micro denier” fibers since they have a denier per fiber of less than 1 (Cree col. 20, lines 55-65). Thus, since Cree teaches relatively large to small denier fibers for the acquisition system, it is reasonable to conclude the fiber diameters would also differ from relatively large to small fibers. Based on the teachings of Cree, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the first layer with fiber diameters greater than 20 microns and to provide the second layer with fiber diameters less than 20 microns. Doing so would improve the transportation of liquids into the absorbent core due to the strong capillary drive generated by the small pores of the meltblown fiber network comprising the acquisition material. (Cree col. 31, lines 39-45).
Roe/Cree teach the first layer 52 and the second layer 54 each have a basis weight between 6-30 g/m2 – where Cree teaches the acquisition layer has a basis weight between 16-32 g/yd2 (19.1 to 38.2 grams/m2) (Cree col. 24, lines 63-65) and Cree teaches the second layer has a basis weigh that does not exceed 30 grams/m2 (Cree col. 31, lines 46-49);
wherein the second layer 54 is closer to the absorbent material 28 than the first layer 52 (Roe Fig. 5).
As to claim 3, Roe teaches the first layer consists of fibers with a first average dtex value and the second layer consists of fibers with a second average dtex value, and
wherein a difference between the first and the second average dtex value is between 1 and 3, preferably between 1.3 and 2.8 – where Cree teaches an acquisition layer having first fibers with a dtex of 1.98 to 6.21 dtex (see rejection of claim 1)- avg dtex value is 4 and a second group of fibers having a second dtex range of 0.09 to 1.98 dtex(see rejection of claim 1) – avg dtex value is 1. Thus, a difference between the first and second average dtex value is 3, which meets the limitation of between 1 and 3.
As to claim 4, the capillary acceleration sheet 50 is a spunbond non-woven (Roe para. 0107), wherein the first 52 and second layer 54 are different spunbond layers – where Roe teaches the acquisition layer 52 comprises an spunbonded, a meltblown, and a further spunbonded layers (SMS OR SMMS; para. 0107). Roe incorporates by reference Goldman et al. USPN 5599335. Goldman teaches a multi-layer absorbent core having an acquisition layer 130, integrity layer 134 and storage core layer 132, and tissue layers can be incorporated to encapsulate the hydrogel-forming polymers in the storage layer. Essentially, the acquisition layer, integrity layer, storage, and tissue layers (Goldman Figures 1 and 2) form a liquid management system and core similar to Roe’s capillary acceleration sheet 50, absorbent core 28 and core wrap 16,16’. Goldman teaches the acquisition layer 130 (first layer) comprises a nonwoven material and can be meltblown, spunbonded, or through-air bonded (Goldman col. 34, lines 13-19). Roe also teaches the acquisition layer comprises a nonwoven material, such as a spunbonded, a meltblown, and a further spunbonded layers (SMS or SMMS material) (Roe para. 0107). Goldman further teaches the second layer 134 comprises a spunbonded polyester nonwoven (Goldman col. 35, lines 14-27). Both layers comprise a spunbonded nonwoven, but one layer is a SMS or SMMS and another layer is a spunbonded polyester nonwoven.
As to claim 5, the capillary acceleration sheet 50 consists of the first layer 52 and the second layer 54 (Roe Fig. 10; para. 0098).
As to claim 6, the capillary acceleration sheet has a basis weight between 12-35 g/m2 (Roe para. 0105).
As to claim 7, Roe/Cree teach the first layer and the second layer each have a basis weight between 6-30g/m2 - where Cree teaches an absorbent article from the same field of endeavor having a multicomponent acquisition layer 34. Cree teaches the acquisition layer 34 comprises a hydrophilic spunbonded or carded polypropylene web having a basis weight of between about 16-32 grams/yd2 (19.1 to 38.2 grams/m2) (Cree col. 24, lines 63-65). Cree further teaches a second layer having a basis weight that does not exceed 30 grams/m2 (Cree col. 31, lines 46-49).
As to claim 8, the second layer has a lower basis weight than first layer preferably at least 1 g/m2 lower, see the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 9, the capillary acceleration sheet 50 is attached to the bottom core wrap sheet at least in a portion of the one or more channels (Roe Figs. 15, 17, 21; paragraphs 0038-0039).
As to claim 10, Roe teaches the acquisition layer 52 of the capillary acceleration sheet 50 may be larger than the distribution layer 54 (of the capillary acceleration sheet 50; para. 0096) in the longitudinal and/or transversal dimension, which provides the limitation of no additional sheet is present between the absorbent material and the capillary acceleration sheet (52), and wherein superabsorbent polymer particles of the absorbent material are in direct contact with the capillary acceleration sheet 52 – where Roe teaches the acquisition layer 52 of the capillary acceleration sheet, allows for direct gluing of the acquisition layer to the storage core for increased patch integrity and better liquid communication (Roe para. 0096).
As to claim 11, the absorbent material extends over a surface area of the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ (Roe Figs. 2-6), and wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 extends over the full surface area of the absorbent material 28,60 (Roe Fig. 2, para. 0097).
As to claim 13, Roe teaches the absorbent article further comprising a top core wrap sheet 16 arranged between the capillary acceleration sheet 50 and the absorbent material 28, wherein preferably the top core wrap sheet 16 is attached to the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ at least in a portion of the one or more channels 26, 26’ (para. 0084), and wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 is attached to the top core wrap sheet 16 in at least a portion of the one or more channels – where Roe teaches the channels of the sheet 50 may be positioned so they are aligned with, overlap, or at least partially overlap the channels of the absorbent core 28 (para. 0039).
As to claim 15, the capillary acceleration sheet 50 comprises polypropylene fibers (Roe para. 0110).
As to claim 16, the topsheet has a basis weight between 10 and 30 g/m2, preferably between 15 and 25 g/m2 (Roe para. 0043) and/or
wherein the topsheet is any one of the following:
a spunbond nonwoven (para. 0041), a through air bonded carded web (TABCW) – Roe does not teach through air bonded materials, but this is presented as an alternative limitation. Roe does teach polyethylene/polypropylene bi-component staple fibers (para. 0041); and/or
wherein the fibers of the topsheet have an average fineness between 1-3 dtex – Roe does not teach this limitation, however this limitation is presented in the alternative: and/or wherein at least a portion of the topsheet 24 is bonded to the capillary acceleration sheet 50 (Roe Fig. 2), preferably at least in a portion of the one or more channels 49, 49’ are the channels of the capillary acceleration sheet 50.
As to claim 17, the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ has a first and second longitudinal edge 284, 286 and a first and second transverse edge 280, 282 (Roe Figs. 6-8; para. 0049) and wherein the one or more channels 26, 26’comprise at least one elongate channel 26’ extending from a crotch region in the direction of the first 280 and/or second 282 transverse edge (Roe Fig. 6).
As to claim 18, the one or more channels 26, 26’ comprise one or more attachment zones where the capillary acceleration sheet and/or the top core wrap sheet 16, if present, is attached to the back core wrap sheet16’ - where Roe teaches the top core wrap sheet 16 may at least partially surround the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ (second material 16’) (Roe para. 0049); wherein preferably the one or more attachment zones are formed by any one of the following or a combination thereof: pressure bonding, thermal bonding, sonic bonding, chemical bonding, adhesive (Roe para. 0049-0050, 0063, 0069-0070).
As to claim 28, Roe/Cree teaches the one or more channels 26 together extend over a channel length L (Roe Fig. 6) of a length of the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ (Roe Fig. 6; para. 0075). Roe/Cree does not specifically teach the channels extend at least 20%, preferably at least 30%, preferably at least 40%, more preferably at least 50% of a length of the bottom core wrap sheet 16’. However, Roe does teach the length L’ projected on the longitudinal axis 80 of the absorbent article is at least 10% of the length L of the absorbent article (Roe para. 0075). Roe further teaches the longitudinal main channels may not extend up to any of the edges of the absorbent material deposition area 8, and the smallest distance between a channel and the closest edge of the absorbent material deposition area 8 may be at least 5mm (Roe para. 0082). One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation the percentage to extend the channel to provide good fluid transport without the risk of fluid leakages.
As to claim 30, Roe/Cree teaches the absorbent material 28 comprises superabsorbent polymer particles and/or wherein the absorbent material comprises cellulosic fluff pulp and/or superabsorbent particles (Roe paragraphs 0047-0048).
As to claim 31, Roe teaches a method for manufacturing an absorbent article, the method comprising:
providing a liquid pervious topsheet 24 and
a liquid impervious backsheet 25; and
arranging an absorbent material 28/60 on a bottom core wrap sheet 16’ between the liquid pervious topsheet 24 and the liquid impervious backsheet 25, such that one or more channels 26, 26’, 27, 27’ are formed (Roe Figs. 2,7; paragraphs 0039, 0063-0065, 0070, 0084);
wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to areas surrounding the one or more channels (Roe Figs. 4-7; para. 0075),
wherein preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels (Figs. 4-7; paras 0009, 0075); and
arranging a capillary acceleration sheet 50 (Roe’s LMS 50) between the absorbent material 28 and the liquid pervious topsheet 24 (para. 0098),
wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 comprises a first layer 52 and a second layer 54 (Roe para. 0098, 0107).
Roe does not specifically teach the claimed dtex values of the first and second layers. Cree teaches an absorbent article from the same field of endeavor having a multicomponent acquisition layer 34. Cree teaches the acquisition layer 34 comprises a hydrophilic spunbonded or carded polypropylene web having a basis weight of between about 16-32 grams/yd2 (19.1 to 38.2 grams/m2) (Cree col. 24, lines 63-65). Cree further teaches the acquisition layer 34 can comprise a two layer composite structure comprising a hydrophilic carded or spunbonded fabric polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, that has meltblown fibers or a meltblown web attached to the underside of the spunbonded web. Cree teaches attaching hydrophilic micro denier fibers directly onto the spunbonded fabric eliminates adhesives therebetween which is believed to improve the transportation of liquids into the absorbent core (col. 31, lines 25-61). Cree further teaches rather than a two layer composite structure, the acquisition layer 34 could comprise a nonwoven web made from two or more groups of fibers having different deniers. For instance, the acquisition layer can be comprised of a first group of fibers have a first relatively large denier, ranging from 2.2 to 6.9 denier (1.98 to 6.21 dtex) and a second group of fibers having a second smaller denier, for example 0.1 o 2.2 dpf (0.09 to 1.98 dtex). Cree teaches the nonwoven could be constructed so that the first group of fibers lie above (nearest the topsheet) the second group of fibers, (which are closer to the absorbent material) to provide a capillary gradient in the acquisition system. While Cree does not specifically teach a first layer and second layer with the claimed dtex values, Cree does teach the general condition of the first group of fibers underneath the topsheet and the second group of fibers underlying the first group of fibers having different linear densities, within the claimed range of dtex values, for the benefit of providing a capillary gradient to the article. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the first layer 52 and second layer 54 of Roe to have the claimed dtex values of the integral acquisition layer 34 of Cree, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Roe/Cree teaches the second layer 54 is closer to the absorbent material 28 than the first layer 52 (Roe Fig. 5).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0065976 in view of Cree et al. USPN 5591149 and further in view of Ehrnsperger et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0073366.
As to claim 21, Roe/Cree teach the one or more channels comprise a first channel 26 and a second channel 26’ which extend next to each other and are each extending in the direction of a first and/or second transverse edge of the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ (Roe Figs. 1 and 4), wherein preferably the first 26 and second 26’ channel are oriented substantially in a longitudinal direction of the bottom core wrap sheet 16’ (Roe Figs. 4 and 6); and
wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 at least partially covers the first 26 and second 26’ channel (Roe Figs. 18 and 21), wherein preferably the distance between the first and the second channel is between 10 mm and 50 mm (Roe para. 0081), preferably between 15 mm and 30 mm – where Roe teaches the smallest spacing distance may be at least 15 mm (Roe para. 0081).
Roe/Cree teach the present invention substantially as claimed, but do not teach the length of the first and second channels 26, 26’. Ehrnsperger teaches an absorbent article with channels 26, 26’ where the channels extend longitudinally through the absorbent core (Ehrnsperger Fig. 1). Ehrnsperger teaches the channels have a longitudinal length of about 170 mm (Ehrnsperger para. 0160) which meets the claim limitation of larger than 60mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the channels of Roe/Cree with the channel length taught in Ehrnsperger since the references are from the same field of endeavor and solve the same problems of improving the flexibility of the core and providing an indicator that the absorbent article is fully loaded with a fluid (Ehrnsperger paras. 0089, 0095).
As to claim 23, Roe/Cree/Ehrnsperger teach the one or more channels further comprise a third and a fourth channel 27, 27’ located at a distance of each other and at a distance of the first and second channel (Roe Fig. 1), the third 27 and fourth 27’ channel each extending in the direction of the first and/or second transverse edge (Roe Fig. 1); and
wherein the capillary acceleration sheet 50 at least partially covers the third 27 and fourth 27’ channel (Roe Fig. 1);
wherein preferably the distance between the first and the second channel is different from the distance between the third and the fourth channel – where Roe teaches the length and width of the channels may be different para. 0085) and Roe in Fig. 1 shows the space between the third 27 and fourth 27’ channels is smaller than the space between the first 26 and second 26’ channels, at least at the front end regions (Roe Fig. 1).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0065976 in view of Cree et al. USPN 5591149 and further in view of Jackels et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0312491.
As to claim 32, Roe/Cree teach an absorbent article with channels, and teach the channels may be created by various means and in one example manufacturing process, a drum is provided having a protrusion whereby a layer of fibers are deposited on the surface of the drum and fibers above the protrusion are removed (Roe para. 0180). Roe/Cre do not specifically the claimed method of arranging the absorbent material. Jackels teaches a method of arranging the absorbent material comprises:
guiding a first sheet material 200 along a rotating member 20,30 ( Jackels Fig. 3; paragraphs 0057, 0103, 0105) wherein a surface of the rotating member 20,30 is provided with a pattern with suction zones 22,33 and non-suction zones 21,25,31 (Jackels Figs. 3 and 4; paragraphs 0018, 0064, 0103);
wherein the non- suction zones 21,31 comprise one or more channel zones 21,31 (Jackels Figs. 3 and 4; paragraphs 0018-0019, 0033)
applying an absorbent material 100 on the first sheet material 200 on the rotating member 20,30 (Jackels paragraph 0058, 0107) such that the suction zones 22,33 are covered with absorbent material and substantially no absorbent material is present on the non-suction zones 21,31 (Jackels paragraph 0064-0065, 0108-0110, 0119, 0151),
applying a second sheet material 300 on top of the absorbent material on the first sheet material 200 (Jackels Fig. 2; paragraphs );
at least partially attaching the first sheet material 200 to the second sheet 300 material in the areas 21, 31where substantially no absorbent material is present (Jackels paragraphs 0175-0177), such that one or more channels 21, 31 are formed,
wherein preferably the attaching is done by applying pressure and heat - where Jackels teaches a unit to apply an adhesive to the supporting sheet 200 in a pattern, for example the pattern of the mating strips 31 (Jackels paragraph 0178), which includes heat and pressure. Jackels further teaches the method includes a pressure means 70, such as a pressure roll that can apply pressure onto the absorbent structure (Jackels para. 0189). Jackels teaches the pressure application may optionally be done to selectively apply pressure only onto the channels of the absorbent structure e.g. on the portions of the supporting sheet 200 that correspond to the channels (Jackels para. 0190).
Roe/Cree/Jackels does not specifically teach one of the first and second sheet material is a material for forming the capillary acceleration sheet and the other one is a material for forming the bottom core wrap sheet. However, Jackels teaches the method may be to produce an absorbent core structure comprising two or more layers including a first layer supporting sheet 200 and second layer supporting sheet 300 with an absorbent material 100 sandwiched between the first and second layer (Jackels para. 0187). Jackels further teaches the absorbent structure may additionally be combined with other layers, such as an acquisition layer in the method (Jackels para. 0186). Therefore, since the prior art Jackels is from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to combine the capillary acceleration layer, absorbent material, and bottom core wrap using the apparatus and methods as taught in Jackels for producing absorbent structures (Jackels paragraphs 0187-0188, 0192, 0201).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art Roe nor Cree et al. USPN 5591149 does not teach the claimed structure where the capillary acceleration sheet 50 is attached along a periphery to the bottom core wrap sheet 16’
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781