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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 22-26 and 28-33 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 8-9, 15 and 18-21 and 27 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1, 30 and 32-33, filed on 12/17/2025, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 22-26 and 28-33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an anchor structure than joins the fiber material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 recites the limitation “is the same as to a depression direction.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 22-26 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the laminated sheet forms a composite layer in which the first and second fibrous sheets having the air permeability and the fiber material having the liquid diffusibility are laminated together with an elastic member.” Claim 1 also include the limitation “a joining region of the composite layer and the elastic bodies.” It is unclear if the claimed composite layer comprises the elastic bodies, or if it is joined to the elastic bodies. Claims 5-7, 10-14, 16-17, 22-26 and 28-33 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 10-14, 16-17, 22-26 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0171895) in view of Zink et al. (US 2013/0306226 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Thomas et al. (“Thomas”) teaches breathable elastic laminates for use in absorbent products (Abstract, [0123] and [0134]). The laminates comprise a frangible layer such as a tissue paper web (a fiber material as claimed) adhered to at least one elastic layer (an elastic member as claimed), and may further comprise facing layers such as nonwoven webs which serve as exterior surfaces of the laminate (first and second fibrous sheets as claimed). See Abstract, [0027], [0046]-[0047] and [0080]-[0081]. The tissue web can absorb liquids, and the laminate can be breathable and/or liquid pervious ([0045], [0081] and [0123]). In an embodiment, the laminate comprises an elastic laminate ([0020]).
With regard to the claimed limitation of the composite layer having an uneven surface formed by a shrinkage stress of the elastic member, and the uneven surface forming a plurality of shirring portions in the base fabric, Thomas further teaches that the materials can be attached together in a relaxed state or in a stretched state ([0122]). For instance, the extensible layer(s) can be in a stretched state when attached to other layers in the laminate (see [0122]). Thus, it is the examiner’s position that attaching the layers together in the manner taught by Thomas would result in the claimed structure wherein the first and second fibrous sheets would have uneven surfaces. In the alternative, Thomas teaches in the Background section that stretching an elastic film or filament and then bonding it to a facing layer causes the facing layer to gather ([0002]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that attaching the elastic layer in a stretched state to the other layers would result in gathering of the layers, and thus in uneven surfaces, as claimed. (The examiner notes that Zink also teaches an uneven surface and shirring portions as applied below).
With regard to liquid diffusibility of the frangible tissue web layer (a fiber material as claimed), Thomas teaches that the tissue web is absorbent and that the laminate itself can be liquid pervious ([0081] and [0123]). Thus, the frangible tissue web layer (fiber material) of Thomas would have liquid diffusibility as claimed.
Thomas further teaches that the materials can be bonded together using an adhesive ([0120]-[0121]).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose that the elastic member comprises a plurality of linear elastic bodies, the linear elastic bodies are arranged such that an extension direction of a line thereof is the same as a longitudinal direction of the laminated sheet, and elasticity is imparted to the laminated sheet by the linear elastic bodies in the longitudinal direction of the laminated sheet, that the shirring portions extend in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the linear elastic bodies in a non-tensioned state, that the shirring portions have a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, wherein the fiber material comprises an anchor structure that joins the fiber material to the elastic bodies wherein the anchor structure comprises an adhesive permeation portion of an absorption of an adhesive coating on the elastic bodies into the fiber material, and a shirring portion support point of the base fabric comprising a joining region of the composite layer and the elastic bodies, wherein the uniform shape of protrusions and depressions is formed and maintained by the shirring portion support point at a predetermined interval between the elastic bodies.
However, Zink et al. (“Zink”) teaches a laminate for an absorbent article that comprises elastic elements disposed at least partially intermediate two substrates (Abstract). The method may comprise adhesively attaching the elastic elements to the first substrate, joining the second substrate to the first substrate or to some of the elastic elements, and forming a plurality of rugosities (shirring portions as claimed) in the first substrate by allowing the elastic elements to at least partially contract (Abstract, [0062] and [0065]). In an embodiment, a belt portion may comprise one or more elastic elements, strand or strips ‘306’ ([0109]). The elastic elements 306 may be elongate and may be adhesively joined, or otherwise joined, to a portion of the first substrate 302 and/or to a portion of the second substrate 304 ([0109]). The elastic elements ‘306’ may be intermittently or continuously adhesively or otherwise joined to the portion of the first substrate ‘302’ and/or to the portion of the second substrate ‘304’ (a shirring portion support point) ([0109], [0100] and FIG. 9). The rugosities may be described by a range of frequencies, amplitudes, and/or surface geometries in one or both of the machine direction and the cross direction in its relaxed state ([0062]). The wrinkles, buckles, pleats, fold, or rugosities may be oriented along lines that may be roughly transverse or perpendicular to the direction of lateral contraction of the elastic elements ‘306’ (see [0141] at end of page 17; also see elastic elements “E” in Fig. 20A, discussed in [0133]). The ranges of amplitudes in two or more texture zones may overlap, not overlap, be the same, or be different ([0136]). The ranges of frequencies in two or more texture zones may overlap, not overlap, be the same, or be different ([0136]). FIGS. 20A-20F show rugosities having the same shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the elastic layer in the laminated sheet of Thomas with elastic strands or strips that form a plurality of rugosities oriented along lines perpendicular to the direction of lateral contraction of the elastic strands or strips, wherein the elastic strands or strips extend in the machine direction of the laminated sheet and are intermittently or continuously adhesively bonded to the first facing layer (the first fibrous sheet) and the frangible layer (the fiber material) in the laminate, and wherein the rugosities have amplitudes, frequencies and shapes that are the same in two or more texture zones, in order to obtain textured laminates for absorbent articles having improved fit, comfortable feel, an aesthetically pleasing appearance and/or a closer resemblance to clothing or underwear, as suggested by Zink ([0195]; also see Abstract, [0062], [0065], [0100], [0109], [0129]-[0133], [0136], [0141] and FIGS. 9, 20A-20F). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the adhesive would permeate the frangible layer (the fiber material) to some degree as the frangible layer absorbs liquids, and it would have been obvious to have allowed such permeation in order to adequately bond the elastic bodies and the frangible layer into a laminate.
The examiner also notes that claim 1 includes product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Zink remains as applied above to claim 1. Zink further teaches that the elastic elements ‘306’ may be linear and extend parallel to each other, or substantially linear and extend substantially parallel to each other, and may have equal or uniform, or substantially equal or uniform, distant spacing there between ([0112]). The rugosities may be described by a range of frequencies, amplitudes, and/or surface geometries in one or both of the machine direction and the cross direction in its relaxed state ([0062]). The wrinkles, buckles, pleats, fold, or rugosities may be oriented along lines that may be roughly transverse or perpendicular to the direction of lateral contraction of the elastic elements ‘306’ (see [0141] at end of page 17). (Also see elastic elements “E” in Fig. 20A, discussed in [0133]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Thomas teaches that the frangible tissue web layer can be subjected to embossing or other means to weaken the layer (Abstract, [0045] and [0086]).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Thomas teaches that the laminates may be breathable, which is defined as pervious to water vapor and gases, and may be liquid pervious ([0006]) and [0123]).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 23-24, Thomas teaches absorbent products such as diapers, underpants and garments ([0134]). Similarly, Zink teaches that absorbent articles may refer to pants and/or taped diapers ([0050]).
Regarding claims 22 and 28, the examiner notes that Zink teaches an example that uses a first substrate of about 10 gsm nonwoven material and a second substrate of a 45 gsm nonwoven (Example 1 at [0193]). Thomas teaches that the frangible layer tissue web (a fiber material comprising a paper material as claimed) can vary from about 10 gsm to about 110 gsm, such as from about 15 gsm to about 40 gsm ([0101]). Fibers suitable for making tissue webs comprise any natural or synthetic cellulosic fibers including, but not limited to (among others) woody or pulp fibers ([0083] and [0085]).
Regarding claims 25-26, with respect to the frangible layer, Thomas teaches that, in one embodiment, only one side of the tissue web may be fed through a print-crepe process, and that in an alternative embodiment, both sides of the web can be printed with an adhesive or bonding material and creped ([0110]-[0111]). In addition, or in the alternative, Thomas teaches that suitable for use as the frangible layer are tissue sheets that are pattern densified or imprinted, such as the tissue sheets disclosed in any of the following: U.S. Pat. No. 4,514,345 issued on Apr. 30, 1985, to Johnson et al., etc. (which are incorporated by reference) ([0087]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have printed on both sides in order to obtain uniform properties in the thickness direction of the frangible layer.
Regarding claim 29, Zink teaches that suitable rugosity frequencies may range from about 0.1 rugosities per cm to about 50 rugosities per cm, alternatively, about 0.5 rugosities per cm to about 25 rugosities per cm, alternatively, about 1 rugosity per cm to about 10 rugosities per cm ([0129]-[0130] and [0186]-[0188]). As calculated by the examiner, 1-10 rugosities per cm would roughly correspond to a pitch interval of about 1-10 mm (e.g. 10mm/1 = 10mm).
Regarding claim 30, Zink teaches that the elastic elements ‘306’ may be intermittently or continuously adhesively or otherwise joined to the portion of the first substrate ‘302’ and/or to the portion of the second substrate ‘304’ ([0109], [0100] and FIG. 9). The examiner also notes that claim 30 includes product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 31, Thomas in view of Zink does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. However, Zink teaches a method that may comprise adhesively attaching the elastic elements to the first substrate, joining the second substrate to the first substrate or to some of the elastic elements, and forming a plurality of rugosities (shirring portions as claimed) in the first substrate by allowing the elastic elements to at least partially contract (Abstract, [0062] and [0065]). The elastic elements ‘306’ may be intermittently or continuously adhesively or otherwise joined to the portion of the first substrate ‘302’ and/or to the portion of the second substrate ‘304’ (a shirring portion support point) ([0109], [0100] and FIG. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have similarly intermittently bonded the second facing layer (second fibrous sheet) and the frangible layer (fiber material) with an adhesive, in such a manner that a space is formed in the unbonded regions, in order to obtain absorbent laminates for use in absorbent articles.
Regarding claim 32, Thomas in view of Zink remains as applied above to claim 31. In an embodiment, Zink shows laminates comprising first substrate 302 and second substrate 304, wherein the depressions of both substrates are in the same direction (see FIG. 19A and [0125]).
Regarding claim 33, Thomas teaches that "Extensible" refers to a material or composite which can be elongated by at least 25% of its relaxed length ([0014]). For instance, the material can be elongated in certain embodiments by at least 100%, by at least 300%, by at least 400%, by at least 500%, or by at least 600% in one direction prior to breaking (according to ASTM Test D882) ([0014]). An extensible layer or laminate can be elastic or non-elastic ([0014]). In one embodiment, the frangible layer is much less elastic than the elastic layers ([0024]). For instance, the frangible layer (the fiber material) may have an elongation to break that is less than 75%, such as less than 80%, such as less than 85%, such as less than 90%, such as even less than 95% than the elongation of break of one of the elastic layers ([0024]). Elongation at break can be measured according to ASTM Test D-638-02 ([0024]). The examiner notes that Thomas teaches different test methods for determining the elongation of the elastic material and the frangible layer. However, the examiner calculates that the elongation at break of the frangible layer could be as high as about 150% when the elastic layer can extend to 600% (i.e., 600 - 0.75 x 600 = 150). Therefore, as the elongation at break of the frangible layer (the fiber material) may be well within the claimed range of 1.1 to 3.5 (i.e., 110% to 350%), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the extension/contraction ratio of the frangible layer (the fiber material) would overlap with the claimed range.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2014/0171895) in view of Zink et al. (US 2013/0306226 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Brock et al. (US Patent No. 3,695,985).
Regarding claims 5-6, Thomas in view of Zink remains as applied above.
Thomas in view of Zink does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive is a hot-melt adhesive.
However, Brock teaches a high bulk, high strength, resilient nonwoven laminate comprised of an intermittently bonded web of continuous thermoplastic polymer filaments and a cellulosic web, the laminates preferably containing three plies, wherein the outer plies are the same, and having been hot embossed under controlled conditions to set the thermoplastic polymer web into a predetermined pattern (Abstract). Brock teaches wherein adhesives such as hot melts, latexes, thermoplastic fibers and plastisols can be employed (col. 4, lines 70-71).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used hot-melt adhesives as the adhesive in the laminate of Thomas in view of Zink because Brock teaches that such adhesives are suitable for use in bonding thermoplastic materials and cellulosic webs for subsequent use in absorbent articles (see Abstract, and col. 1, lines 13-15). (Also see [0083] of Thomas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Among other features, the claims recite a structure that forms and maintains a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions through a structural and functional relationship between predetermined elastic strand spacing and localized adhesive-permeated anchor points in a fiber paper layer. By controlling the strand spacing and the anchor points, the uniform shirring can be maintained and the moisture transpiration, heat dissipation, and moisture permeability are improved, as noted ¶ [0059] of the present application as published (paragraph bridging pp. 15 and 16. Thomas is directed to elastic laminates, such as for diapers, designed to retain a lofty, bulky feel despite being stretched, as indicated in Thomas's ¶ [0004] and Fig. 5. As such, Thomas teaches away from uniform protrusions and depressions. Instead, Thomas incorporates a bulk, frangible web with lines of separation (where the frangible layer is partially or completely severed) that decouple from the elastic layer in localized regions, allowing it to stretch and recover in directions perpendicular or skew to the separation lines while maintaining the loftiness of the frangible layer, as described in Thomas's ¶¶ [0020] and [0021]. Thomas's construction produces bulky, irregular gathers, to achieve the desired lofty feel, whose geometry is dictated by the separation line pattern, not by elastic strand spacing or anchored support points.”
Regarding these contentions, claim 1 recites the limitation “a shirring portion support point of the base fabric comprising a joining region of the composite layer and the elastic bodies, wherein the uniform shape of protrusions and depressions is formed and maintained by the shirring portion support point at a predetermined interval between the elastic bodies.” As applied above, Zink’s teaching of elastic elements ‘306’ being intermittently or continuously adhesively or otherwise joined to the portion of the first substrate ‘302’ and/or to the portion of the second substrate ‘304’ meets the claimed shirring portion support point limitation ([0109], [0100] and FIG. 9). As applied above, Zink also teaches a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. Thomas does not teach away from a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, as Thomas teaches that the frangible layer can provide numerous and diverse benefits to the laminate ([0020]). For instance, the frangible layer can increase the loft characteristics of the laminate ([0020]). In another embodiment, the frangible layer can provide strength, rigidity, or other functional advantages ([0020]). Thomas also teaches that the frangible layer can be incorporated into the elastic laminate for providing at least one beneficial property without interfering with the ability of the extensible layer to be stretched in at least one direction ([0045]). Therefore, Thomas does not limit the properties imparted to the laminate by the frangible layer, as long as it allows the extensible layer to be stretched in at least one direction. Thomas does not require or teach that bulky, irregular gathers be imparted by the frangible layer.
Applicant contends the following: “In Zink, the shape, frequency, and amplitude of the resulting rugosities are dictated by precisely patterned densified regions in the substrate, as described in Zink's ¶ [0006]. These densified regions create local stiffness variations that control how the elastic laminate deforms during contraction, as described in Zink's ¶ [0113]. ln Zink, it is the stiffness pattern that determines the rugosity geometry. It would not have been motivated to include Zink's elastic strand system into Thomas's laminate. The strands would be joined to Thomas's frangible paper layer that contains partially or completely severed lines of separation that decouple the elastic at localized areas, as described in Thomas's ¶ [0021]. This frangible layer would go against the stiffness boundaries essential to Zink's teaching of rugosity control and introduce bulkiness and irregular gathers resulting Thomas' teaching of lines of separation. Such a combination should not have been reasonably expected to succeed. Regarding the contention in the office action that it would have been motivated to combine Thomas and Zink because both include teachings of densified regions in the elastic laminate, Thomas describes densified regions in its frangible layer used to create '"lower density pillow-like" domes for loft, not for use in tight, uniform shirring, as described in Thomas's ¶ [0087].”
Regarding these contentions, Zink teaches providing for alteration of the local stiffness (e.g., densified regions) of a substrate or laminate of substrates adjacent to a layer of spaced apart elastic elements to better define buckling or pleating points in interstitial areas between elastic members, thereby controlling the resulting textures ([0113]). The frequency and amplitude ranges of the rugosities results from the pattern of densified regions ([0004]). These densified regions may be provided in first and/or second substrates that may sandwich the elastic elements, such that rugosities are formed in the substrate(s) when the elastic elements are in a relaxed or partially state ([0004]). The examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place a layer of spaced apart elastic elements adjacent to a substrate (or substrates) comprising densified regions in order to better define buckling or pleating points in interstitial areas between elastic members, thereby controlling the resulting textures, as taught by Zink ([0113]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the laminate of Thomas in this way and for this purpose, because Zink teaches that the densified regions may be provided in first and/or second substrates. Therefore, the proposed modification does not require relying on densified regions in the frangible layer of Thomas, as such densified regions may be present in one or both of the substrates sandwiching the elastic members (e.g., one of the nonwoven facing layers of Thomas). Therefore, there would have been a reasonable expectation that the proposed modification would have resulted in uniform rugosities as intended by Zink.
Applicant contends the following: “Brock describes adhesive penetration into a cellulosic layer to improve bond strength in nonwoven laminates such as disposable towels. One of Brock's objectives is to overcome the difficulty of pulling apart a matted towel ball after squeezing out the excess water and to minimize the resulting loss of strength and bulk of the towel, as described in Brock's col. 6, ll. 41 to 65. Brock describes using broad-area and continuous adhesive permeation, not localized at elastic anchor points, as described in Brock's col. 4, ll. 35 to 59. Brock's system is not designed for forming or maintaining uniform shirring, nor for creating uniform protrusions and depressions. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Thomas, Zink, and Brock each teach away from the claimed structure and function, and their combination would require fundamental redesign contrary to principle of operation/ purpose of the references. For at least these reasons, the claims should not be obvious.”
Regarding theses contentions, as applied above, Brock is only applied in the rejection of claims 5 and 6, as teaching the use of hot-melt adhesive in bonding thermoplastic fibers and cellulosic webs in absorbent articles.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kevin Worrell/
Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789