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 based on an application filed in CN on 05/17/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202421088007 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-4,9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. US 2021/0169709 in view of Mizobuchi et al. US 2014/0378925 and further in view of Dodge et al. US 2001/0049514, Chmielewski et al. US 2022/0265488 and Bewick-Sonntag et al. US 5762641, hereafter Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Bauer discloses an absorbent system (abstract, figure 4) comprising: a first absorbent core layer (bottom layer [92]); a second absorbent core layer disposed above the first absorbent core layer (upper layer [91]); a first acquisition-distribution layer disposed over the second absorbent core layer (para. 0272, where the article may comprise an acquisition distribution layer on top of core 80 [where core 80 is the structure comprising the absorbents] and thus said distribution layer would be disposed over the second absorbent core]; a core wrap disposed around the first absorbent core layer, the second absorbent core layer, and the first acquisition-distribution layer (core wrap [86], see figure 5)).
While Bauer does not specifically disclose the first absorbent core layer comprising cellulose and superabsorbent material and the second absorbent core layer comprising synthetic material and superabsorbent material, Bauer discloses that said layers (91 and 92) are made from suitable absorbent material and may further incorporate superabsorbent material throughout the layer (para. 0195). Further para. 0196 details that the layers are comprised of water-absorbent polymers Therefore both layers comprise a suitable absorbent material including a water-absorbent polymer and a superabsorbent material. While Bauer teaches cellulose and synthetic materials are used in the system (for core wrap in para. 0193, for airlaid nonwoven layer (94) in para. 0201, and layers (95 and 96) in para. 0204), the absorbent layers (92 and 91) are not specifically stated to be made from these materials.
Mizobuchi teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Mizobuchi teaches that the absorbent uses high absorbent polymer particles in the absorber portion of the article. Mizobuchi teaches that materials used as said particles include polymers based on starch, cellulose, or synthetic polymer (para. 0101). Therefore, as Mizobuchi teaches that absorbent layers in articles may be suitably made from absorbent polymers from various materials including cellulose and synthetic polymers, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use said polymers as the absorbent polymer material of Bauer. Doing so would merely require the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being absorbent of fluid into a layer, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that said rationale is applied to each layer individually, and thus it would have been obvious to modify the first layer to use cellulose based polymers and modify the second layer to use synthetic polymers, where both layers would reasonably and suitably absorbent fluid as said materials are known in the art to be used in absorbent articles specifically for absorption properties.
The examiner notes that should applicant contend that even though it would be obvious to use the aforementioned materials for the different layers, it is not specifically disclosed that each absorbent layer may be a different material from one another, the examiner relies on Dodge. Dodge teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Dodge teaches that the absorbent composites used within the construction may be a single layer or multiple layers and where the different layers may comprise different types of absorbent material (para. 0049). Therefore, as it is known in the art that absorbent articles comprising multiple absorbent layers may suitably construct each layer of a different material and still form a functional absorbent, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second absorbent layers from different materials (Where said materials that read to the claimed limitation are detailed above under the same rejection). Doing so would merely require combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (that being the formation of a multilayer absorbent with different absorbent properties) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Bauer teaches that the core may be provided with a cover where said cover functions as a wrap and that the wrapping is possible as a C-wrap (para. 0191). However, the disclosure of Bauer is unclear if the core is in the C-wrap or just the cover. As such Bauer does not specifically disclose the second absorbent layer having end portions that are folded so that the second absorbent layer has a C- shape.
Chmielewski teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Chmielewski teaches that the device comprises a multilayer core (figure 1a-c), where said core is folded to enhance liquid distribution and absorption (abstract, para. 0086, see figures 2-6B). In said figures, specifically figure 2, the fold can be defined as a C-shape defining a channel C1 (para. 0088). Therefore, as a means to enhance distribution and absorption, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold the second absorbent layer, in a C-shape fold. Doing so would merely involve the use of known technique (folding) to improve similar devices (absorbent cores) in the same way (to enhance absorption and distribution), and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
While Bauer teaches an acquisition distribution layer on top of the core (as detailed above under the same rejection), Bauer (para. 0272) teaches a single layer where said layer is on top of the core or core wrap. Therefore, while Bauer teaches that an acquisition distribution layer may alternatively be located above the core wrap, Bauer only discloses a single layer (where said layer is already being interpreted as the first acquisition layer) and thus fails to discloses a second acquisition-distribution layer disposed over the core wrap.
Bewick-Sonntag teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Bewick-Sonntag teaches that the absorbent article comprises a top sheet (2) with an acquisition distribution layer (3) seen to be directly below. Further, below said acquisition distribution layer is a tissue layer (4) separating said acquisition layer from a first superabsorbent (5) a second acquisition distribution layer (6) and a second absorbent (7). Therefore, as Bewick Sonntag teaches that multiple acquisition distribution layers may be used in a single absorbent configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second acquisition distribution layer in the device of Bauer. Doing so would merely require combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, that being the formation of an absorbent article, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The examiner notes that as the other suitable location for an acquisition distribution layer in Bauer is taught (para. 0072) to be above the core wrap between the wrap and the impermeable layer, it would been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the second acquisition layer in said location (above the core wrap).
Regarding Claim 2, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 1, but fail to specifically teach wherein the second absorbent core layer comprises a nonwoven layer disposed between two carrier layers.
Chmielewski, as previously combined, teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Chmielewski teaches a suitable absorbent structure, as seen in figure 1c, may be formed of a upper and lower laminate (102a and 104a), suitably made from spunbond material (para. 0055). In between said laminates is absorbent (106) and a third laminate (112) made from nonwoven material (para. 0076). Therefore, as Chmielewski teaches that suitable construction for an absorbent core layer includes absorbent material surrounded by nonwoven and spunbond laminates, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second absorbent of the prior art combination to include the laminates as in a manner of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being the formation of an absorbent layer, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Said substitution would still include the synthetic and superabsorbent as required in claim 1 (in the form of the absorbent component in the construction (best seen in figure 1c [106]) of Chmielewski, while including the laminates as taught, and thus reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 2, wherein the carrier layers comprise spunbond material. Per para. 0076 of Chmielewski, as detailed under the rejection of claim 2, the defined carrier layers are made from a spunbond material.
Regarding Claim 4, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 1, wherein the second absorbent core layer comprises a channel formed between the end portions. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the folding of the absorbent, in view of Chmielewski, creates a channel C1 through the layer. Said channel can be seen to be formed between the end portions.
Regarding Claim 9, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first acquisition-distribution layer is larger than the second acquisition-distribution layer. Per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. Therefore, as the only difference between the prior art and the instant application is the recitation that the first acquisition layer is larger than the second (thus a relative dimension) and modifying the prior art such that the first acquisition layer is larger than the second would not have the device perform differently (As the layers of the prior art perform the same function in the same locations as the instant application), the prior art reads to the claimed device.
Regarding Claim 10, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second acquisition-distribution layer extends less than a full length of the absorbent system. Per MPEP Section 2144.04 IV A In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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. Therefore, as the only difference between the prior art and the instant application is the recitation that the second acquisition layer extends less than a full length of the system (thus a relative dimension) and modifying the prior art such that the second acquisition layer extends less than the system would not have the device perform differently (As the layer of the prior art performs the same function in the same location as the instant application), the prior art reads to the claimed device.
Regarding Claim 11, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach an absorbent article comprising the absorbent system of claim 1 (Bauer figure 3, abstract, para. 0248, claim 13).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer in view of Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag and further in view of Raycheck et al. US 2016/0270971, hereafter Raycheck.
Regarding Claim 5, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, and Bewick-Sonntag teach the absorbent system of claim 1, wherein the first absorbent core layer comprises a channel. The examiner notes that it was found obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold the second absorbent in a C-shape to improve fluid acquisition in view of Chmielewski. Said folding forms a channel in the layer. While it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold the first layer in the same manner, in an effort to achieve compact prosecution in view of applicant’s figures and claim 6, the examiner relies on Raycheck to teach this limitation.
Raycheck teaches an absorbent article and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Raycheck teaches that a suitable absorbent (28) configuration may comprise multiple segments separated from each other by a channel (126) allowing the core to more easily bend and/or contain exudates (para. 0050). The configuration can be best seen in figure 21. Therefore, as a means to better contain exudate, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for an absorbent layer (first absorbent of Bauer) in separate components with a channel extending between them as a means to more easily contain exudate. Doing so would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, that being the formation of an absorbent layer and collecting of exudates in said layer, and thus a prima face case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 6, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, Bewick-Sonntag, and Raycheck teach the absorbent system of claim 5, wherein the first absorbent core layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, and the channel is formed by a space between the first portion and the second portion. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 5, the channel in the first absorbent core layer is formed as an open space between two portions of the core and thus reads to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, Bewick-Sonntag, and Raycheck teach the absorbent system of claim 5, wherein the channel is formed by a portion of the second absorbent core layer that has a reduced amount of superabsorbent material. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the channel (C1 per Chmielewski) formed in the second layer is seen to have no superabsorbent and thus it is interpreted that the channel is formed by an area of the layer having less absorbent material.
Regarding Claim 8, Bauer, Mizobuchi, Dodge, Chmielewski, Bewick-Sonntag, and Raycheck teach the absorbent system of claim 5, wherein the channel is formed by a portion of the second absorbent core layer that has reduced thickness. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the channel (C1 per Chmielewski) formed in the second layer is seen to have no superabsorbent and thus it is interpreted that the channel is formed by an area of the layer having less thickness, due to said absence of material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights