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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-122380, filed on 27 July 2023.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed August 26, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-9 are now pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 26, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US20210315747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arizti et al teaches of a liquid-absorbing body (see e.g. absorbent article “20” in paragraph 7): an absorbing layer (see e.g. absorbent core “28” in paragraph 100) having a water-absorbing resin and having liquid-absorbing ability (see e.g. comprises absorbent material with a high amount of superabsorbent polymers (SAP), where water swells the polymer material and polymers are capable of holding large amounts of liquids in paragraph 100); and a base material layer stacked on at least one surface side of the absorbing layer (see e.g. the top sheet “24”, the acquisition layer “52”, and the distribution layer “54” in paragraph 88), the base material layer having liquid permeability, wherein the base material layer has a first layer including cellulose fibers (see e.g. all base layers can be made of some kind of cellulose fiber: the top sheet “24” is made of nonwoven or woven natural fibers such as wood or cotton fibers in paragraph 95, the distribution layer “54” is made of at least 50% or more of cross-linked cellulose fibers in paragraph 120, the acquisition layer “52” is made of non-woven material such as cellulosic fibers or synthetic in paragraph 121) and a second layer positioned on a side of the first layer opposite to the absorbing layer (see e.g. top sheet “24” is located on the top/outside with distribution layer “54” directly below in paragraphs 88, 91, and 98 with an optional embodiment where the acquisition layer “52’ lies between the top sheet and distribution layers in paragraph 121 and shown in Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Labeled Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) Published in 2015
Arizti et al teaches an average width of the cellulose fibers is 0.05 mm or more and 2 mm or less ((see e.g. fibers either natural or man-made have a diameter ranging from less than 0.001 mm to more than 0.2 mm and are often known as staple or chopped fibers in paragraph 70).
Arizti et al teaches that the second layer has a basis weight of 5-50 gsm (see e.g. the basis weight of the second layer can be represented by the top sheet “24” which is 5-50 gsm in paragraph 96). Arizti additionally discloses that along the second layer the basis weight can be different (see e.g. a basis weight in the second zone “Z2” may be greater than the basis weight in the first zone “Z1” where the zones are different areas on the top of the Top Sheet “24” in paragraphs 10 and 142 and shown in Figure 15). Further, Arizti et al teaches that the basis weights may differ throughout the layers (see e.g. presence of channels “49” and “49’” in LMS “50” that allow for lower basis weights that allow for increased void space, leading to reduced leakage in paragraphs 122-123).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 15: Labeled Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) Published 2015
Arizti et al does not teach the basis weight of the second layer (see e.g. the basis weight of the first layer can be represented by the “distribution layer “54” and optionally the “acquisition layer “52” due to their positioning in paragraph paragraphs 88, 91, 98, and 121 and Figure 2). Further Arizti does not teach the second layer having a basis weight different from a basis weight of the first layer, A2 < Al, wherein Al (g/cm2) is the basis weight of the first layer and A2 (g/cm2) is the basis weight of the second layer.
Okada et al teaches the basis weight relationship between two similarly constructed layers as can be seen in Figure 3 and in Table 1 (Okada et al, 2021). The intermediate sheet (40) made partially of cellulose is a good model for the first layer (A1) and the top sheet (30), made up of nonwoven fabric is a good model for the second layer (A2). As can be seen in Table 1, the intermediate sheet (40) has a greater basis weight than the top sheet (30), as seen in samples 2-8 (Okada et al, 2021).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
1058
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Labeled Okada et al. (US2021/0315747 A1) Published 2021
PNG
media_image4.png
925
822
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Table 1: Okada et al. (US2021/0315747 A1)
Arizti et al and Okada et al are analogous in the art because both are related to absorbent articles that are made of the same materials and roughly the same number of layers. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the absorbent article taught in Arizti et al with the specific basis weight difference taught in Okada et al because having the basis weight of the second layer be less than the basis weight of the first layer would allow the more diffusive second layer to have an increased void space, that would allow more room for the liquid to be held and diffuse before going onto the more absorbent first layer without overflowing (see e.g. lower basis weight allows for increased void space leading to less leakage in paragraph 122 of Arizti et al).
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, rejections from claim 1 are inherited and Arizti et al teaches that the second layer is unwoven fabric (see e.g. the top sheet “24” is made of nonwoven or woven natural fibers such as wood or cotton fibers in paragraph 95)
Regarding claim 9, rejections from claim 1 are inherited and Arizti teaches that the average width of the cellulose fibers is 0.1 mm or more and 1 mm or less (see e.g. fibers either natural or man-made have a diameter ranging from less than 0.001 mm to more than 0.2 mm and are often known as staple or chopped fibers in paragraph 70).
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US20210315747 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakashita et al. (US20130079741 A1).
Claim 2 inherits the rejections from claim 1 and is also rejected in view of Nakashita et. al. Arizti et al in view of Okada et al teaches a multilayered absorbing body but does not teach anything about the specific densities, B, of the layers in relationship to each other, only hinting at a difference in basis weights and the fact that basis weight is weight divided by area instead of volume. Claim 2 recites the densities as B2 < B1 wherein B1 is density of the first layer, and B2 is density of the second layer. This relationship is taught by Nakashita et al, where it is described that “if density is excessively large, [it] decreases in liquid permeability and hardness […] while if density is excessively small, the superabsorbent polymer ends up falling out easily” (paragraph [0053], Nakashita, 2013). This gives precedence to a layer that is meant to be more diffusive/permeable (the second layer) having a lower density than the more absorbent layer (the first layer).
Arizti et al in view of Okada et al and Nakashita et al are analogous in the art because all prior art are absorbent bodies that incorporate non-woven or unwoven fibers. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the top sheet (30) and intermediate sheet (40) of Arizti et al in view of Okada et al to be modified to have a density ratio as taught by Nakashita et al. (e.g., where the top sheet has a lower density than the intermediate sheet), so that the arrangement will ensure no leakage. The density ratio allows for absorption to increase as water approaches the water-absorbing resin at the center of the absorption body.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US20210315747 A1) and Nakashita et al. (US20130079741 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Torii et al. (US20200023625 A1).
Claim 3 inherits the rejections from claim 2 and is also rejected in view of Torii et al. Arizti et al in view of Okada et al and Nakashita et al teaches of the intermediate sheet’s (40) thickness being 0.3-1.0 mm (paragraph [0089], Okada et al, 2021) but does not teach about specific thickness of the top sheet (30), so their differences cannot be compared as a ratio. Torii et al discloses a design that lists a multilayer water-permeable base material being possible of being made from “papers […], a net, a nonwoven fabric, a fabric, and a film” (paragraph [0276], Torii et al, 2020). Torii et al, teaches that the base materials include those for an outermost layer (paragraph [0276] Torii et al, 2020). Then further discloses, the “thickness per base material is selected as appropriate from the following ranges: 0.01 mm to 2 mm, 0.02 mm to 1 mm, 0.03 mm to 0.6 mm, and 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm” (paragraph [0278], Torii et al, 2020).
Arizti et al in view of Okada et al and Nakashita et al and the additional Torii et al are analogous in the art because all are absorbent articles using nonwoven fibers made to absorb liquids. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the top sheet of Arizti et al to have a thickness selected from one of the thickness ranges as taught by Torii, providing a base material which is as thin as possible but maintains strength (paragraph [0278], Torii et al, 2020). Given an intermediate sheet thickness of 0.3- 1.0 mm (paragraph [0089], Okada et al, 2021) and thickness range for nonwoven fabric of 0.03- 0.6 mm (paragraph [0278], Torii et al, 2020) the thickness ratio can be calculated. The ratio range comes out to being as low as 0.5 and as high as 33.33 depending what values are chosen within the ranges, overlapping the claimed thickness range of 1.2 through 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US20210315747 A1), Nakashita et al. (US20130079741 A1), and Torii et al. (US20200023625 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Hamajima et al. (US5496626 A),
Claim 4 inherits the rejections from claim 3. Furthermore, it is rejected as Arizti et al in view of Okada et al, Nakashita et al, and Torii et al teaches of an absorbent body with multiple layers, that effectively absorbs at a general absorption speed but does not teach different diffusion rates, C. Hamajima et al, shows there is precedence of two layers surrounding an absorbent primary layer to have different diffusion rates, specifically a primarily absorbent layer to have a lower diffusion rate than the primarily diffusive layer. Wherein the application claims, C1 < C2 wherein C1 is the first layer and C2 is the second layer. It is well known in the art that diffusion can be represented as
∂
(
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
)
∂
(
t
i
m
e
)
, where the diffusion rate is showing how much distance the matter travels in a certain amount of time, in this case liquid. Hamajima et al, preforms the Klemm’s method to measure the rate of diffusion. It measures the absorption height within 1 minute, giving a distance over time. Hamajima et al, further teaches that it is difficult to have both good absorption and good diffusion. The application’s C1 < C2 is consistent with findings in Hamajima et al where the absorbent surface layer had a diffusion rate of about 0.5
m
m
s
while the more diffusive base layer had diffusion rate of 1.3
m
m
s
(column 5 lines 55-63 and column 7 lines 33-41, Hamajima et al, 1996). These values were calculated by the Klemm’s method preferred values and the diffusion equation given above. Hamajima et al, describes the process as “a liquid first comes in contact with the surface layer wherein the liquid is quickly absorbed and quickly penetrates to the back face while the liquid is quickly diffused in the base layer(s)” (column 4, lines 16-18, Hamajima et al, 1996).
Arizti et al in view of Okada et al and Nakashita et al and Torii et al and in addition Hamajima et al are analogous in the art because all are absorbent articles using nonwoven fibers made to absorb liquids. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Hamajima et al would have found it obvious to modify Arizti et al in view of Okada et al, Nakashita et al, and Torii et al so that the intermediate sheet (40) and top sheet (30) had different diffusion rates so that they would be able to maximize both “good absorption/permeation characteristics and excellent diffusion characteristics” hence reducing leaks (column 3 lines 10-11, Hamajima et al, 1996). Further, ordering the top sheet as having the larger diffusion ratio allows for liquid to diffuse in an even distribution and prevent backflow from the intermediate sheet (40) and super absorbent polymer particles.
Claim 6 inherits the rejections from claim 4. Arizti et al in view of Okada et al, Nakashita et al, Torii et al and Hamajima et al additionally teaches, the base layers are surrounding the absorbing body on all sides as seen in Figure 3 (Figure 3 of Okada et al, 2021). Additionally, in Okada et al’s specification, the structure is described with the “entire absorber (56) […being] wrapped with a plurality of sheets such as upper and lower two sheets” allowing for more layers of absorption and prevention of leaks (paragraph [0079], Okada et al, 2021). This is further described as the “absorber having a structure in which a super absorbent polymer is sandwiched between liquid pervious sheets” (paragraph [0069], Okada et al, 2021). Having diffusive layers surrounding the absorbent layer, will prevent “liquid that has moved to the absorber [and from it] returns to a top sheet again” and further prevent leakage (paragraph [0003], Okada et al, 2021). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify the base layers of Arizti et al in view of Okada et al in view of Nakashita et al, Torii et al, and Hamajima et al, as taught by Okada to surround the absorber.
Claim 7 inherits the rejections from claim 6. It is then further rejected as Arizti et al teaches of a sealing portion sealing an edge portion of the base material layer on the one surface side and an edge portion of the base material layer on the other surface side (see e.g. core wrap “60” may be at least partially sealed along sides of absorbent core to ensure nothing leaks and escapes in paragraph 106, an additional adhesive can be used to bond both sides of core wrap “60” together or Top Sheet “24” to the Back sheet “25” through the use of pressure bonding, ultrasonic bonding, or heat bonding in paragraph 111 and Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify Arizti with a seal on the edges of the Top Sheet “24”, between attached layers, and surround the absorbent article in order to seal the edges together as to create a united absorber and to prevent leaking when full.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arizti et al (US20150282999 A1) in view of Okada et al. (US20210315747 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maruyama et al. (US20170090400 A1).
Claim 8 inherits the rejections from claim 1, having Arizti et al in view of Okada et al teach of an absorbent article, however, excludes a wider container to catch any leaks. Maruyama et al, teaches of a container meant for an absorbing device. The “housing configured to accommodate the absorber there-inside” where the housing further has an opening to allow the waste liquid to drip inside (claim 1, Maruyama et al, 2017).
Arizti et al in view of Okada et al and Maruyama et al are analogous in the art because all are drawn to containing liquids to avoid leakage. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the absorbent article of Arizti et al in view of Okada et al to be accommodated in housing as taught by Maruyama, to ensure no leaks, and easy disposal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the new combination of prior art.
Regarding claim 1-8, on pages 4-8 of Applicant Remarks, Applicant argues that the cellulose nanofibers of Okada et al are completely different to the average width from the claimed cellulose. New prior art, Arizti et al, teaches the amended average width of the cellulose fibers being 0.05 mm to 2 mm in view of previously used prior art, Okada et al.
Additional References Considered
Additional references that were considered that had similar art and could be combined with used prior art were Nakada et al’s Liquid Absorbing Sheet publication from 2022 (US 20220258451 A1). Makihara’s Sheet for Absorbent Article and Absorbent Article a US application publication from 2020 (US 20200155374 A1) Hasegawa et al’s Animal Excreta Disposal Sheet in an application publication from 2018 (US20180317445 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments 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.
Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights