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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the second adhesive" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US Pub. No.: 2006/0009743 A1) (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of forming an absorbent core, the method comprising: moving a foraminous forming surface (140) in a machine direction; creating a pressure differential across the foraminous forming surface (124, 126); advancing a base carrier sheet (35) on the foraminous forming surface in the machine direction; depositing a matrix of a first adhesive (53) and a first quantity of superabsorbent material (51) onto the base carrier sheet, the first quantity of superabsorbent material being dispensed from a superabsorbent material delivery conduit (120, 122) and the first adhesive comprising a fibrous adhesive (53) dispensed from one or more application nozzles (114), the application nozzles located adjacent to the superabsorbent material delivery conduit at least partially in the machine direction and wherein the first adhesive and the first quantity of superabsorbent material mix prior to deposition onto the base carrier sheet (Fig. 5).
Wang further discloses the superabsorbent particles 51 and adhesive fibers 53 may be applied separately or together. For instance, the adhesive fibers 53 may first be applied to the substrate layer 35 in a pattern representing the shape of the absorbent cores 40. Then, the superabsorbent particles 51 may be applied directly over the adhesive fibers 53. Alternatively, the superabsorbent particles 51 may be pre-combined with the adhesive material, and the combination may be applied to the substrate layer 35 in a pattern representing the shape of absorbent cores 40. Alternatively, the adhesive fibers 53 and superabsorbent particles 51 may be applied in multiple, alternating layers. The absorbent core 40 may also include cellulose fibers and other ingredients (¶0050). Wag discloses superabsorbent material includes natural and modified natural polymers such as methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl cellulose (¶0052). Wang disclose the superabsorbent particles 51 and the adhesive fibers 53 can be applied in various different configuration and in multiple alternating layers.
Give the wealth of knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily apply multiple layers of superabsorbent particles and adhesive fibers to obtain desired thickness. The superabsorbent particles in a second layer of the multiple layers are considered as applying a first quantity of cellulose fibers onto the deposed matrix of superabsorbent particles and adhesive fibers. The benefit of apply multiple layers of superabsorbent particles would have been to obtain thicker absorbent core to allow more fluid to be absorbed.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the SAP is gravity fed through the SAP delivery conduit (120, 122) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses first quantity of cellulose fibers is applied to the deposited matrix of the first adhesive and the first quantity of superabsorbent material without additional adhesive disposed between the first quantity of cellulose fibers and the deposited matrix of the first adhesive and the first quantity of superabsorbent material (¶0050-¶0052).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Brown et al (US Pat. NO.: 7,906,065 B1) (hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Wang as cited above. Wang is silent about applying adhesive to the base carrier sheet the first adhesive and the first quantity of suer absorbent material.
Brown also discloses a method of forming an absorbent core. The method discloses applying adhesive (1142) on base carrier sheet (132) prior to applying mixture of adhesive and SAP (Fig.3; Col 9, Ln 19-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746