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 in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-16 and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because the limitation “the capillary acceleration” should recite “the capillary acceleration sheet”.
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 1-11, 19, 21, 24-25, and 27-29 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "typically comprising" 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). Claims 2-11, 19, 21, 24-25, 27-29 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-11, 19, 21, 24, and 27, the phrase "preferably" 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).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the absorbent core" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11, 19, 21, 24-25, 27-29 are also rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the sealing pattern" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “a capillary acceleration” in line 2. First, it is believed that this limitation is intended to recite “a capillary acceleration sheet”. Second, it is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the same “capillary acceleration sheet” that is present in Claim 1 or if this is intended to refer to a different capillary acceleration sheet. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the capillary acceleration sheets are interpreted as the same capillary acceleration sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 19, 21, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreuzer et al (US 2016/0030256).
Regarding Claim 1, Kreuzer discloses an absorbent article (20, Fig. 1) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (24, Fig. 1; ¶ [0022]), a liquid impervious backsheet (25, Fig. 1; ¶ [0022]), an absorbent material (60, Fig. 1) positioned between the liquid pervious topsheet (24, Fig. 1) and the liquid impervious backsheet (25, Fig. 1), and a top core wrap (16, Fig. 3a; ¶ [0025, 0038]) between the absorbent material (60, Fig. 1) and the liquid pervious topsheet (24, Fig. 1),
wherein the absorbent material (60, Fig. 1), typically comprising superabsorbent particles (¶ [0031-0032]), is arranged on a bottom core wrap (16’, Fig. 1; ¶ [0025]) such that one or more channels (26, Fig. 1; ¶ [0033-0036]) are formed, wherein less absorbent material per surface area is present in the one or more channels (26, Fig. 1; ¶ [0036]) compared to an area (absorbent material deposition area 8, Fig. 1) around the one or more channels (26, Fig. 1), wherein preferably substantially no absorbent material is present in the one or more channels (26, Fig. 1; ¶ [0036]),
wherein the bottom core wrap (16’, Fig. 3a) is attached to the top core wrap (16, Fig. 3a) in one or more permanent attachment zones (core wrap bond 27, Fig. 3a; ¶ [0043]) in the respective one or more channels (26, Fig. 3a; ¶ [0042]); each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 3a) including all permanent attachment portions within the respective channel (26, Figs. 3a and 4; ¶ [0042-0043]);
wherein, seen in a transverse direction of the absorbent core (28, Fig. 1), an average width of each permanent attachment zone is less than 90% of an average width of the corresponding channel (26, Fig. 1) and more than 25% of the average width of the corresponding channel (26, Fig. 1; ¶ [0048]; the channel is 8 mm wide and the bond 27 can be 2 mm to 3 mm wide, which falls in the range of 25%-90% of the average width of the channel).
Regarding Claim 2, Kreuzer discloses the average width of each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) is less than 80% of the average width of the corresponding channel (26, Fig. 4; ¶ [0048]; the channel is 8 mm wide and the bond 27 can be 2 mm to 3 mm wide, which falls in the range of less than 80% of the average width of the channel.
Regarding Claim 4, Kreuzer discloses the average length of each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) is more than 80% of the average length of the channel (26, Fig. 4; as seen in Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Kreuzer discloses each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) comprises a plurality of discrete permanent bonding spots (¶ [0052]), wherein each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) has a polygon shape (as seen in Fig. 4), said polygon including adjacent peripheral bonding points or edges of the plurality of discrete bonding spots (¶ [0052]), and interconnecting said adjacent peripheral bonding points or edges through straight lines, wherein the average width of each permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) is an average of the width of the polygon measured in the transverse direction of the absorbent core over the full length of the polygon (Fig. 4; ¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kreuzer discloses wherein in an area of the channel (26, Fig. 4) surrounding the permanent attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) no permanent bonds are present (as seen in Fig. 4; ¶ [0042-0043, 0048, 0052]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kreuzer discloses a shortest distance between a periphery of each channel (26, Fig. 4) and a periphery of the corresponding attachment zone (27, Fig. 4) is larger than 2 mm (¶ [0048]; the channel is 8 mm wide and the bond 27 can be 2 mm to 3 mm wide, and therefore the distance between the periphery of the channel and the bond will be larger than 2 mm).
Regarding Claim 9, Kreuzer discloses the bottom core wrap (16’, Fig. 3a) is sealed in accordance with a sealing pattern to the top core wrap (16, Fig. 3a; ¶ [0042-0043, 0052]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kreuzer discloses the sealing pattern is a regular pattern (¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kreuzer discloses the average width of each channel is at least 7% of the width of the absorbent core (¶ [0030, 0048]; the channel can be 8 mm wide and the absorbent core can be 40 mm, which results in the channel being 20% of the width of the absorbent core).
Regarding Claim 19, Kreuzer discloses the top core wrap (16, Fig. 3a) has a basis weight between 8 and 30 gsm (¶ [0037]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kreuzer discloses an amount of cellulosic fluff pulp in the absorbent material is below 250 gsm (¶ [0031]; all of the absorbent material can be SAP and therefore there would be 0 cellulosic fluff pulp which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 27, Kreuzer discloses the one or more channels (26, Fig. 1) comprise one or more elongated channels (26, Fig. 1) each having a channel length measured in a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core (28, Fig. 1), said channel length being at least 10% of the length of the absorbent core (¶ [0054]).
Regarding Claim 28, Kreuzer discloses the one or more channels (26, Fig. 1) comprise at least a first and a second elongated channel (26, Fig. 1) extending at a distance of each other in a substantially longitudinal direction of the absorbent core (Fig. 1; ¶ [0054]).
Regarding Claim 29, Kreuzer discloses the bottom core wrap (16’, Fig. 3a) is glued (¶ [0054]) to the top core wrap (16, Fig. 3a) in at least a portion of the one or more channels (26, Fig. 3a; ¶ [0054]).
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.
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) 3, 7, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuzer et al (US 2016/0030256).
Regarding Claim 3, Kreuzer is silent whether the average length of each permanent attachment zone is at least 5 mm less than the average length of the corresponding channel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Kreuzer to have the average length of each permanent attachment zone be at least 5 mm less than the average length of the corresponding channel since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kreuzer would not operate differently with the permanent attachment zone being at least 5 mm less than the average length of the corresponding channel and since the device would function appropriately with the claimed permanent attachment zone length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the permanent attachment zone is “preferably” within the claimed ranges (¶ [0198] of Applicant’s published specification).
Regarding Claim 7, Kreuzer is silent whether in an area of the channel surrounding the permanent attachment zone one or more semi-permanent attachment zones are present.
However, Kreuzer indicates that the core wrap bonds can be permanent, or can be designed to at least partially open when the core is saturating (¶ [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to surround the permanent core wrap bond with a semi-permanent core wrap bond to allow the channel to partially open at the semi-permanent bonds when the core is close to saturation to not unduly restrict the swelling of the absorbent material (¶ [0043]).
Regarding Claim 25, Kreuzer is silent whether the bottom core wrap has a thickness which is higher than the thickness of the top core wrap.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bottom core wrap to have a thickness that is higher than the thickness of the top core wrap. This is an obvious to try rationale, as there is a finite number of predictable solutions (either the bottom core wrap is thicker than the top core wrap, thinner than the top core wrap, or the same thickness as the top core wrap) and there is a predictable expectation of success of all three solutions as they will all allow the absorbent material to be held in place within the absorbent core.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreuzer et al (US 2016/0030256) in view of Grenier et al (US 2021/0393449) further in view of Rosati et al (US 2017/0065460).
Regarding Claim 24, Kreuzer is silent whether the bottom core wrap comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein said first layer has a first density between 20 and 150 kg/m3 and a second layer has a second density between 100 and 400 kg/m3, said second density being higher than the first density, wherein said first layer is closer to the absorbent material than said second layer.
Grenier teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a core wrap where the lower substrate layer can be formed by an acquisition and distribution system (¶ [0089]). Rosati teaches an absorbent article, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an acquisition distribution system with a first layer (acquisition layer 52, Fig. 2) and a second layer (distribution layer 54, Fig. 2), where the first layer has a first density between 10 and 400 kg/m3 (¶ [0361]) and the second layer has a density between 30 and 150 kg/m3 (¶ [0120]). Based on the teachings of Grenier and Rosati, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the two layer acquisition distribution system of Rosati as the bottom core wrap substrate, as taught by Grenier (as motivated by Grenier ¶ [0089] and Rosati ¶ [0120]).
Kreuzer/Grenier/Rosati discloses the first density is between 10 and 400 kg/m3 and the second density is between 30 and 150 kg/m3.
However, Kreuzer/Grenier/Rosati does not explicitly disclose the first density is between 20 and 150 kg/m3 and the second density is between 100 and 400 kg/m3, said second density being higher than the first density.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second densities of Kreuzer/Grenier/Rosati to be from 10 to 400 kg/m3 to from 20 and 150 kg/m3 for the first density, from 30 and 150 kg/m3 to from 100 to 400 kg/m3 for the second density, wherein the second density is higher than the first density as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see ¶ [0128] of Applicant’s published specification indicating the densities can possibily be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights