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, 18-21 and 27 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 1 and 32, filed on 8/10/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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 “the composite layer has an uneven surface formed by a shrinkage stress of the elastic member, 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 8/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “The assertion in the paragraph bridging pp. 12 and 131 of the office action is disputed, at least because Thomas fails to indicate the particular structural relationship claimed in the present application…. In particular, Thomas does not describes the formation or maintenance of a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, nor does Thomas indicate that such geometry is an intended or desirable characteristic for Thomas's purposes. The office action does not identify a particular disclosure in Thomas describing the formation of shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, nor maintaining such geometry through predetermined spacing of the linear elastic bodies and the resulting anchor structures in the fiber material that define the plurality of shirring portion support points. Instead, the cited passages in Thomas appear to relate to the general functional benefits of incorporating a frangible layer into an extensible laminate.”
Regarding these contentions, Thomas is applied above as meeting, in an embodiment, the claimed limitation “the composite layer has an uneven surface formed by a shrinkage stress of the elastic member, the uneven surface forming a plurality of shirring portions in the base fabric.” It is the examiner’s position that while Thomas implies the formation of shirring portions, Thomas is silent with respect to the uniformity of shirring portions that are formed, and the structure disclosed by Thomas is not limited to a structure in which shirring portions would have a non-uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. Zink is alternatively applied as meeting the claimed shirring potions, and is further applied as more specifically teaching shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, as well as elastic elements that are adhesively coated and disposed in such a manner that the claimed anchor structure and shirring portion support point (i.e., predetermined interval) limitations would be met. The paragraph bridging pp. 12 and 13 of the most recent Final office action was not intended to be an assertion that Thomas teaches shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. Rather, this paragraph was intended to support the examiner’s contention that Thomas does not teach away from uniform shirring portions and that Thomas is not limited to a structure in which non-uniform shirring portions would be formed. It is unclear from applicant’s contentions why Thomas in view of Zink would fail to meet the claimed limitations.
Applicant contends the following: ‘The assertion on p. 13, ¶ 1, ll. 4 to 102, of the office action is also disputed. The office action alleges that Thomas does not limit the properties imparted by the frangible layer and therefore "does not require or teach that bulky, irregular gathers be imparted by the frangible layer.” The applicant respectfully submits that the pertinent inquiry is not whether Thomas expressly excludes the claimed uniform shape of protrusions and depressions, but whether the cited disclosures in Thomas teach or reasonably suggest that particular claimed structural feature…. The applicant also notes that the embodiments describe throughout Thomas consistently depict gathered portions of the laminate that appear bulky and non-uniform. As a whole, Thomas describes absorbent articles in which the gathered regions vary in size, spacing, and contour. Thomas repeatedly emphasizes preserving loft, bulk, softness, and extensibility through the use of the frangible layer and its lines of separation, e.g., in Thomas's ¶¶ [0004], [0005], [0014], [0020], [0021], [0025], [0029], [0042] to [0046], and [0081]. These disclosures are directed toward preserving the loft characteristics of the laminate during stretching and recovery rather than producing or maintaining a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions.’
Regarding these contentions, while Thomas and Zink are each (alternatively) applied as teaching shirring portions, Zink (rather than Thomas) is applied as more specifically teaching shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. The examiner’s assertion on p. 13, ¶ 1, ll. 4 to 10 of the most recent Final office action was not intended to be an assertion that Thomas teaches shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. Rather, this paragraph was intended to support the examiner’s contention that Thomas does not teach away from uniform shirring portions and that Thomas is not limited to a structure in which non-uniform shirring portions would be formed. In addition, although Thomas does not limit the properties provided by the frangible layer (e.g., the frangible layer can provide strength, rigidity or other functions, [0020]), it is unclear why a laminate provided with loft, bulk, softness or extensibility would not be capable of having shirring portions with a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. Thomas does not require that lines of separation be incorporated into the frangible layer in an irregular manner or in a manner that would cause gathers to be formed non-uniformly. Thomas teaches that the lines of separation can allow the elastic layers to stretch and recover in a direction perpendicular or skew to the lines of separation in such a way that the elastic layer can be stretched and allowed to recover without interference from the frangible layer (Abstract and [0020]). It is also unclear where Thomas teaches gathered regions that vary in size, spacing, and contour. The examiner notes that Thomas’s teaching of shirring portions is not based on illustrations in the Figures, and Thomas is not limited to the illustrations or examples in the Figures. Therefore, it is unclear from applicant’s arguments why Thomas in view of Zink would fail to meet the claimed limitations.
Applicant contends the following: “Finally, the assertion on p. 14, ¶ 1, ll. 8 to 103, of the office action is also disputed, at least because office action does not merely propose adding a known feature from Zink into Thomas, but instead the proposed modification replaces the engineering mechanism by which the resulting surface geometry is created and maintained. This is a change in the principle of operation of Thomas, which cannot constitution obviousness per MPEP § 2143.lH(VI)…. The office action assumes that one of ordinary skill would have modified Thomas to employ Zink's densified-region mechanism for controlling surface geometry. However, Thomas already describes a different mechanism for accommodating elastic contraction through localized lines of separation in the frangible layer while preserving loft characteristics. The office action does not explain why one skilled in the art would have discarded Thomas's disclosed approach in favor of Zink's entirely different substrate-pattern approach, nor how it would have predictably resulted in an improvement for the risk…. None of Thomas's figures depicts the controlled, repeated shirring architecture produced by the claims of the present application, nor the substrate-controlled rugosity architecture of Zink.”
Regarding these contentions, Thomas and Zink are alternatively applied as teaching shirring portions, with Zink (rather than Thomas) more specifically teaching shirring portions having a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions. As applied in the rejection, Thomas’s teaching of shirring portions is based on Thomas’s teaching that the extensible layer(s) can be in a stretched state when attached to other layers in the laminate ([0122]). Thomas is not limited to this embodiment and does not otherwise specifically disclose or rely on means for creating shirring portions. While the frangible layer of Thomas may provide properties such as loft, bulk, strength or rigidity to the laminate, the frangible layer is incorporated in such a way that the elastic layer can be stretched and allowed to recover without interference from the frangible layer ([0020]). Therefore, it is unclear how providing shirring portions through the means taught by Zink would replace the engineering mechanism by which the resulting surface geometry in Thomas is created and maintained. The examiner also notes that Thomas’s teaching of shirring portions is not based on illustrations in the Figures, and Thomas is not limited to the illustrations or examples in the Figures. In addition, as claimed by applicant, the fiber material may have a flexible structure obtained by a mechanical softening process or may be subjected to a weakening process (claims 10-11). For instance, applicant further discloses a mechanical softening process such as embossing that may form holes of a round, linear, or slit-like shape in the paper material of the fiber material (page 27, or [0084]). Therefore, it is unclear why the laminate of Thomas in view of Zink would not have shirring portions with a uniform shape of protrusions and depressions.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights