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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 26-28, 30, 32, 35, 37-38, 41, 43-44, 47) in the reply filed on 3/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 & 47 are independent. Claim Objections Claims 41 & 43 are objected to because of the following informalities: Re Claims 41 & 43, the word “sheet” is missing from “capillary acceleration sheet.” Appropriate correction is required. 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, 3 & 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/257,782 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because said reference application claim 14 (which depends directly from independent claim 12) recites all of the limitations in current claim 1, including an absorbent article comprising an absorbent core having absorbent material between a top core wrap and a bottom core wrap, a capillary acceleration sheet between the absorbent core and the topsheet, and the bottom core wrap having greater basis weight than either/each of the top core wrap and the capillary acceleration. The limitations of the current claims 3 & 6 can also be found in reference application claim 14. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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, 6- 7, 9, 11-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 26-28, 30, 32, 35, 37-38, 41, 43-44, 47 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. Re Claims 1- 3 , 6-7, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 37, 41, 43-44, 47, each of the claims recites a broad recitation, e.g., in Claim 1 it is “wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to an area around the one or more channels”, followed by a narrower statement of the range/limitation – “preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels”. According to MPEP § 2173.05(c), 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. 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. For prior art examination, Examiner removes all “preferably…” recitations from consideration. Additionally for Claim 44, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “ the sealing pattern” in the claim. Examiner assumes that Claim 44 depends from Claim 43 instead of Claim 1. Claims 27, 32, 35, 38 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1 and thus requiring the indefinite subject matter in those claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-3, 6 -7, 9, 11 -15 , 18, 22, 24, 26 , 37-38 , 41, 43 , 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bianchi et al. (US 2022/0031527) . Re Claim 1, Bianchi discloses a n absorbent article (e.g., Fig. 1) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (topsheet 24) , a liquid impervious backsheet (backsheet 2 6 ) , an absorbent core ( [0041] “ an absorbent core comprising a layer of absorbent material 60 ” ) positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet and the liquid impervious backsheet, said absorbent core comprising a bottom core wrap ( e.g., [00 06 ] “ The masking layer may form the lower substrate of the core wrap …” ) , a top core wrap (top side 16, [00 42 ]) and absorbent material ( 60 ) between the bottom core wrap and the top core wrap, and a capillary acceleration sheet (fluid acquisition layer 5 2 , see [00 49 ], wherein such acquisition layer is made of air-through bonded nonwoven having similar basis weight as the currently disclosed capillary acceleration sheet , thus said acquisition layer would meet the “capillary acceleration” function recited in this claim ) between the absorbent core and the liquid pervious topsheet (Fig. 2) ; wherein the absorbent material comprises superabsorbent particles ([00 56 ]) and optionally cellulosic fluff pulp, wherein the absorbent material is arranged such that one or more channels are formed (channels 58, [0063] ) , wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to an area around the one or more channels ([00 63], “ top side of the core wrap may be bonded to the bottom side through these absorbent material-free areas to provide permanent or semi-permanent channel bonds ”), wherein the bottom core wrap has a basis weight which is larger than the basis weight of the top core wrap and/or larger than the basis weight of the capillary acceleration sheet ( [0013] “ The masking layer may have basis weight at least equal and typically higher than the core wrap layer's basis weight. ” Note that the masking layer may form the bottom core wrap, thus it is of greater basis weight that the top core wrap.) . Re Claim 2 , Bianchi discloses claim 1 and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap has a basis weight which is larger than the basis weight of the top core wrap ([0013]) and larger than the basis weight of the capillary acceleration sheet ([0049] “typical acquisition layer … having a basis weight of from 20 gsm to 100 gsm” and [0075] “masking layer may advantageously have a basis weight ranging from about 20 grams per square meter (gsm) to about 150 gsm”). Given the maximum disclosed basis weight of the masking layer is greater than that of the acquisition layer, it can be anticipated that the masking layer, which serves as the bottom core wrap, has a greater basis weight than the acquisition layer that serves as the capillary acceleration sheet . Re Claim 3 , Bianchi discloses claim 1 and further discloses wherein a difference between the basis weight of the bottom core wrap and the capillary acceleration sheet is larger than 3 g/m 2 (see [0049] & [0075] where maximum basis weights of the two materials differ by 50gsm); and/or wherein a difference between the basis weight of the bottom core wrap and the top core wrap is larger than 3 g/m 2 ([0075] discloses 20-150gsm for masking layer/bottom core wrap, [0059] discloses 6-25gsm for top core wrap) . Re Claim 6 , Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more channels are one or more elongate channels having a length measured in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core (e.g., Fig. 1) , and wherein each channel has a width measured in a transverse direction of the absorbent core, said width being at least 5% of the width of the absorbent core (by incorporation of US 2012/0312491 as disclosed in [0004] of Bianchi, channels are formed as disclosed in said ‘491 reference, see [0014] disclosing “ one or more substantially longitudinally extending raised strips (21) (not having a void volume and hence not receiving said absorbent material (100) therein), each having an average width W of at least 5% of the average width of the reservoir (25) ”, see also e.g., Figs. 1A & 1B) . Re Claim 7, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap consists of a single sheet ([0066] “masking layer may be a single layer …”). Re Claim 9, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap has a basis weight between 18 and 80 g/m 2 ([0075]). Re Claim 11, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the capillary acceleration sheet has a basis weight between 15 and 50 g/m 2 ([0049]). Re Claim 12 , Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses the top core wrap comprises at least one spunbond and optionally at least one meltdown layer ([0059] “core wrap may comprise a SMS material”) . Re Claim 13 , Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the top core wrap has a basis weight between 8 and 30 g/m 2 ([0059] discloses 6-25gsm for top core wrap) . Re Claim 14 , Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is attached to the top core wrap at least in a portion of the one or more channels ([0063], “ top side of the core wrap may be bonded to the bottom side through these absorbent material- free areas to provide permanent or semi-permanent channel bonds ”) , and optionally also to the capillary acceleration at least in a portion of the one or more channels. Re Claim 15 , Bianchi discloses claim 14, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is attached to the top core wrap in one or more permanent attachment zones within the one or more channels ([0063]) ; wherein, seen in a transverse direction of the absorbent core, an average width (wb) of each permanent attachment zone is smaller than an average width (we) of the corresponding channel (since the bonding is within the channel, the attachment zone width can only be smaller than the channel width) ; and/ or wherein, seen in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core, an average length (lb) of each permanent attachment zone is smaller than an average length (lc) of the corresponding channel. Re Claim 18 , Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein an amount of cellulosic fluff pulp in the absorbent material is below 250 g/m 2 (since the absorbent core is substantially free of cellulose fibers, see [0056]) , and/ or wherein an amount of superabsorbent particles in the absorbent material is above 300 g/m 2 . Re Claim 22, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap and/or the top core wrap and/or the capillary acceleration sheet comprises more than 50 weight % of synthetic fibres ([0049] discloses the fluid acquisition layer 52 is typically made of synthetic fibers, suggesting that the entire layer, or 100 weight % of synthetic fibers). Re Claim 24, Bianchi disclose claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is any one of the following nonwovens: a resin bonded nonwoven, an air-through bonded nonwoven (e.g., [0071]), an air-laid nonwoven, a needle bonded nonwoven, a spunbond through air-bond nonwoven, a 3D perforated film, a 3D embossed nonwoven, a hydro-entangled nonwoven, a thermo-carded nonwoven, or a combination thereof. Re Claim 26, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the backsheet has a basis weight below 30 g/m 2 ([0048] “ backsheet outer cover typically cover the entirety of the backsheet and have a relatively low basis weight of less than 20 g/m 2 ”). Re Claim 37, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more channels comprise one or more elongated channels each having a channel length measured in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core, said channel length being at least 10% of the length of the absorbent core ([0063]). Re Claim 38, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more elongated channels comprise at least a first and a second elongated channel extending at a distance of each other in a substantially longitudinal direction of the absorbent core (Fig. 1). Re Claim 41, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is glued to the top core wrap and/or a capillary acceleration sheet at least in a portion of the one or more channels ([0063]). Re Claim 43, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is sealed in accordance with a sealing pattern to the top core wrap and/or to the capillary acceleration sheet at least in a portion of the one or more channels (the claim does not explicitly define what a “sealing pattern” entails, since [0063] discloses the top and bottom core wrap are joined to each other in the channel, such a joint can be broadly considered a pattern ). Re Claim 47 , Bianchi discloses a method for manufacturing an absorbent article, comprising the steps of providing a liquid pervious topsheet (24) and a liquid impervious backsheet (26) ; arranging an absorbent material (60, [0041]) comprising superabsorbent particles ([0056]) and optionally cellulosic fluff pulp, between a bottom core wrap (masking layer, see [0006]) , on one side, and a top core wrap (top side 16) and/or a capillary acceleration sheet (acquisition layer 52) , on the other side, such that one or more channels (58, [0063]) are formed, wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels compared to areas around the one or more channels ([0063] “absorbent material-free”) ; and arranging the liquid pervious topsheet at the side of top core wrap and/or the capillary acceleration sheet (see Fig. 1) and the liquid impervious backsheet at the side of the bottom core wrap, wherein the bottom core wrap has any one or more of the features defined in claim 1 (see discussion for claim 1 supra ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 17 , 27- 28, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi in view of Peri et al. (US 2021/0177669) . Re Claim 17, Bianchi discloses claim 1, and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap is in contact with the absorbent material. Bianchi does not disclose that the bottom core wrap (masking layer) has an average density between 20 and 400 kg/m 3 . Peri discloses an absorbent article comprising a masking layer that can serve as a bottom core wrap, wherein the masking layer is made of a nonwoven precursor web that has a density of 0.05 g/cm 3 to 0.4 g/cm 3 , which is equivalent to 50-400 kg/m 3 . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Bianchi with the masking layer material as taught in Peri because the selection of a material suitable for its intended use establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07). Re Claim 27 , Bianchi discloses claim 1 , and further discloses wherein the bottom core wrap comprises a first layer and a second layer ([0066] “laminate of two or more layers”). Bianchi does not disclose wherein said first layer has a first density between 20 and 150 kg/m 3 and said second layer has a second density between 100 and 400 kg/m 3 , said second density being higher than the first density, wherein said first layer is closer to the absorbent material than said second layer. Peri discloses an absorbent article comprising a masking layer that can serve as a bottom core wrap, wherein the masking layer can be made from a nonwoven precursor web that has two layers (fluid acquisition component 60a and airlaid component 60b). While Peri also does not disclose a density of the two layers of the masking layer, Peri discloses that the first layer (60a) has a basis weight of 40-60 gsm ([0051]) and the second layer (60b) has a basis weight of 40-80 gsm ([0050]), which is generally greater than that of the first layer. This suggests that the relative densities of the two layers also likely mirror their respective basis weights, with the second layer being of greater density. Given that Peri discloses the first layer as “fluid acquisition component,” it is expected that the first layer would be closer to the absorbent material because that is where the fluid is coming from. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with the material taught in Peri because the selection of a material suitable for its intended use establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07). Re Claim 28 , Bianchi and Peri combine to disclose claim 27 . While neither discloses wherein the second average density is selected such that it forms a barrier for the superabsorbent particles; and/or wherein the first density is selected such that superabsorbent particles are partially taken up in the first layer , Examiner notes that the claim language is directed to the functions of the first/second layer(s) of the bottom core wrap. Since Examiner has demonstrated that the combination of Bianchi and Peri renders the bottom core wrap obvious, it is likely that the associated functions of the sublayers of the bottom core wrap are also exhibited by the combination. Re Claim 32 , Bianchi and Peri combine to disclose claim 27, and Peri also discloses wherein the first layer comprises polyester fibres and/ or wherein the second layer (60b) comprises any one of the following fibres or a combination thereof (see [0048]) : polyethylene, polyester, copolyester, polypropylene, polyactic acid (PLA) and/or wherein the first layer comprises or consists of trilobal and/or bicomponent fibres and/or wherein the second layer comprises single component and/or bicomponent fibres. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi in view of Jackels et al. (US 2012/0312491). Re Claim 20 , Bianchi discloses claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the superabsorbent particles have a permeability SFC which is higher than 10×10 −7 cm 3 .S. g −1 and/or a permeability GBP which is higher than 20 Da. Jackels discloses an absorbent article having an absorbent core formed of SAP permeability SFC which is higher than 10×10 −7 cm 3 .S.g −1 ([0160]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with SAP having the permeability disclosed in Jackels since the selection of a material suitable for its intended use establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07). Claims 35 & 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bianchi. Re Claim 35, Bianchi discloses claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom core wrap has a thickness which is higher than the thickness of the top core wrap and/or which is higher than the thickness of the capillary acceleration sheet. However, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (the bottom core wrap can be the same thickness, smaller thickness, or greater thickness compared to the top core wrap or capillary acceleration sheet, or other layers in the absorbent article) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (the bottom core wrap prevents superabsorbent particles from dispersed everywhere and helps keep fluid in the absorbent core), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103 . See MPEP 2143 (E). Re Claim 44, Bianchi discloses claim 43, but does not teach wherein the sealing pattern covers less than 70% of the surface area of the one or more channels; and/or wherein the sealing pattern is a regular pattern; and/or wherein the sealing pattern comprises a large number of distinct sealing areas spread across the one or more channels, wherein the large number is larger than 10; and/or wherein the sealing pattern comprises a plurality of discrete elements, and wherein each element has a first dimension in a first direction and a second dimensions in a direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the first dimension is smaller than 2 mm. However, Bianchi discloses in an alternative embodiment, the masking layer is a discrete layer joined to a bottom core wrap via patterned bonds (see Figs. 13 & 14). Therefore “regular pattern” in bonding is known. One skilled in the art at the time of filing would find it obvious to modify Bianchi’s sealing pattern between the bottom core wrap and the top core wrap with regular patterns such as those shown in Figs. 13 & 14 since such patterns are effective for joining sheets together in an absorbent article. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Re Claim 30, the combination of Bianchi and Peri discloses the exact opposite of what is claimed, that the first basis weight is less than the second basis weight, it would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed invention where the first density is less than the second density while the first basis weight is greater than the second basis weight. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (408)918-7575 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 - 5:00 Pacific . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /SUSAN S SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 21 March 2026