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 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 16 & 20 are 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.
Re Claims 3, 6, & 20, each claim recites “a high permeability super absorbent polymer.” It is not readily clear what are the metes and bounds that define high permeability. For examination, Examiner assumes that any super absorbent polymer can fit the definition for high permeability in the claim.
Re Claim 5, the claim recites “the super absorbent polymer is present in an amount of 15-20% of the primary core” but it is unclear if this is a weight percentage or volume percentage or even something else. Examiner assumes that this is referring to a weight percentage.
Re Claim 11, the claim recites “a fast absorption, high capacity, and high retention super absorbent polymer.” It is not readily clear what are the metes and bounds for this limitation (i.e., fast is a relative term when not defined by universally-accepted standards/measurements). For examination, Examiner assumes that any super absorbent polymer can fit the definition for fast absorption, high capacity, and high retention in the claim.
Re Claim 14, “the storage layer” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner insert “further comprising a storage layer” before “wherein…”
Re Claim 16, in the preamble, “absorbent core of claim 15” should read “absorbent article of claim 15”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szypka (US 2017/0065466).
Re Claim 1, Szypka discloses an absorbent core for an absorbent article (see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
an acquisition layer (acquisition layer 27);
a surge layer (tissue 29-SAP particle 31 layer, see [0009] “a layer of tissue 29 having a plurality of super absorbent particles 31 bonded to the layer of tissue”);
a primary core ([0010] “layer of fluff 33 containing a layer of super absorbent particles 35”, or alternatively, [0012] “a laminate 37 of a multitude of super absorbent particles 39 with a layer of tissue 41”; note that there is no limiting definition for what primary needs to be, e.g., stores more fluid, the first to encounter fluid, or larger area/volume); and
a secondary core ([0012] “a laminate 37 of a multitude of super absorbent particles 39 with a layer of tissue 41”, or alternatively, [0010] “layer of fluff 33 containing a layer of super absorbent particles 35”).
Re Claim 2, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the acquisition layer includes a member selected from a group consisting of a non-woven polyester ([0009]), a non-woven polyolefin material, and combinations thereof.
Re Claim 3, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the surge layer includes a super absorbent polymer (super absorbent particles 31, [0009]) that is a high permeability super absorbent polymer.
Re Claim 4, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further discloses wherein the surge layer includes 20-40 gsm of super absorbent polymer ([0009] discloses tissue 29 having 8-18 pounds per 3000 sq ft, which is equivalent to 13 - 29 gsm, and [0009] further discloses the superabsorbent particles are present in 80-90% by weight of the tissue 29, which yields 26 gsm at the high end, falling squarely within the claimed range).
Re Claim 6, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the primary core includes a high permeability super absorbent polymer (super absorbent particles 35; since no explicit measurements are claimed, Examiner interprets the reference’s disclosure of super absorbent polymer to be sufficient to meet the current limitation of “high permeability”).
Re Claim 11, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the secondary core includes a fast absorption, high capacity, and high retention super absorbent polymer ([0012] super absorbent particles 39; since no explicit measurements are claimed, Examiner interprets the reference’s disclosure of super absorbent polymer to be sufficient to meet the current limitation of “fast absorption, high capacity, and high retention”).
Re Claim 15, Szypka discloses an absorbent article (10, Fig. 2) comprising the absorbent core of claim 1.
Re Claim 18, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the primary core can include an elongate portion (where super absorbent particles 35 are disposed) and wings extending therefrom (the wings are the left and right side portions that extend beyond the width of where super absorbent particles 35 are disposed, see both Figs. 1 & 2).
Re Claim 19, Szypka discloses claim 18 and further disclosing wherein the elongate portion has a width and the secondary core has a width and the width of the elongate portion is substantially the same as the width of the secondary core (clearly shown in Fig.1).
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 5, 7 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka.
Re Claim 5, Szypka discloses claim 1 and further disclosing wherein the primary core includes super absorbent polymer and fluff ([0010] “a layer of fluff 33 containing a layer of super absorbent particles 35”), but does not teach that the super absorbent polymer is present in an amount of 15-20% of the primary core. Instead, Szypka discloses that the super absorbent polymer is present from about 4% to about 12% by weight of the layer of fluff and super absorbent particles ([0010]). Since the prior art discloses a range very close to the currently claimed range, i.e., 12% versus 15%, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Re Claims 7 & 12, Szypka discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the primary core includes no more than 50% of the total super absorbent polymer of the absorbent core or that the super absorbent polymer present in the secondary core comprises at least 50% of the total super absorbent polymer of the absorbent core. However, since Szypka discloses that the primary and secondary cores are positioned to store a large portion of the received fluid such that the fluid is kept from rewetting the top sheet ([0015]), it can be reasoned that the storage capacity in the absorbent core would be greater near/at the bottom of the article. It is well known that super absorbent particles have much greater liquid storage capacity than fluff, therefore it is likely that one skilled in the art would create an absorbent core with increasing amount of super absorbent particles farther away from the topsheet. Guided by this understanding, one skilled in the art at the time of filing would find it desirable to have less than 50% of the total amount of super absorbent particles in the primary/upper core and have greater than 50% of the total amount of super absorbent particles in the secondary/lower core.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka in view of Roemisch et al. (US 2022/0401273).
Re Claims 8-9, Szypka discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the primary core is embossed with a straight line pattern covering a length and a width of the primary core or wherein the primary core includes a primary elongate void formed therethrough. Roemisch discloses a diaper having two core layers, wherein the top core layer (118) can have linear embossments (204, 206, Fig. 10) and a void (channel 234). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Roemisch for improved distribution of fluid across the top core layer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka in view of Guidotti et al. (US 2021/0000662).
Re Claim 10, Szypka discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the secondary core is fabricated from a cellulosic pulp fluff material and a super absorbent polymer, and the super absorbent polymer comprises at least 50% of the secondary core. Guidotti discloses an absorbent article (Fig. 2) similar to that of Szypka, wherein the article comprises a top/primary core and a bottom/secondary core (132), and the bottom/secondary core comprises cellulosic pulp fluff and super absorbent particles in the concentration of up to 70 wt. % of the bottom/secondary core ([0068]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to glean from Guidotti since the substitution of an element with a known one to obtain predictable results (store and hold liquid away from the topsheet) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka in view of Wu et al. (CN 211985951 U).
Re Claim 13, Szypka discloses claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the secondary core is embossed with wavy lines along a length of the secondary core. Wu discloses a composite absorbent core (Abstract) comprising wavy embossments (5, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Wu since wavy embossments in the absorbent core may improve fluid distribution.
Claims 14 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka in view of Zhou (CN 208910710 U).
Re Claims 14 & 16, Szypka discloses claim 1 or 15 but does not disclose a storage layer, wherein the storage layer includes a cellulose paper laminate. Zhou discloses an absorbent article having two layers of absorbent cores and further comprising a storage layer (5, Fig. 2) made of composite paper (see under Example 1, “the dustless paper absorption layer 5 is made of fluff and dust-free paper composite structure and enhanced absorption”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Zhou since such a paper composite enhances absorption of liquid by the other absorbent core layers.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szypka in view of Roemisch and Wu.
Re Claim 17, Szypka discloses claim 1, wherein the primary core is embossed with a straight line pattern covering a length and a width of the primary core and the secondary core is embossed with wavy lines along a length of the secondary core. Roemisch discloses a diaper having two core layers, wherein the top core layer (118) can have linear embossments (204, 206, Fig. 10) and the bottom core layer (116) can also have embossments (Fig. 4). Roemisch does not disclose that the bottom core layer has wavy embossments. Wu discloses a composite absorbent core (Abstract) comprising wavy embossments (5, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Roemisch and Wu for improved distribution of fluid across the top core layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 20, Szypka discloses an absorbent article (Figs. 1-2) with an acquisition layer (27) made of nonwoven polyester ([0009]), a surge layer having superabsorbent particles at 20-40 gsm ([0009]), a primary core with fluff and superabsorbent particles ([0010]), and secondary core with superabsorbent particles ([0012]). Szypka does not disclose that the surge layer is embossed with wavy lines along its length, the primary core having less than 50% of total superabsorbent polymer of the core, the primary core embossed with straight lines and an elongate void, the secondary core having cellulosic pulp fluff and embossed with wavy lines, or a storage layer. While all of the features lacking from Szypka may, each individually, be obvious to one skilled in the art, putting all such features together into one single invention would require a patchwork of numerous references, as evidenced by the rejections for Claims 1-19 above. This patchwork is unlikely to be successful without undue experimentation or reliance on Applicant’s own disclosure.
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 13 June 2026
Prosecution Insights