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 § 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)(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 223 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feist (US 5300054).
Regarding claim 223, Feist teaches a first nonwoven 48, a second nonwoven 48”, an absorbent material layer comprising absorbent material positioned between the first and second nonwovens, the absorbent material layer comprising loose individual unbonded fibers mixed with SAP (Figure 3; column 10, lines 59-68; column 12, line 63 to column 13, line 11; column 13, lines 36-50; column 16, lines 8-17 and 49-51; column 18, lines 36-62).
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.
Claims 188-191, 195, 225, 228, 231 and 234-238 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani (US 2017/0095379 A1) in view of Wright’198 (US 9566198).
Regarding claim 188, Cipriani teaches a multilayer absorbent core 10’ (Figure 4), the core comprising a bodyside, first nonwoven (12’ or 12’’), the first nonwoven having an inner surface and an outer surface (Figure 4); a second nonwoven (the other of 12’ or 12’’), the second nonwoven having an inner surface and an outer surface (Figure 4), wherein the inner surface of the first nonwoven comprises bulkified nonwoven, and wherein the inner surface of the second nonwoven comprises bulkified nonwoven (Figure 5; paragraphs 55-57 and 60-65).
Cipriani differs from claim 188 in that:
i. Cipriani does not recite a first absorbent material layer positioned between the inner surfaces of the first and second nonwovens.
(i) Cipriani does provide absorbent material to inner bulkified surfaces of the first and second nonwovens (Figure 5). Cipriani also teaches embodiments in which the central layer 16 is not included (paragraph 65) and in which downstream bulkifying is not provided (paragraph 57). Cipriani does not recite the absorbent material layer is provided such that it is positioned between the inner surfaces of the first and second nonwovens. However, Wright’198 teaches application of sufficient absorbent material to a bulky nonwoven such that it is provided at a surface thereof and is between the inner surfaces of nonwoven layers (Figure 16B). This arrangement provides stabilization of the absorbent material and naturally also provides a desired amount of absorbent material (column 17, line 63 to column 18, line 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a suitable amount and arrangement of the absorbent material which is suitably stabilized as suggested by the above noted teachings of Wright’198.
Regarding claim 189, while not taught by Cipriani, in related art Wright’198 teaches this limitation for achieving optimized wicking and fluid flow, thereby enhancing core utilization and intake (Figures 17A-D; column 18, lines 26-52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages taught by Wright’198.
Regarding claims 190-191 and 195, while not taught by Cipriani, in related art Wright’198 suggests these limitations for achieving desired fluid flow to enhance core utilization and intake (Figures 17A-D; column 17, line 60 to column 18, line 52). In one embodiment of Wright’198 a bulky layer is used as an upper layer which has more open and larger pores which provides faster fluid acquisition and improved dryness. The larger pores correspond to lower capillarity and higher void volume. Densification is also illustrated at the longitudinal ends. (Figures 17A-D; column 17, line 60 to column 18, line 52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages taught by Wright’198.
Alternatively regarding claims 225 and 231, in related art Wright’198 suggests these limitations, naturally for increasing absorbent capacity of the absorbent core (column 9, line 62 to column 10, line 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase absorbent capacity as suggested by Wright’198.
Regarding claim 228, Cipriani teaches this additional limitation (paragraph 42).
Regarding claims 234-235, Cipriani clearly teaches these additional limitations.
Regarding claim 236, Wright’198 suggests additional alternating layers of absorbent material and nonwoven layers, naturally to provide desired absorbent capacity (column 9, line 62 to column 10, line 8). Cipriani suggests bulkified nonwoven layers for allowing penetration of absorbent material and enhanced amount of absorbent material which can be distributed in a nonwoven (paragraph 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide desired absorbent capacity and enhanced amount of absorbent material in accordance with the above noted teachings of Wright’198 and Cipriani.
Regarding claim 237, in the above noted embodiment of Cipriani in which the central layer 16 is not included (paragraph 65), the inner surfaces of the first and second nonwovens naturally engage.
Regarding claim 238, the bulkified inner surfaces of the first and second nonwovens of Cipriani are considered to have a structure consistent with brushed surfaces as the fibers can be volumized by a device resembling a brush (paragraph 45).
Claims 192, 197-202, 204-205, 207-208, 224-225 and 229-230 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 as applied to claims 188-191, 195, 225, 228, 231 and 234-238 above, and further in view of Wright’756 (US 2015/0045756 A1).
Regarding claim 192, while not taught by Cipriani, in related art Wright’756 suggests these limitations for providing absorbent lanes and absorbent free lanes which function as channels for quickly directing liquid (Figure 14; paragraphs 117-119). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages taught by Wright’756.
Regarding claims 197-198, while not recited by Cipriani, Wright’756 suggests a multilayer absorbent core with a low density, low capillarity, high void volume, high permeability and high thickness upper layer; a high density, high capillarity, low void volume, low permeability and low thickness lower layer; and an intermediate layer with intermediate properties for providing a desirable absorbent multilayer core structure (paragraphs 148-149; Figure 11). Given the recited density and thickness ranges in paragraph 148 and Table 1, it is also clear that basis weights may decrease from the first to the third nonwoven. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable absorbent layer properties as suggested by Wright’756.
Alternatively regarding claim 225, in related art Wright’756 suggests these limitations for increasing absorbent capacity of the absorbent core (paragraphs 70-71, 80-85 and 150-153; Figures 3C, 6A-C and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase absorbent capacity as suggested by Wright’756.
Regarding claims 199-202, while not recited by Cipriani, Wright’756 suggests selecting the distribution of SAP for the particular application and performance objectives. Moreover Wright’756 suggests the first absorbent layer would have the highest permeability and lowest absorbency rate (in part due to the largest particle size) and absorbent capacity to achieve desired fluid distribution and spreading (paragraphs 141-151). It is reasonably clear from Wright’756 that these absorbent parameters would be selected as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the above noted performance, absorbance and fluid flow characteristics required for a particular application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics for a particular application as a matter of routine experimentation in view of the above noted teachings of Wright’756.
Regarding claims 204-205, Cipriani recites the claimed absorbent material lanes and absorbent free layers (paragraph 42), but does not recite the claimed embossing lines coincident with the absorbent free lanes. In related art, Wright’756 suggests these limitations for providing a suitable absorbent layer and suitably integrating the layers (Figure 14; paragraphs 124-126 and 164-165). As to aligning the absorbent material-free lanes in claim 205, such is naturally required to achieve the bonding desired taught by Wright’756. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to these limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable absorbent layer and integration of the layers as suggested by Wright’756.
Regarding claims 207-208, while not recited by Cipriani, Wright’756 suggests these limitations for providing a desirable absorbent multilayer core structure (paragraphs 148-149; Table 1; Figures 6C and 11). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable absorbent layer properties as suggested by Wright’756.
Regarding claims 224 and 229-230, while not recited by Cipriani, Wright’756 suggests the absorbent and absorbent free lanes may extend across the core such that they would naturally be coincident with a central crotch region and such an absorbent free lane is centered as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably arrange the absorbent and absorbent free lanes as suggested by Wright’756.
Claims 192, 204-206 and 224 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 and Wright’756 as applied to claims 192, 197-202, 204-205, 207-208, 224-225 and 229-230 above, and further in view of Osterdahl (US 6080909).
Regarding claim 192, to the extent that Wright’756 does not satisfy the claimed longitudinal direction, in related art Osterdahl suggests providing lanes of absorbent material in this direction for providing suitable absorbent properties. See Osterdahl (column 3, lines 10-13; Figures 1, 3 and 4a-d). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the lanes in a known suitable direction as suggested by Osterdahl.
Alternatively regarding claims 204-205, Osterdahl provides further motivation to align the absorbent material layers in a z-direction as claimed. While this limitation is not explicitly recited in claim 204, the embossing lines of claim 204 are coincident with the absorbent material free lanes, which suggests such lanes are aligned. Osterdahl clearly suggests such alignment of absorbent lanes and absorbent free lanes to provide suitable absorbent properties and to improve liquid receiving properties (Figure 1; column 2, lines 37-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the claimed alignment in the modified absorbent core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Osterdahl.
Regarding claim 206, Osterdahl also clearly suggests the claimed staggered arrangement to achieve the above noted benefits (Figure 4c).
Claim 224 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Claim 209 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 and Wright’756 as applied to claims 192, 197-202, 204-205, 207-208, 224-225 and 229-230 above, and further in view of Wright’760 (US 2009/0062760 A1).
Regarding claim 209, Cipriani does not recite the claimed plurality of slits aligned with an SAP containing lane in the first absorbent material. Cipriani does teach SAP containing lanes in the first absorbent material (paragraph 42). Wright’756 was applied above for a suggested pattern of such lanes. In related art, Wright’760 suggests the claimed slits for increased fluid intake rate and flexibility (paragraph 32). Wright’760 suggests a plurality of slits and slits that extend longitudinally or transversely, thus suggesting such slits that would naturally align with various features such as an SAP containing lane of Cipriani (Figures 2a-8). Alternatively, it is clear from the teachings of Wright’760 that the slits would be placed as a matter of routine experimentation to provide increased fluid intake and flexibility. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased fluid intake and flexibility, the positioning of the slits naturally aligning with an SAP containing lane of Cipriani as modified by Wright’756, or providing such alignment as a matter of routine experimentation for the reasons provided above.
Claims 226-227 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 as applied to claims 188-191, 195, 225, 228, 231 and 234-238 above, and further in view of Wright’760.
Wright’760 is applied as above in the rejection of claim 209.
Claim 226 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 227, Wright’760 was relied upon above for suggesting the claimed slit. Wright’760 clearly suggests slits coincident with the central crotch region for providing the above noted increased fluid intake and flexibility.
Claims 210-213 and 232-233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 as applied to claims 188-191, 195, 225, 228, 231 and 234-238 above, and further in view of Feist.
Regarding claim 210, Cipriani does not teach the claimed loose fiber layer. In related art, Feist suggests providing a loose fiber layer between absorbent nonwoven layers to aid in uptake and distribution of fluid (Figure 3; column 7, lines 28-46; column 13, lines 36-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Feist.
Regarding claim 211, Feist was applied above for suggesting the loose fiber layer of claim 210. Feist additionally teaches the loose fiber layer may comprise SAP mixed with the loose fibers, naturally for providing enhanced absorption (column 12, line 63 to column 13, line 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a suitable loose fiber layer and/or enhance absorption as suggested by the teachings of Feist.
Regarding claim 212, Cipriani teaches the claimed SAP-free lane. The loose fibers suggested by Feist are coextensive with the first and second nonwovens. Thus they would naturally be positioned within an SAP-free lane.
Regarding claim 213, Feist teaches the loose fibers may be carded (column 13, lines 26-50). Carded fibers are oriented to generally extend in a single direction due to the carding process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to this additional limitation in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a carded loose fiber layer as suggested by Feist, such a layer naturally having fibers oriented generally in a single direction.
Regarding claim 232-233, while these additional limitations are not recited in Cipriani, Feist suggests that an absorbent core may have any desired number of absorbent layers, naturally to provide a desired absorbent capacity (column 10, lines 59-68; column 11, lines 1-3). It is clear from Cipriani that such absorbent layers may be provided as separate nonwoven sheets (Figures 4-5). A stack of four such absorbent nonwoven layers would satisfy the arrangement of claim 232. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a desired absorbent capacity by providing and arranging a suitable number of absorbent layers provided as separate sheets as suggested by the above noted teachings of Feist and Cipriani.
Claims 214 and 216-219 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Wright’198 as applied to claims 188-191, 195, 225, 228, 231 and 234-238 above, and further in view of Pigneul (US 5118376) and Osterdahl.
Regarding claim 214, Cipriani as modified by Wright’198 includes a first nonwoven, a second nonwoven, an absorbent material layer comprising absorbent material positioned between the first and second nonwovens. Cipriani further teaches the second nonwoven comprises bulkified nonwoven that is coincident with a central crotch region, a plurality of absorbent material containing lanes and a plurality of absorbent free lanes (Figures 1-5; paragraphs 31-32, 41-44, 55-57 and 65).
Cipriani differs from claim 214 in that:
i. Cipriani does not teach the claimed alternating lanes of bulkified and non-bulkified nonwoven along a longitudinal centerline of the absorbent core, the absorbent material and absorbent free lanes extending in the longitudinal direction, wherein the absorbent free lanes are coincident with the lanes of bulkified nonwoven and the absorbent lanes are coincident with the lanes of non-bulkified nonwoven.
(i) Cipriani bulkifies the entire second nonwoven and then applies lanes of absorbent material. In related art, Pigneul suggests compressing a fibrous material in areas where absorbent material is to be applied, which would clearly provide non-bulkified lanes, and then providing absorbent material in the compressed areas to help keep the absorbent material in place and to facilitate distribution of fluid (Abstract; column 1, lines 34-42; column 2, lines 17-60; Figures 1-3). Thus Pigneul suggests compressing the nonwoven of Cipriani in the lanes where bulkified nonwoven is provided such that the non-bulkified nonwoven is coincident with the lanes of absorbent material and the bulkified nonwoven is coincident with the absorbent free lanes. As to a longitudinal direction of the absorbent core, it is known to provide lanes of absorbent material in this direction for providing suitable absorbent properties. See Osterdahl (column 3, lines 10-13; Figures 1, 3 and 4a-d). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified core of Cipriani because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Pigneul and to provide the lanes in a known suitable direction as suggested by Osterdahl.
Regarding claim 216, this limitation clearly and naturally flows from the modification of Cipriani above since the compressed areas will have higher density and corresponding smaller void volume.
Regarding claim 217, Pigneul suggests compressing about 50%, which would naturally provide about 50% higher density and roughly 50% less void volume, which corresponds to values in the claimed ranges (column 4, lines 59-68). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 218, Cipriani clearly suggests providing absorbent material in the bulkified portions of nonwoven, and thus also suggests providing this limitation to provide the desired absorbent characteristics.
Claim 219 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Cipriani does not teach SAP positioned between the two nonwovens. This limitation is now required by the newly amended claims and has been addressed in the new grounds of rejection applied above, which were necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant argues the acquisition/distribution layers of Feist do not contain absorbent material. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See Feist (column 12, line 63 to column 13, line 11).
Applicant argues Cipriani does not teach a fourth nonwoven. In response, the rejection is based on a combination of references. Feist was applied to suggest this additional limitation.
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 MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights