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
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 November 10, 2025.
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 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 726 752 (translation as provided in IDS filed 2/6/2025) and further in view of Everett et al. (US 6,383,960).
With reference to claim 1, EP 0 726 752 (hereinafter “Hartmann”) discloses an absorbent substrate [0002] comprising:
an intake layer (26) comprising a first plurality of fibers (i.e., cross-linked cellulose fibers) as set forth in [0022]; and
an absorbent layer (28) comprising superabsorbent material as set forth in [0023], the superabsorbent material comprising greater than 80% of the absorbent layer by total weight of the absorbent layer [0023], the superabsorbent material being configured as particles (i.e., granules), fibers, or a combination thereof as set forth in [0023];
wherein the intake layer and the absorbent layer provide an integrated material including an interface (30) between the intake layer and the absorbent layer, the interface including at least some of the first plurality of fibers of the intake layer mixed with at least some of the absorbent layer as set forth in [0015].
Hartmann discloses an absorbent substrate wherein the absorbent layer (28) wherein the interface includes at least some of the first plurality of fibers of the intake layer being mixed with at least some of the second plurality of fibers of the absorbent layer as set forth in [0015].
Hartmann also discloses that each layer may contain binder fibers, plastic fibers, fusible fibers and/or bicomponent fibers as set forth in [0033].
Hartmann discloses the absorbent layer may include between 10 to 98% of superabsorbent material as set forth in [0022]. With the disclosure of including plastic fibers in [0033], one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the absorbent layer to include at least 10% of synthetic fibers. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the percentages as desired to provide a structure better able to absorb multiple insults of liquid as suggested by Hartmann in [0011].
The difference between Hartmann and claim 1 is the explicit recitation of the percentages of fibers used.
Everett et al. (hereinafter “Everett”) teaches an analogous absorbent structure having an intake layer (col. 17, line 53 to col. 18, line 8) wherein the intake layer includes at least 20% binder fibers as set forth in col. 18, lines 1-8 through the incorporation of Ellis et al. (US 5,490,846)
Ellis et al. (hereinafter “Ellis”) teaches at least 20% of binder fibers as set forth in col. 6, lines 27-49.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the amounts of materials already disclosed by Hartmann based on the teachings of Everett to provide improved fluid uptake of liquid insults and improve liquid distribution as taught by Everett in col. 2, lines 16-26.
With reference to claim 10, Hartmann modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann modified and claim 10 is the provision that the absorbent substrate comprises an Internal Cohesion Test dry value greater than 0.4.
As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Hartmann modified teaches an absorbent substrate that is identical to that disclosed.
While Hartmann does not explicitly recite an Internal Cohesion Test value, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the absorbent substrate of Hartmann to produce an identical Internal Cohesion Test result identical to that claimed since the absorbent substrate of Hartmann is identical to that claimed. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
With reference to claim 11, Hartmann discloses a personal care absorbent (i.e., diaper, sanitary napkin or incontinence product) that includes the absorbent substrate as set forth in the abstract.
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Hartmann does not disclose or suggest the use of adhesive in the absorbent layer. The absorbent layer may include up to 98% of superabsorbent as set forth in [0023].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 726 752 in view of Everett et al. (US 6,383,960) and further in view of Neogi et al. (US 2016/0244916).
With reference to claim 3, Hartmann modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann and claim 3 is the provision that the second plurality of fibers comprise fibers having a fiber length of greater than about 1.0 mm.
Neogi et al. (hereinafter “Neogi”) teaches an analogous absorbent structure including absorbent material and having a second plurality of fibers with a fiber length of greater than 1.0 mm as set forth in the abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second plurality of fibers of Hartmann modified with a fiber length of greater than 1.0mm in order to provide product durability as taught by Neogi in [0004].
With reference to claim 4, Hartmann modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann and claim 4 is the provision that the second plurality of fibers comprise NBSK fibers.
Neogi teaches an analogous absorbent structure including absorbent material and having a second plurality of fibers comprising NBSK fibers as set forth in [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the second plurality of fibers of Hartmann modified with NBSK fibers due to its comparatively lower coarseness and higher fiber length as taught by Neogi in [0056].
Claims 6-7, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 726 752 in view of Everett et al. (US 6,383,960) and further in view of EP 2 211 376.
With reference to claim 6, Hartmann modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann and claim 6 is the provision that the second plurality of fibers comprise at least 20% by weight absorbent fibers and at least 20% by weight binder fibers (by total weight of the second plurality of fibers).
EP 0 211 376 (hereinafter “Becker”) teaches an analogous absorbent substrate including at least 20% by weight absorbent fibers and at least 20% by weight binder fibers as set forth on page 9, lines 1-5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the substrate of Hartmann modified with the percentages as taught by Becker in an effort to minimize strikethrough as taught by Becker on page 2, lines 28-31.
With reference to claim 7, Hartmann teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann and claim 7 is the provision that the second plurality of fibers comprises synthetic fibers including a length of at least 4.0mm.
Becker teaches an analogous absorbent substrate including a second plurality of fibers comprising synthetic fibers including a length of at least 4.0mm as set forth on page 14, line 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the substrate of Hartmann modified with the percentages as taught by Becker in an effort to minimize strikethrough as taught by Becker on page 2, lines 28-31.
With reference to claim 9, Hartmann teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Hartmann and claim 9 is the provision that the first plurality of fibers of the intake layer comprise at least 50% synthetic fibers and at least 20% binder fibers (by total weight of the intake layer).
Becker teaches an analogous absorbent substrate including a first plurality of fibers comprising at least 50% synthetic fibers (i.e., polyester) and at least 20% binder fibers (i.e., polyethylene) as set forth on page 5, line 10 to page 6, line 6 and on page 8, lines 31-34 where Becker discloses that the configuration taught on page 5 is suitable for the absorbent body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the substrate of Hartmann modified with the percentages as taught by Becker in an effort to minimize strikethrough as taught by Becker on page 2, lines 28-31.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 9.
With reference to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights