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 § 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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the void volume of the fluid-permeable top layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is interpreted as --a void volume of the fluid-permeable top layer--.
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)(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, 7-12, 14-16, 18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye (WO 2022120693).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses an absorbent core (1) for use in an absorbent article, the absorbent core extending in a transversal direction (x) and a longitudinal direction (y) (page 2, lines 13-14), the absorbent core comprising:
a fluid-permeable top layer (page 2, lines 14-15);
a bottom layer (page 2, line 15);
one or more central layers sandwiched between the top layer (2) and the bottom layer (page 2, lines 15-16), each central layer having a front edge, a back edge and two longitudinally extending side edges (page 7, lines 32-33), wherein the central layer is a high loft fibrous nonwoven layer which is free of cellulose fibers (page 6, lines 5-11);
characterized in that said high loft fibrous nonwoven layer comprises, a carded air-through bonded nonwoven or drylaid thermobonded nonwoven (page 7, lines 1-6 and page 20 lines 6-8); and wherein said central layer is impregnated with superabsorbent particles such that said particles are comprised through a thickness of said central layer, said thickness extending perpendicular to both the transversal direction and a longitudinal direction (page 8, lines 14-15), and in that said high loft fibrous nonwoven layer is substantially free of hotmelt adhesive for immobilizing said superabsorbent particles (page 11, lines 11-15, page 8, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 2, Ye discloses wherein the central layer comprises a void volume greater than the void volume of the fluid permeable top layer (page 5, lines 22-25 and page 9, lines 5-19, high loft central layer vs a thin nonwoven top layer).
Regarding claim 3, Ye discloses wherein the superabsorbent particles are mechanically restrained and/or immobilized by a fiber network of the high loft fibrous nonwoven layer (page 11, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 7, Ye discloses wherein the fibers (10) of the high loft fibrous nonwoven layer comprise a material selected from the group consisting of: polylactic acid or derivatives thereof, polylactic-co-glycolic acid or derivatives thereof, polyhydroxyalkanoates or derivatives thereof, bio-polyethylene, bio- polypropylene, and mixtures there (page 6, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Ye discloses wherein the central layer is different from the top and bottom layers and wherein the top and bottom layers comprise a multilayer nonwoven comprising spunbond and/or meltblown fibers (page 9, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 9, Ye discloses the multilayer nonwoven is selected from the group consisting of SS, SSS, SM, SMS, and SMMS (page 9, lines 8-13).
Regarding claim 10, Ye discloses wherein the superabsorbent particles comprise a blend of superabsorbent particles comprising a first superabsorbent particles (SAPi) and a second superabsorbent particles (SAP2), wherein the first superabsorbent particles (SAP1) have an AUL that is greater than the AUL of the second superabsorbent particles (SAP2), and wherein the first superabsorbent particles (SAP1) have an AUL of greater than 15 g/g, according to the test method herein (page 11, lines 6-13, table 1 discloses the SAP used at all higher than 15 g/g).
Regarding claim 11, Ye discloses SAP comprises crosslinked polymers of polyacrylic acids (page 11, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Ye discloses the SAP comprises less than 80% wt by total weight of the superabsorbent particles and the second absorbent particles comprises at a level of at least 20% wt by total weight of superabsorbent particles (page 6, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 14, Ye discloses wherein the high loft fibrous nonwoven layer is free of hotmelt adhesive and preferably free of channels being substantially free of absorbent material within the deposition area (page 8, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 15, Ye discloses wherein the central layer comprises from 20%wt to 60%wt of stiffening fibers (page 6, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 16, Ye discloses an absorbent article comprising a liquid permeable topsheet, a liquid impermeable backsheet and an absorbent core sandwiched therebetween (page 16, lines 22-30, wherein the absorbent core (1) is according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Ye discloses wherein the top layer has an average pore size and/or void volume that are smaller than the average diameter of the superabsorbent particles (page 5, lines 22-25 and page 9, lines 5-19, high loft central layer vs a thin nonwoven top layer).
Regarding claim 20, Ye discloses wherein first superabsorbent particles (SAP1) are comprised at a level of from 10%wt to 32%wt by total weight of superabsorbent particles, and the second superabsorbent particles are comprised at a level of from 30% to 90% by total weight of superabsorbent particles (page 6, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 21, Ye discloses wherein the central layer(s) comprises stiffening fibers selected from bi-component fibers comprising polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate components or polyethylene terephthalate and co-polyethylene terephthalate components (page 6, lines 12-20).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Van (WO 2019/072765).
Regarding claim 4, Ye does not teach wherein the high loft fibrous nonwoven layer has been subjected to a void volume decrease from a second void volume, generally corresponding with a superabsorbent particles deposition thereon, to a third void volume, generally corresponding to a state in which the superabsorbent particles have been deposited and impregnated thereon and/or therein, and wherein the third void volume is less, than the second void volume.
Van discloses absorbent articles and teaches wherein the high loft fibrous nonwoven layer has been subjected to a void volume decrease from a second void volume, generally corresponding with a superabsorbent particles deposition thereon, to a third void volume, generally corresponding to a state in which the superabsorbent particles have been deposited and impregnated thereon and/or therein, and wherein the third void volume is less, than the second void volume (page 29, lines 29-34).
Van provides the manufacturing method in order to prevent particles from migrating out of structure (page 8, lines 13-16). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Ye with the process of Van in order to prevent particles from migrating out of structure.
Regarding claim 5-6, Ye does not teach wherein the superabsorbent particles are impregnated in a pattern comprising one or more areas substantially free of said superabsorbent particles arranged such to form one, two, or more longitudinally extending channels substantially free of superabsorbent particles wherein said channels extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction (claim 5) and wherein the channels are flanked and/or enclosed by superabsorbent particles when viewed in a planar direction wherein the respective plane is formed by the transversal direction and a longitudinal direction (claim 6).
Van further teaches the superabsorbent particles are impregnated in a pattern comprising one or more areas substantially free of said superabsorbent particles arranged such to form one, two, or more longitudinally extending channels substantially free of superabsorbent particles wherein said channels extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction (channels 140, 150, 160, 170, page 33, lines 18-20) and wherein the channels are flanked and/or enclosed by superabsorbent particles when viewed in a planar direction wherein the respective plane is formed by the transversal direction and a longitudinal direction (page 13, lines 18-20).
Van provides the channels in order to create paths for liquid flow (page 37, lines 23-27). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify Ye with the channels of Van in order to create paths for liquid flow.
Regarding claim 19, Ye and Van do not disclose wherein the third void volume is at least 1.2 times less than the second void volume.
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 Ye to optimize a void volume 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 Ye would not operate differently with the claimed void volume and the device would function appropriately having the void volume ratio. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “preferably” be within the claimed ranges (specification section titled “THE ABSORBENT CORE”).
Claim(s) 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye.
Regarding claim 13, Ye does not explicitly teach wherein the AUL ratio {AULSAP1/AULSAP2) of the first superabsorbent particles (SAP1) and second superabsorbent particles (SAP2) is greater than 1.4.
Ye discloses the first superabsorbent polymers having higher capacity than the second (page 2, lines 20-30) but does not state the ratio, and states the absorbency is of the certain ratio to achieve desirable permeability (page 2, lines 25-30). Therefore, the ratio of AUL is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the ratio changes the permeability of the composition. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Ye device to have a ratio within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component composition disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date to modify the device of Ye by making ratio of AUL 1.4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Ye discloses comprising an acquisition distribution layer (54, page 17, lines 15-25) positioned between the topsheet and the absorbent core, but fails to disclose wherein the acquisition distribution layer has a basis weight of from 15 to 55 g/m2 and comprises fibres having an average diameter of from 10 to 35 microns.
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 Ye to optimize a basis weight and fibers with average diameters 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 Ye would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and basis weight and the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter and basis weight. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “preferably” be within the claimed ranges (specification section titled “THE ABSORBENT ARTICLE”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI H WENG whose telephone number is (571)272-5852. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights