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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending, of which Claim 1 is amended and Claims 10-11 are new. All claims are examined on the merits. No new matter is found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claim 1 in view of Chiba (WO 2019/142872), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Yokoyama et al. (WO 2016/104374).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (WO 2016/104374, note that English translation of the reference was provided with Non-Final Rejection mailed on 11/21/2025) in view of Takeshi (WO 2007/114362).
Re Claim 1, Yokoyama discloses an absorbent body (implied in Background Art section third paragraph, corresponds to [0004] in the WIPO publication) comprising a water-absorbent resin, wherein the water-absorbent resin has a 5-minute non-pressurized demand wettability (DW) of 45 ml/g or more (see Abstract, “(B) a five-minute value under no pressure DW of at least 50 mL/g”).
Yokoyama does not disclose that the water-absorbent resin has a physiological saline retention of 45 g/g or more but instead discloses a physiological saline retention of 44 g/g (see Abstract), which is immediately outside of the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range is close to that disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Yokoyama also does not disclose that a weight per unit area of the water-absorbent resin in the absorbent body is 50 g/m2 or more and 350 g/m2 or less. Takeshi discloses an absorbent article having an absorbent core formed of superabsorbent particles that are provided in a basis weight of 50-350 g/m2 ([0111]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Yokoyama with Takeshi since choosing a known basis weight already used in the industry would likely allow one to arrive at an article that functions well.
Re Claim 2, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 1 but they are silent to wherein the water-absorbent resin satisfies a relationship represented by Formula (1) below:
0.85 ≤ 5-minute non-pressurized DW/water retention ≤ 5.0 (1)
However, given that the Yokoyama water-absorbent resin exhibits the same DW and the nearly the same physiological saline retention as the claimed water-absorbent resin, one skilled in the art has reason to expect that the Yokoyama resin would also exhibit the claimed relationship represented in Formula (1).
Re Claim 3, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 1 and Yokoyama also discloses that the water-absorbent resin has a median particle diameter of 200 µm or more and 700 µm or less (paragraph immediately before “Comparative Example 1”, which corresponds to [0091] in the WIPO publication, “The median particle size of the obtained water absorbent resin composition was 365 μm.”
Re Claim 6, Yokoyama, with modification by Takeshi, discloses an absorbent article (e.g., see Background Art section) comprising an absorbent body according to claim 1.
Re Claim 10, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 1, and Yokoyama further discloses the 5-minute non-pressurized demand wettability (DW) is 45-90 ml/g (Abstract, “(B) a five-minute value under no pressure DW of at least 50 mL/g”).
Yokoyama does not disclose that the water-absorbent resin has a physiological saline retention of 45-70 g/g but instead discloses a physiological saline retention of 44 g/g (see Abstract), which is immediately outside of the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range is close to that disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Re Claim 11, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 1.
Yokoyama does not disclose that the water-absorbent resin has a physiological saline retention of 45-50 g/g but instead discloses a physiological saline retention of 44 g/g (see Abstract), which is immediately outside of the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range is close to that disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Yokoyama also does not disclose the 5-minute non-pressurized demand wettability (DW) is 60-70 ml/g but instead discloses a wider range of at least 50 ml/g (see Abstract). However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range falls completely within a range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 4-5 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama and Takeshi as applied to claim 1 or 6 above, and further in view of Chiba et al. (WO 2019/142872).
Re Claims 4-5, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 1 but they do not expressly disclose that the absorbent body comprises a hydrophilic fiber being at least one selected from the group consisting of finely pulverized wood pulp, cotton, a cotton linter, rayon, cellulose acetate, a polyamide, a polyester, and a polyolefin. Chiba discloses an absorbent body that comprises a water-absorbent resin and a hydrophilic fiber ([0020]) selected from polyamide, polyester, or polyolefin ([0044] "absorbent body may further include synthetic fibers made of a synthetic resin such as polyamide, polyester, or polyolefin"). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Chiba because the resin of Yokoyama is already recognized for being useful in an absorbent article.
Re Claim 7, Yokoyama and Takeshi combine to disclose claim 6, but neither discloses the absorbent article comprising the laminate, liquid-permeable sheet and liquid-impermeable sheet as claimed.
Chiba discloses an absorbent article comprising:
a laminate including the absorbent body containing the water-absorbent resin, and core wrap disposed on upper and lower sides of the absorbent body to sandwich the absorbent body ([0138] "the absorbent body was placed between two tissue papers", which is considered to be a laminate - formed of the absorbent body sandwiched between the tissue papers);
a liquid-permeable sheet disposed on an upper surface of the laminate ([0138] "a polyethylene-polypropylene air-through type porous liquid-permeable sheet was disposed on the upper surface of the absorbent body"); and
a liquid-impermeable sheet disposed on a surface of the laminate on a side opposite to a side of the liquid-permeable sheet ([0138] "a polyethylene liquid-impermeable sheet was disposed on the lower surface of the absorbent body").
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Chiba because such functional structures in an absorbent article are already well recognized in the field.
Re Claim 8, Yokoyama, Takeshi and Chiba combine to disclose claim 7 and, in the combination, Chiba further disclosing wherein the liquid-permeable sheet has a weight per unit area of 5 g to 200 g/m² ([0138] "a polyethylene-polypropylene air-through type porous liquid-permeable sheet having the same size as the absorbent body and a basis weight of 22 g/m²").
Re Claim 9, Yokoyama, Takeshi and Chiba combine to disclose claim 7 and, in the combination, Chiba further disclosing wherein the liquid-permeable sheet is at least one selected from the group consisting of a thermally bonded non-woven fabric, an air through non-woven fabric, a spunbonded non-woven fabric, and an SMS non-woven fabric ([0138] "a polyethylene-polypropylene air-through type porous liquid-permeable sheet"). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Chiba because such functional structures in an absorbent article are already well recognized in the field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is (408)918-7575. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/SUSAN S SU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
27 May 2026
Prosecution Insights