CTNF 18/816,306 CTNF 95820 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “a multilayer absorbent core” in lines 2-3 and should be “ a the multilayer absorbent core” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Lee (WO 2013149080 A1) . Regarding Claim 1 , Lee teaches a multilayer absorbent core (10, see Abstract), the core comprising: a transfer layer having a basis weight of from 100 gsm to 175 gsm (a bicomponent fluid distribution layer 96, see Figure 1K; having a basis weight in one embodiment of between about 25 and 100 gsm see pg. 32 lines 6-9; layer 96 can have a weight of 100 gsm); an absorbent layer having a basis weight of from 200 gsm to 300 gsm (absorbent core layer 20/31 comprising superabsorbent polymer-containing sheet is a fluff-based material that is a combination of pulp and SAP enclosed with a tissue carrier and having a basis weight of between about 40 and 400 gsm, see pg. 28 lines 4-7; absorbent core layer 20/31 can have a weight of 200 gsm); and an intake layer positioned between and in fluid communication with the transfer layer and the absorbent layer (additional absorbent air laid layer 30 between the layer 96 and absorbent core layer 20, see Figure 1A), the intake layer having a basis weight of from 70 gsm to 120 gsm (air laid cellulosic tissues may be suitable for use in the intake layer. The air laid cellulosic tissue may have a basis weight ranging from about 10 gsm to about 300 gsm, see pg. 33 lines 25-30; the air laid intake layer can have a basis weight of 70 gsm); wherein a ratio of the basis weight of the intake layer to the basis weight of the absorbent layer is from 0.25 to 0.5 (the ratio of intake layer basis weight of 70 gsm and absorbent core layer basis weight of 200 gsm is 0.35). Regarding Claim 2 , Lee further teaches wherein the ratio of the basis weight of the intake layer to the basis weight of the absorbent layer is from 0.3 to 0.4 (the ratio of intake layer basis weight of 70 gsm and absorbent core layer basis weight of 200 gsm is 0.35). Regarding Claim 6 , Lee further teaches wherein the intake layer has a basis weight of from 80 gsm to 100 gsm (air laid cellulosic tissues may be suitable for use in the intake layer. The air laid cellulosic tissue may have a basis weight ranging from about 10 gsm to about 300 gsm, see pg. 33 lines 25-30; the air laid intake layer can have a basis weight of 90 gsm). Regarding Claim 7 , Lee further teaches wherein the intake layer comprises an air laid nonwoven web (air laid cellulosic tissues may be suitable for use in the intake layer, see pg. 33 lines 25-30). Regarding Claim 8 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 7 and Lee further teaches wherein the air laid nonwoven web comprises a blend of cellulosic fibers and binder fibers formed from a synthetic polymer (a combination of synthetic and cellulosic materials, see pg. 33 lines 25-28). Regarding Claim 9 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 7 and Lee further teaches wherein the air laid nonwoven web is thermal bonded (it should be recognized that the individual layers in this alternative absorbent core layer may be bonded using traditional bonding techniques such as thermal, ultrasonic or adhesive processes, see pg. 28 lines 18-22). Regarding Claim 10 , Lee further teaches wherein the absorbent layer has a basis weight of from 250 gsm to 270 gsm (absorbent core layer 20 comprising superabsorbent polymer-containing sheet is a fluff-based material that is a combination of pulp and SAP enclosed with a tissue carrier and having a basis weight of between about 40 and 400 gsm, see pg. 28 lines 4-7; absorbent core layer 20 can have a weight of 260 gsm). Regarding Claim 11 , Lee further teaches wherein the absorbent layer comprises an air laid nonwoven web (the main absorbent core layer 31 may be any traditionally employed absorbent material, such as air laid, see pg. 29 lines 17-19). Regarding Claim 12 , Lee further teaches wherein the absorbent layer comprises cellulosic fibers (absorbent core layer(s) 20/31 may include an absorbent web material of cellulosic fibers, see pg. 25 lines 22-23). Regarding Claim 14 , Lee further teaches wherein the absorbent layer is more hydrophilic than the transfer layer (the absorbent core 20 can comprises of hydrophilic materials, see pg. 25 lines 22-26). Regarding Claim 15 , Lee further teaches a personal care absorbent article for receiving a body exudate (a feminine hygiene absorbent personal care article, see Abstract; Figure 1), the article comprising a liquid-permeable topsheet layer (top sheet 14), a liquid-impermeable backsheet layer (back sheet layer 12), and a multilayer absorbent core defined by claim 1 (as described in claim 1) positioned between the topsheet layer and the backsheet layer (see Figure 1K). Regarding Claim 16 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the article exhibits a rewet value of less than 1.0 g, as determined by a Rewet Test, such as a rewet value of from 0.55 g to 0.90 g, or from 0.55 g to 0.75 g (Lee discloses a multi-layer absorbent core distributed in similar layers, as shown in the current application, see Figure 1K; made from similar materials, as described above; the nonwoven fibers are thermally bonded and arranged like that of the current invention, see Figures 1K; it is likely that the rewet value of the article of the reference would be in the same range as the current invention). Regarding Claim 17 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the article exhibits a retention capacity of at least 35 g/g, as determined by a Retention Capacity Test, such as a retention capacity of from 35 g/g to 42 g/g (Lee discloses a multi-layer absorbent core distributed in similar layers, as shown in the current application, see Figure 1K; made from similar materials, as described above; the nonwoven fibers are thermally bonded and arranged like that of the current invention, see Figures 1K; it is likely that the retention capacity of the article of the reference would be in the same range as the current invention). Regarding Claim 18 , Lee further teaches wherein the article is a diaper, a training pant, a youth pant, a swim pant, a feminine hygiene product, an incontinence product, a medical garment, a surgical pad, or a bandage (a personal care absorbent article such as a feminine hygiene absorbent personal care article, see abstract). Regarding Claim 19 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as described above in claim 18 and Lee further teaches wherein the feminine hygiene product is a menstrual pad or menstrual pant (Feminine hygiene absorbent personal care articles, such as pads, see pg. 2 lines 4-5) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2013149080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alikhan et al. (WO 9611107 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Alikhan” . Regarding Claim 4 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the transfer layer comprises a laminated multicomponent nonwoven web. Alikhan teaches a nonwoven materials, including a nonwoven laminated material wherein a first nonwoven layer comprising a plurality of staple fibers or continuous filaments of a thermoplastic material (see Abstract) wherein the transfer layer comprises a laminated multicomponent nonwoven web (layer 10 having a first nonwoven layer 12 and a second nonwoven layer 22, see Figure 1; pg. 7 lines 7-10). Lee and Alikhan are analogous art because both teach a absorbent article made from a nonwoven material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the transfer layer of Lee and further include wherein the transfer layer comprises a laminated multicomponent nonwoven web, as taught by Alikhan. Alikhan teaches it is beneficial for a nonwoven material that can provide improved liquid intake and distribution as well as air circulation when used as a body contacting layer in a disposable absorbent article, resulting in greater surface dryness and comfort for the wearer's skin. There also is a need for a nonwoven material that exhibits improved softness and comfort when placed in contact with the wearer's skin. In addition, the need exists for a nonwoven material that exhibits improved liquid penetration and management properties when placed within the internal structure of an absorbent article (see pg. 3 lines 1-12). Regarding Claim 5 , Lee and Alikhan teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 4 and Alikhan further teaches wherein the laminated multicomponent nonwoven web comprises cellulosic fibers (nonwoven layer can be prepared from noncontinuous fibers, continuous filaments or a combination thereof; Examples of suitable fibers include naturally occurring organic fibers that are intrinsically wettable, such as cellulosic fibers, see pg. 35 lines 19-23) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2013149080 A1) . Regarding Claim 3 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the transfer layer has a basis weight of from 120 gsm to 140 gsm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee to have a maximum transfer layer basis weight of between 120 gsm and 140 gsm 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 Lee would not operate differently with the claimed basis weight and since the transfer layer is intended to reside within the multilayer absorbent core having an approximate largest basis weight of 140 gsm the device would function appropriately having the claimed transfer layer basis weight. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the basis weight “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pg. 14 lines 20-27). Regarding Claim 13 , Lee teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the absorbent layer comprises from 5% by weight to 50% by weight of a superabsorbent polymer composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee to have an absorbent layer comprises from 5% by weight to 50% by weight of a superabsorbent polymer composition 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 Lee would not operate differently with the claimed weight of a superabsorbent polymer composition and since the superabsorbent polymer composition is intended to reside within the absorbent layer to collect fluids the device would function appropriately having the claimed transfer layer basis weight. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the weight of a superabsorbent polymer composition “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pg. 20 lines 1-2). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT. 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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. /ERIC RASSAVONG/ (6/8/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 2 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 3 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 4 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 5 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 6 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 7 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 8 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 9 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 10 Art Unit: 3781 Application/Control Number: 18/816,306 Page 11 Art Unit: 3781
Prosecution Insights