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 .
Response to Amendment
A preliminary amendment was filed on 08/27/2024. Claims 1-38 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-38 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the seal strength of the channel seals” initially without antecedent basis but provides antecedent basis with “a seal strength” later in the claim. Examiner recommends correcting the language to provide antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-24, 27-30, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet (US 20200276059) in view of Bianchi (US 20140371701)
Regarding claim 1, Smet discloses an absorbent core (fig. 1B, absorbent core 130) having a length in a longitudinal direction and a width in a transverse direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (fig. 1B, absorbent core 130 with longitudinal length and transverse width), the absorbent core comprising an upper core cover layer (fig. 1D, top core wrap sheet 110) and a lower core cover (fig. 1D, back core wrap sheet 120) and absorbent material sandwiched between the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer (fig. 1D, absorbent material 105), and comprising a pair of channels extending in the longitudinal direction in the absorbent material (fig. 1A, channels 140 and 150), each of the channels being free or substantially free from absorbent material and having a channel seal extending therein (fig. 1C, attachment zones 145 and 155 free from absorbent material, paragraph 0254 describing each channel extending through 100% of the thickness of the absorbent core 130), the channel seal joining the upper and lower core cover layers within the channel and extending along longitudinal channel seal length (fig. 1C, attachment zones 145 and 155 defining first channel 140 and second channel 150 respectively), wherein
the absorbent core is divided into an imaginary set of one or more bordering transversal segments along the channel seal length (fig. 1A, imaginary set of segments can be made along the length of channels 160 and 170), each transversal segment having a segment length of 10 mm and comprising the channel seals (paragraph 0228 describes the length of the channels being between 30-130 mm long, leaving 3-13 segments of 10 mm length), and the set comprising the maximum possible number of bordering transversal segments along the channel seal length (paragraph 0228 can allow for 3-13 transversal segments), wherein
the absorbent core is such that, for at least one transversal segment out of said set of segments, one out of the lower core cover layer and the upper core cover layer has a first width between the channel seals (see annotated fig. 1D below), and the other of the lower core cover layer and the upper core cover layer has a second width between the channel seals (see annotated fig. 1D, wherein the first and second widths of the core cover layers are the widths of the core cover layers between the channel seals in an unfolded, flat-out state, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width (fig. 1D, first width between the attachment zones 165 and 175 is greater than the second width due to the first layer going upwards a distance equal to twice the thickness t, going up equal to the thickness t on two sides, see annotated fig. 1D below)
PNG
media_image1.png
403
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Smet is silent to wherein the first width is no less than 120% of the second width.
However, Smet teaches a distance between the two channels between 25-80 mm (paragraph 0228, describing distance d34). Given a 25 mm distance between the channels, the thickness t would have to be 2.5 mm or greater to reach the limitation of the first width being at least 120% of the second width. Bianchi teaches an absorbent core that has a thickness not exceeding 5 mm, or from 1-4 mm (paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet by having the thickness of the absorbent core be at least 1 mm thick such that the first width is no less than 120% of the second width, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing a relatively thin absorbent core that reduces the bulk of the article (see Bianchi, paragraph 0053). Moreover, 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 this case, the device of Smet in view of Bianchi would not function differently given the claimed limitation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (paragraph 0013 grants multiple acceptable ranges for the width, such as from 130%-160% or 135%-160%).
Regarding claim 2, Smet does not explicitly teach wherein, in said at least one transversal segment, the first width is no less than 130% of the second width.
However, with distance d34 being 25 mm, the thickness of the absorbent core would have to be 3.75 mm thick, with the channels extending through the entire thickness. Bianchi teaches an absorbent core that’s between 1-4 mm thick (paragraph 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that in said at least one transversal segment, the first width is no less than 130% of the second width, taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing a relatively thin absorbent core that reduces the bulk of the article (see Bianchi, paragraph 0053). Moreover, 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 this case, the device of Smet in view of Bianchi would not function differently given the claimed limitation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (paragraph 0013 grants multiple acceptable ranges for the width, such as from 130%-160% or 135%-160%).
Regarding claim 3, Smet does not explicitly teach wherein, in said at least one transversal segment, the first width differs from the second width by no less than 3 mm.
However, Bianchi teaches wherein the thickness of an absorbent core may be between 1-4 mm (paragraph 0053). For the first width to differ from the second width by no less than 3 mm, height X on both sides of the wrap in Smet would need to be 1.5 mm, within the range of thicknesses described in Bianchi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that in said at least one transversal segment, the first width differs from the second width by no less than 3 mm, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing a relatively thin absorbent core that reduces the bulk of the article (see Bianchi, paragraph 0053). Moreover, 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 this case, the device of Smet in view of Bianchi would not function differently given the claimed limitation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (paragraph 0013 grants multiple acceptable ranges for the width, such as from 130%-160% or 135%-160%).
Regarding claim 4, Smet is silent to wherein, in at least a part of the absorbent core, the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer are connected in a first side seal in a first side region extending along a first side edge of the absorbent material or in a second side seal in a second side region extending along a second side edge of the absorbent material, wherein a seal strength of each of the channel seals of the absorbent core is higher than a seal strength of each of the first or the second side seals of the absorbent core.
However, Bianchi teaches wherein the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer are connected in a first side seal in a first side region extending along a first side edge of the absorbent material and in a second size seal in a second side region extending along a second side edge of the absorbent material (fig. 2, materials 16 and 16’ attached to each other in a region along the side edges of absorbent material 60, col. 14, lines 29-57, discussing both C0wrap construction and sandwich construction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer are connected in a first side seal in a first side region extending along a first side edge of the absorbent material or in a second side seal in a second side region extending along a second side edge of the absorbent material, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of completely encapsulating the absorbent material to prevent leaking material (see Bianchi, col. 14, lines 29-57)
Smet, as modified by Bianchi, is silent to wherein a seal strength of each of the channel seals of the absorbent core is higher than a seal strength of each of the first or the second side seals of the absorbent core.
However, both Smet and Bianchi desire the channel seals to be permanent and not break during wetting (see Bianchi, col. 17, lines 34-59, and Smet, paragraph 0013), and Bianchi is silent to the permanence of the side seals. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prioritize the strength of the channel seals such that a seal strength of each of the channel seals of the absorbent core is higher than a seal strength of each of the first or the second side seals of the absorbent core, for the purpose of maintaining permanent attachment of the channel bonding areas so that, in a wetted state the channels provide a path to enhance diffusion of the liquid into the core (see Smet, paragraph 0234)
Regarding claim 6, Smet discloses wherein, in at least a part of the absorbent core, the absorbent core is such that, in the portion of the core extending transversely beyond the first channel seal to a first side edge of the absorbent core, or in the portion of the core extending transversely beyond the second channel seal to a second side edge of the absorbent core, the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer are free from seals to each other (fig. 1D, the core 110 that is in between attachment zone 165 and first longitudinal side 131 of the core 110 ensures that layers 110 and 120 are not bound to each other in that area).
Regarding claim 7, Smet, as modified by Bianchi, discloses an absorbent article comprising the absorbent core according to claim 1 (Smet teaches an absorbent article, where Smet as modified by Bianchi teaches the absorbent core of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Smet is silent to wherein, in at least a part of the absorbent article, the absorbent article comprises a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material or a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material.
However, Bianchi teaches a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material, and a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material creating a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a bond between topsheet 24 and backsheet 25, paragraph 0043 describes topsheet joined to backsheet), wherein a core width extends over a mutual width of a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a width of the absorbent material 60), and wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width (fig. 2, width between where topsheet 24 and backsheet 25 join wider than the absorbent material 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that in at least a part of the absorbent article, the absorbent article comprises a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material or a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing suitable dimensions of the topsheet and backsheet to fully encompass the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 9, Smet discloses wherein the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer of the absorbent core extend over a mutual width being a core width (fig. 1C, upper layer 110 and lower layer 120 extend over a mutual width being a core width), but is silent to wherein a sealed width is the transversal distance between the first edge seal and the second edge seal, wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width.
However, Bianchi teaches a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material, and a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material creating a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a bond between topsheet 24 and backsheet 25, paragraph 0043 describes topsheet joined to backsheet), wherein a core width extends over a mutual width of a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a width of the absorbent material 60), and wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width (fig. 2, width between where topsheet 24 and backsheet 25 join wider than the absorbent material 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that a sealed width is the transversal distance between the first edge seal and the second edge seal, wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing suitable dimensions of the topsheet and backsheet to fully encompass the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 10, Smet discloses an absorbent article comprising an absorbent core (fig. 1B, absorbent core 130 of an absorbent article 100), having a length in a longitudinal direction and a width in a transverse direction, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (fig. 1B, absorbent core 130 with longitudinal length and transverse width), the absorbent core comprising an upper core cover layer (fig. 1D, top core wrap sheet 110) and a lower core cover layer (fig. 1D, back core wrap sheet 120) and absorbent material sandwiched between the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer (fig. 1D, absorbent material 105), and comprising a pair of channels extending in the longitudinal direction in the absorbent material (fig. 1A, channels 140 and 150), each of the one or more channels being free or substantially free from absorbent material and having a channel seal extending therein (fig. 1C, attachment zones 145 and 155 free from absorbent material, paragraph 0254 describing each channel extending through 100% of the thickness of the absorbent core 130), the channel seal joining the upper and lower core cover layers within the channel and having a longitudinal channel seal length (fig. 1C, attachment zones 145 and 155 defining first channel 140 and second channel 150 respectively), wherein,
the absorbent core is divided into an imaginary set of one or more bordering transversal segments along the channel seal length (fig. 1A, imaginary set of segments can be made along the length of channels 160 and 170), each transversal segment having a segment length of 10 mm and comprising the channel seals (paragraph 0228 describes the length of the channels being between 30-130 mm long, leaving 3-13 segments of 10 mm length), and the set comprising the maximum possible number of segments along the channel seal length (paragraph 0228 can allow for 3-13 transversal segments),
Smet teaches the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer of the absorbent core having a core width (shown in fig. 1C), and teaches a topsheet and a backsheet (paragraph 0239), but is silent to wherein, in at least a part of the absorbent article comprising at least one segment from the set of segments, the absorbent article comprises a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material and a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material, such that a sealed width is the transversal distance between the first edge seal and the second edge seal, and the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer of the absorbent core extend over a mutual width being a core width, and wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width.
However, Bianchi teaches a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material, and a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material creating a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a bond between topsheet 24 and backsheet 25, paragraph 0043 describes topsheet joined to backsheet), wherein a core width extends over a mutual width of a sealed width (fig. 2 shows a width of the absorbent material 60), and wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width (fig. 2, width between where topsheet 24 and backsheet 25 join wider than the absorbent material 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that in at least a part of the absorbent article comprising at least one segment from the set of segments, the absorbent article comprises a first edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a first side edge of the absorbent material and a second edge seal extending along and directly adjacent a second side edge of the absorbent material, such that a sealed width is the transversal distance between the first edge seal and the second edge seal, and the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer of the absorbent core extend over a mutual width being a core width, and wherein the sealed width is greater than the core width, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing suitable dimensions of the topsheet and backsheet to fully encompass the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 11, Smet discloses wherein the article comprises one or more additional upper layers to the upper side of the upper core cover layer, and one or more additional lower layers to the lower side of the lower core cover layer (paragraph 0001 describes the absorbent structure being between a topsheet and a backsheet), and teaches wherein the upper layer and lower layer are attached to the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer, respectively (paragraph 0239)
but does not teach wherein the first and second edge seals are joining between one of said upper additional layer(s) and one of said lower additional layer(s), or the first and second edge seals are joining between one of said upper additional layer(s) and said lower core cover layer, or the first and second edge seals are joining between one of said lower additional layer(s) and said upper core cover layer [the remaining limitations are placed in the alternative and.
However, Bianchi teaches the seal joining between one of said upper additional layers and one of said lower additional layers (fig. 2, topsheet 24 and backsheet 25 joined together)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that wherein the first and second edge seals are joining between one of said upper additional layer(s) and one of said lower additional layer(s), as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing suitable dimensions of the topsheet and backsheet to fully encompass the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 12, Smet discloses wherein the one of said upper additional layer(s) comprises a liquid permeable topsheet (paragraph 0009 describes the topsheet being liquid pervious).
Regarding claim 13, Smet is discloses wherein the one of said lower additional layer(s) comprises a liquid barrier layer (paragraph 0009 describes a liquid impervious backsheet).
Regarding claim 14, Smet discloses wherein the edge seals and the channel seal(s) are adhesive seals, weld seals or combinations of adhesive seals and weld seals (paragraph 0016 describes top core wrap sheet and back core wrap sheet as bound by adhesive, thermal bonding, sonic bonding, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Smet discloses wherein the first edge seal, the second edge seal and each channel seal are adhesive seals (paragraph 0016, stating attachment of the core wrap sheets may be done with adhesive).
Regarding claim 16, Smet discloses teach wherein, in said at least one segment, a third width as measured between the channel seals of the absorbent core is between 20 and 60 mm (paragraph 0228, “preferably, the distance d34 is between 25 mm and 80 mm, more preferably between 35 mm and 55 mm”).
Regarding claim 17, Smet discloses wherein, in said at least one segment, the absorbent material has an absorbent width (fig. 1D, absorbent material 105 at edges and center have a width), and the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer extend over a mutual width being a core width (fig. 1D, wrap sheet 110 and 120 cover over a mutual width of the core 110), wherein the absorbent width is equal to or less than the core width (fig. 1D, due to the top core wrap sheet 110 having a thickness and being over the absorbent width, the core width would necessarily be more than the absorbent width/ the absorbent width would necessarily be less than the core width).
Regarding claim 18, Smet does not explicitly teach wherein said absorbent width is no less than 90% of the core width.
However, Bianchi teaches a potential construction of a C-wrap where the core wrap is directly adjacent to the sidewalls of the absorbent core (fig. 5). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the core width would be substantially close to the absorbent width, and as such having an at least 90% similarity would have been obvious, further depending on the thickness of the core wrap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that said absorbent width is no less than 90% of the core width, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of improving resistance to bursting in a wet loaded state (see Bianchi, paragraph 0079). Moreover, the applicant appears to have not placed criticality on the claimed range in a manner such that it produces an unexpected result (paragraph 0174 stating that the absorbent width may be no less than 90% of the core width, such as no less than 95% of the core width)
Regarding claim 19, Smet does not explicitly teach wherein said third width is in the range from 15% to 40% of said absorbent width.
However, Smet teaches wherein the distance between the third attachment zone 165 and the side of the article is between 20-30 mm, with a similar measurement between the fourth attachment zone and the second longitudinal size being between 20-30 mm (paragraph 0228), and the distance between attachment zones is between 25-80 mm (paragraph 0228). With, for instance, the minimum measurements, it would lead to a core width of 20 mm +25 mm + 20 mm= 65 mm, with the third width being the 25 mm between the two attachment zones. The third width would therefore be around 38% of the absorbent width.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the third width is in the range from 15-40% of said absorbent width, 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 this case, the device of Smet in view of Bianchi would not function differently given the claimed limitation. Further, it appears that the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (paragraph 0027 describes the third range may be in the range from 15-40% of the absorbent width).
Regarding claim 20, Smet discloses wherein the pair of channels are straight and extend in parallel with the longitudinal direction (fig. 1A shows channels 140 and 150 as straight and parallel to the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 21, Smet discloses wherein the length of each of the pair of channels is in the range of from 50 millimeter to 500 millimeter or the length of the channel seals is in the range of from 50 mm to 500 mm (paragraph 0058, “the length of the first and the second attachment zone is larger than 60 mm, preferably larger than 70 mm”).
Regarding claim 22, Smet is silent to wherein the upper and lower core cover layers are constituted by nonwoven materials.
However, Bianchi teaches wherein similar core wrap materials can be made by nonwoven materials (paragraph 0054, “The core wrap may be formed by two nonwoven material 16, 16' which may be at least partially sealed along the sides of the absorbent core.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the upper and lower core cover layers are constituted by nonwoven materials, as taught by Bianchi, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 23, Smet discloses wherein the absorbent material comprises or consists of cellulose pulp fibers and superabsorbent material (paragraph 0242, “absorbent core 130 may comprise a combination of cellulosic fluff pulp and superabsorbent polymers).
Regarding claim 24, Smet is silent to wherein the superabsorbent material is present in the absorbent material in an amount of from 5% by weight to 80% by weight of the absorbent material.
However, Bianchi teaches wherein the absorbent material comprises about 50% of superabsorbent polymer by weight of the absorbent material (claim 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the superabsorbent material is present in the absorbent material in an amount of from 5% by weight to 80% by weight of the absorbent material, as taught by Bianchi, for the purpose of providing a suitable amount of superabsorbent material to perform the role of absorption. Moreover, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0040 of PGPUB provides another acceptable range, and generally a range from 5%-80% is relatively broad enough to not suggest criticality), and it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0012] indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 27, Smet discloses wherein the upper core cover layer, and the lower core cover layer are separate core cover layers (paragraph 0018 describes the first sheet 110 and second sheet 120 being initially unattached, then attached to each other)
Regarding claim 28, Smet discloses wherein the absorbent material has an hourglass shape or a T-shape in the plane defined by the longitudinal direction and the transverse direction (paragraph 0242, “the absorbent core 130 is shown as having a substantially rectangular configuration, however, absorbent core 130 may be shaped differently, such as, elliptical, dogbane shaped, T-shaped or I-shaped”.
Regarding claim 29, Smet discloses wherein the absorbent material has a rectangular shape with side edges extending in the longitudinal direction and end edges extending in the transverse direction (fig. 1B shows the absorbent core 130 having a rectangular shape with longitudinal edges 131 and 132, transverse edges 133 and 134).
Regarding claim 30, Smet discloses the absorbent core comprising a central part being arranged between a first end part of the absorbent core and a second end part of the absorbent core, as seen in the longitudinal direction, the pair of channels being at least partly, arranged in the central part of the absorbent core (see annotated fig. 1B below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Smet discloses wherein the absorbent core has a length being determined as the distance between a point on a first end edge where the first end edge intersects with the longitudinal center line and a point on a second end edge where the second end edge intersects with the longitudinal center line (fig. 1B, absorbent core 130 has a length in the longitudinal axis), but does not explicitly teach the length of the absorbent core being in the range of from 300 millimeter to 700 millimeter.
However, Smet teaches wherein a plurality of channels [both the ones utilized in the rejection of claim 1 and an additional pair of channels 140 and 150] together cover at least 60% of the length of the absorbent core. One of the channels is between 60-140 mm long (paragraph 0226, “Preferably, the length of the first and second channel is substantially the same, more preferably the length 11 of the first channel and the length 12 of the second channel is between 60 mm and 140 mm, more preferably between 75 mm and 125 mm”), and the length of another channel below is between 30-130, more preferably between 30-70 mm (paragraph 0228, “Preferably, the length of the third and fourth channel 160, 170 is substantially the same, more preferably the length 13 of the third channel and the length 14 of the fourth channel is between 30 mm and 130 mm, more preferably between 30 mm and 70 mm”). At the channels being 125 mm and 70 mm, respectively, and their total length being at least 60% of the length of the absorbent core, the absorbent core would therefore be 325 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the length of the absorbent core being in the range of from 300 millimeter to 700 millimeter, for the purpose of providing suitable measurements for an absorbent core based on the desired size of the absorbent article. Moreover, the applicant has not appeared to have placed criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0033 describes multiple acceptable ranges such as between 75-400 mm, 150-200 mm, etc.), and it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 38, Smet discloses wherein said at least one transversal segment of the absorbent core comprises at least a quarter of the segments in the set of segments (the 6-14 segments made from the length of the channels 140 and 150 being 60-140 mm long are consistent, and as such the at least one transversal segment as claimed would be 100% of the segments in the set of segments).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi, and further in view of Weber (US 20200397631).
Regarding claim 5, Smet discloses that the seal strength of the channel seals should be permanent and not break upon wetting (paragraph 0234), but does not teach wherein the seal strength of the channel seals is 2.5 N/25 millimeter or more or, when in at least a part of the absorbent core, the upper core cover layer and the lower core cover layer are connected in a first side seal in a first side region extending along a first side edge of the absorbent material or in a second side seal in a second side region extending along a second side edge of the absorbent material, wherein a seal strength of each of the channel seals of the absorbent core is higher than a seal strength of each of the first or the second side seals of the absorbent core, the seal strength of the first and the second side seals is 2.0 N/25 millimeter or less.
However, Weber teaches wherein the channel seal has a strength between 7-50 g/mm for a permanent seal, (paragraph 0193). Converting the ranges into N/mm, the range translates to 0.0686-0.4903 N/m. Multiply each value by 25 to get N/25mm has ranges from 1.715-12.2575 N/25mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the seal strength of the channel seals is 2.5 N/25 millimeter or more, as taught by Weber, for the purpose of providing a suitable bond strength that keeps the channel bond intact upon liquid saturation (see Weber, paragraph 0189), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0009 of PGPUB describes no upper limit for the seal strength for the channels).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi, and further in view of Fell (US 20020177829)
Regarding claim 25, Smet is silent to wherein the absorbent material between said channel seals has a basis weight in the range of from 500 to 1200 gsm.
However, Fell teaches an absorbent core with a basis weight ranging from 80-1000 gsm (paragraph 0158)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the absorbent material between said channel seals has a basis weight in the range of from 500 to 1200 gsm, as taught by Fell, for the purpose of providing an absorbent core with a sufficient distribution of fluff, pulp, and superabsorbent polymer (see Fell, paragraph 0158). Moreover, the applicant appears to have not placed criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0044 of PGPUB suggests that the surface weight may be in that range for example), and it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [0012] indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi, and further in view of Kikkawa (US 20130211358)
Regarding claim 26, Smet does not teach wherein the first and second core cover layers are formed from a single continuous cover material being wrapped around the absorbent material.
However, Kikkawa teaches wherein a single core wrap sheet with the first and second layers integrated with one another is a known construction in the art (paragraph 0058, see fig 5(d)), with a two-sheet core wrap sheet construction being an equivalent (fig. 5(c)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the first and second core cover layers are formed from a single continuous cover material being wrapped around the absorbent material, as taught by Kikkawa, as it appears that the two-sheet construction and one-sheet construction were art-recognized equivalents at the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the two-sheet construction for the one-sheet construction.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi, and further in view of Zhao (US 20080217809)
Regarding claim 31, Smet does not teach wherein the central part has a greater thickness than a thickness of the first end part and a greater thickness than a thickness of the second end part.
However, Zhao teaches an absorbent core that has tapered edges such that a central part has a greater thickness than a thickness of the first end part and the second end part (paragraph 0062, “The profile of absorbent core 20 can be such that more absorbent is disposed near the center of the absorbent article. For example, the absorbent core can be thicker in the middle, and tapered at the edges in a variety of ways known in the art.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the central part has a greater thickness than a thickness of the first end part and a greater thickness than a thickness of the second end part, as taught by Zhao, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of granting more absorbent near the center of the article (see Zhao, paragraph 0062), where it is more likely to receive fluid from the user.
Claims 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi and Zhao, and further in view of Berg (US 5047023).
Regarding claim 32, Smet discloses wherein the central part of the absorbent core has a uniform thickness (fig. 2B shows a generally uniform absorbent core 134) and each of the first end part and the second end part of the absorbent core has a uniform thickness, the central part of the absorbent core being delimited from each of the first end part and the second end part by a corresponding first transition zone and a second transition zone.
However, Berg teaches a construction of an absorbent core wherein an end portion has a uniform thickness (fig. 4, back section 548), and a raised portion has a uniform thickness (fig. 5, front section 550), the raised portion being delimited from the end part by a transition zone (fig. 5, transition zone designated 572).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that each of the first end part and the second end part of the absorbent core has a uniform thickness, the central part of the absorbent core being delimited from each of the first end part and the second end part by a corresponding first transition zone and a second transition zone, as taught by Berg, for the purpose of providing a suitable shape that grants the desired section a high absorbent capacity and rapid acquisition characteristics (see Berg, col. 18, lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 34, Smet, as modified by Zhao, does not teach wherein a ratio between the thickness of the central part of the absorbent core and the thickness of the first end part is in the range of from 4 to 1.5.
However, Berg teaches a ratio of thickness from the thicker portion vs the thinner portion to be at least 1.5-2 (col. 18, lines 41-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet in view of Zhao such that wherein a ratio between the thickness of the central part of the absorbent core and the thickness of the first end part is in the range of from 4 to 1.5, as taught by Berg, for the purpose of providing a suitable shape that grants the desired section a high absorbent capacity and rapid acquisition characteristics (see Berg, col. 18, lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 35, Smet, as modified by Zhao, does not teach wherein a ratio between the thickness of the central part of the absorbent core and the thickness of the second end part is in the range of from 4 to 1.5.
However, Berg teaches a ratio of thickness from the thicker portion vs the thinner portion to be at least 1.5-2 (col. 18, lines 41-61)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that a ratio between the thickness of the central part of the absorbent core and the thickness of the second end part is in the range of from 4 to 1.5, as taught by Berg, for the purpose of providing a suitable shape that grants the desired section a high absorbent capacity and rapid acquisition characteristics (see Berg, col. 18, lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 36, Smet does not teach wherein in the absorbent core at least two of the central part, the first end part, and the second end part have different absorption capacity.
However, Berg teaches wherein a thicker portion has a higher absorption capacity (col. 24, lines 1-16, “about three-fourths of the absorbent material is disposed in the front section 550 of the absorbent member 542 thereby providing an absorbent member 542 wherein the front section 552 has high absorbent capacity as well as rapid acquisition characteristics.”). As such, at least two of a thinner part and a thicker part have different absorption capacities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet such that the absorbent core at least two of the central part, the first end part, and the second end part have different absorption capacity, as taught by Berg, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of having a higher absorbent capacity in a desired location more likely to receive patient fluid (see Berg, col. 24, lines 1-16).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smet in view of Bianchi, Zhao, and Berg, and further in view of Kikuchi (US 9018436).
Regarding claim 33, Smet, as modified by Zhao and Berg, does not teach wherein the first end part is a front end part and the first transition zone is a front transition zone having an extension in the longitudinal direction of from 5 millimeter to 30 millimeter and wherein the second end part is a rear end part and the second transition zone is a rear transition zone having an extension in the longitudinal direction of from 20 millimeter to 80 millimeter.
However, Kikuchi teaches an absorbent core with a raised area, a flattened area, and a transitional slope (fig. 5, thick segment 55, thin segment 57, and thickness-sloped segment 56), wherein the length of the transition area is in the range of 20-150 mm (col. 6, lines 28-56, “a length dimension L2 of the thickness-sloped segment 56 in the longitudinal direction Y is preferably in a range of about 20 to about 150 mm”), thus granting a length that is in the range of both the first transition zone and the second transition zone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Smet in view of Zhao and Berg such that the first end part is a front end part and the first transition zone is a front transition zone having an extension in the longitudinal direction of from 5 millimeter to 30 millimeter and wherein the second end part is a rear end part and the second transition zone is a rear transition zone having an extension in the longitudinal direction of from 20 millimeter to 80 millimeter, as taught by, for the purpose of providing a suitable structure that prevents a stiffness difference formed due to abrupt variation of the thickness (see Kikuchi, col. 6, lines 28-56)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Munakata (US 20150265474) discloses a topsheet wherein a two-stage channel structure can increase bonding strength between the topsheet and absorbent core at the channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 PM.
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 5712705879. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights