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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 8/29/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 14-20 and 23 are canceled and claims 1-13 and 21-22 are pending.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses a laminate (stretchable laminate; paragraph [0002]) comprising at least one elastomeric film comprising a styrenic block copolymer (elastomeric film comprises styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer; paragraph [0069]) disposed between a plurality of skin layers (elastomeric film having a skin layer on both surfaces; paragraph [0070]) having substantially the same structure and comprising a polyethylene/polypropylene blend (at least one skin layer comprises polyethylene and polypropylene; paragraph [0070]).
The at least one elastomeric film is primarily stretchable in a machine direction (elastomeric film is also pre-activated in the machine direction; Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0093]), is bonded to at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate which is primarily stretchable in a cross-direction perpendicular to the machine first direction (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
The at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate does not exert a force in a machine-direction until the at least one elastomeric film is at least 100% stretched in the machine-direction (elastomeric film being attached to nonwoven web after being pre-activated; paragraph [0063]); wherein the at least one elastomeric film is stretched in the cross-direction by using CD or MD intermeshing (pre-activation is done using intermeshing rollers at varying pitches and varying depths of engagements; paragraph [0084]).
Since the structure of the stretchable laminate of Turner as shown in Figs. 1-3 is the same as laminate as claimed in claim 1, the stretchable laminate of Turner would be inherently be polydimensionally stretchable and recoverably stretchable after being stretched to at least twice its original length in at least three directions in the x-y plane.
Turner does not disclose a laminate comprising at least one nonwoven substrate having a peak load of less than 4 N/cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the peak load of the nonwoven substrate to be less than 4 N/cm because doing so would make the nonwoven lightweight and flexible while providing increased strength and durability in order to absorb more moisture when used in an absorbent article.
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising elastomeric film having a depth of about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches after CD or MD intermeshing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the depth after CD or MD intermeshing to about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches because doing so would provide improved recovery of the stretch laminate after pre-activation using intermeshing rollers (paragraphs [0083]-[0084] of Turner).
Regarding claim 2, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 1 as noted above.
Since the structure of the stretchable laminate of Turner as shown in Figs. 1-3 is the same as laminate as claimed, the stretchable laminate of Turner would be inherently be uniformly polydimensionally stretchable.
Regarding claim 3, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the ratio of CD extension to MD extension being at least 30% or greater.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of CD extension to MD extension to be at least 30% or greater because one would do so would provide excellent stretchability and recovery while maintain superior bond strength and soft fibrous texture.
Regarding claim 4, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the elastomeric film having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the elastomeric film to be 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 5, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the nonwoven material having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the nonwoven material to be of 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 8, Turner discloses a laminate (stretchable laminate; paragraph [0002]) comprising at least one elastomeric film comprising a styrenic block copolymer (elastomeric film comprises styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer; paragraph [0069]) disposed between a plurality of skin layers (elastomeric film having a skin layer on both surfaces ; paragraph [0070]) having substantially the same structure and comprising a polyethylene/polypropylene blend (at least one skin layer comprises polyethylene and polypropylene; paragraph [0070]).
The at least one elastomeric film is primarily stretchable in the machine direction (elastomeric film is also pre-activated in the machine direction; Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0093]), and at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate laminated to the at least one elastomeric film (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
The at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate is primarily stretchable in a cross-direction perpendicular to the machine direction (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]), wherein the at least one nonwoven substrate is unstretched prior to lamination (nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]); and wherein preactivation of the at least one elastomeric film in the cross-direction occurs prior to lamination to the at least one nonwoven and independent from the at least one nonwoven (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]) and the preactivation of the at least one elastomeric film causing the at least one nonwoven substrate to become corrugated (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
Since the structure of the stretchable laminate of Turner as shown in Figs. 1-3 is the same as laminate as claimed in claim 1, the stretchable laminate of Turner would be inherently be polydimensionally stretchable and recoverably stretchable after being stretched to at least twice its original length in at least three directions in the x-y plane.
Turner does not disclose a laminate comprising at least one nonwoven substrate having a peak load of less than 4 N/cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the peak load of the at least one nonwoven substrate to be less than 4 N/cm because doing so would make the nonwoven lightweight and flexible while providing increased strength and durability in order to absorb more moisture when used in an absorbent article.
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising elastomeric film having a depth of about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches after CD or MD intermeshing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the depth after CD or MD intermeshing to about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches because doing so would provide improved recovery of the stretch laminate after pre-activation using intermeshing rollers (paragraphs [0083]-[0084] of Turner).
Regarding claim 9, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the ratio of CD extension to MD extension being at least 30% or greater.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of CD extension to MD extension to be at least 30% or greater because one would do so would provide excellent stretchability and recovery while maintain superior bond strength and soft fibrous texture.
Regarding claim 10, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the elastomeric film having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the elastomeric film to be 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 11, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the stretchable laminate comprising the nonwoven material having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the nonwoven material to be of 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 21, Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) of claim 1 as noted above and Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) comprising the at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate is unstretched during lamination to the at least one elastomeric film (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1) in view of Thomas et al (US 2015/0147539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses a laminate (stretchable laminate; paragraph [0002]) comprising at least one elastomeric film comprising a styrenic block copolymer (elastomeric film comprises styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer; paragraph [0069]) disposed between a plurality of skin layers (elastomeric film having a skin layer on both surfaces ; paragraph [0070]) having substantially the same structure and comprising a polyethylene/polypropylene blend (at least one skin layer comprises polyethylene and polypropylene; paragraph [0070]).
The at least one elastomeric film is primarily stretchable in a machine direction (elastomeric film is also pre-activated in the machine direction; Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0093]) is bonded to at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate which is primarily stretchable in a cross-direction perpendicular to the machine first direction (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
The at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate does not exert a force in a machine-direction until the at least one elastomeric film is at least 100% stretched in the machine-direction (elastomeric film being attached to nonwoven web after being pre-activated; paragraph [0063]); wherein the at least one elastomeric film is stretched in the cross-direction by using CD or MD intermeshing (pre-activation is done using intermeshing rollers at varying pitches and varying depths of engagements; paragraph [0084]).
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising elastomeric film having a depth of about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches after CD or MD intermeshing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the depth after CD or MD intermeshing to about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches because doing so would provide improved recovery of the stretch laminate after pre-activation using intermeshing rollers (paragraphs [0083]-[0084] of Turner).
Turner does not appear to explicitly disclose the stretch laminate comprising the at least one nonwoven web having a peak load of less than 4 N/cm.
However, Thomas discloses a laminate (Abstract) comprising a nonwoven facing having a peak load in the cross direction of 350 grams-force per inch (paragraph [0120]). The value 4 N/cm = 1036.03 grams-force per inch. The peak load of the nonwoven facing would fall within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to include the peak load of Thomas for the cover layer of Turner because having the required peak load for a nonwoven facing provides a nonwoven facing that is lightweight, flexible, has a low degree of strength in the cross direction and provides a significant costs savings in its manufacture (paragraph [0120] of Thomas).
Since the structure of the laminate of Turner and Thomas is the same as the structure of the laminate as claimed in claim 1, the laminate of Turner and Thomas would inherently be polydimensionally stretchable and recoverably stretchable after being stretched to at least twice its original length in at least three directions in the x-y plane
Regarding claim 2, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above. Since the structure of the laminate of Turner and Thomas as shown in Figs. 1-3 of Turner is the same as laminate as claimed in claim 2, the laminate of Turner and Thomas would be inherently be uniformly polydimensionally stretchable.
Regarding claim 3, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above.
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the ratio of CD extension to MD extension being at least 30% or greater.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of CD extension to MD extension to be at least 30% or greater because one would do so would provide excellent stretchability and recovery while maintaining superior bond strength and soft fibrous texture.
Regarding claim 4, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the elastomeric film having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the elastomeric film to be 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 5, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the nonwoven material having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the nonwoven material to be of 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 8, Turner discloses a laminate (stretchable laminate; paragraph [0002]) comprising at least one elastomeric film comprising a styrenic block copolymer (elastomeric film comprises styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer; paragraph [0069]) disposed between a plurality of skin layers (elastomeric film having a skin layer on both surfaces; paragraph [0070]) having substantially the same structure and comprising a polyethylene/polypropylene blend (at least one skin layer comprises polyethylene and polypropylene; paragraph [0070]).
The at least one elastomeric film being primarily stretchable in the machine direction (elastomeric film is also pre-activated in the machine direction; Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0093]), and at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate laminated to the at least one elastomeric film (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
The at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate being primarily stretchable in a cross-direction perpendicular to the machine direction (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]), wherein the at least one nonwoven substrate is unstretched prior to lamination (nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]); and wherein preactivation of the at least one elastomeric film in the cross-direction occurs prior to lamination to the at least one nonwoven and independent from the at least one nonwoven (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]) and the preactivation of the at least one elastomeric film causing the at least one nonwoven substrate to become corrugated (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising elastomeric film having a depth of about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches after CD or MD intermeshing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the depth after CD or MD intermeshing to about 0.01 inches to about 0.250 inches because doing so would provide improved recovery of the stretch laminate after pre-activation using intermeshing rollers (paragraphs [0083]-[0084] of Turner).
Turner does not appear to explicitly disclose the stretch laminate comprising the at least one nonwoven web having a peak load of less than 4 N/cm.
However, Thomas discloses a laminate (Abstract) comprising a nonwoven facing having a peak load in the cross direction of 350 grams-force per inch (paragraph [0120]). The value 4 N/cm = 1036.03 grams-force per inch. The peak load of the nonwoven facing would fall within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to include the peak load of Thomas for the cover layer of Turner because having the required peak load for a nonwoven facing provides a nonwoven facing that is lightweight, flexible, has a low degree of strength in the cross direction and provides a significant costs savings in its manufacture (paragraph [0120] of Thomas).
Since the structure of the laminate of Turner and Thomas is the same as the structure of the laminate as claimed in claim 1, the laminate of Turner and Thomas would inherently be polydimensionally stretchable and recoverably stretchable after being stretched to at least twice its original length in at least three directions in the x-y plane
Regarding claim 9, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the ratio of CD extension to MD extension being at least 30% or greater.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of CD extension to MD extension to be at least 30% or greater because one would do so would provide excellent stretchability and recovery while maintain superior bond strength and soft fibrous texture.
Regarding claim 10, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the elastomeric film having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the elastomeric film to be 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 11, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the stretchable laminate comprising the nonwoven material having a weight of 50 g/m2 or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight of the nonwoven material to be of 50 g/m2 or less because doing so would provide the desired strength and durability of the elastomeric film while not using more material in order to provide reduced cost.
Regarding claim 21, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above and Turner discloses the laminate (stretchable laminate) comprising the at least one spunlace nonwoven substrate is unstretched during lamination to the at least one elastomeric film (elastomeric film bonded to nonwoven web having at least two layers of spunbond fibers; paragraph [0068]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1) in view of Schonbeck et al 2014/0330234 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Turner discloses the laminate of claim 1 as noted above.
Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising the at least one nonwoven substrate being a spunlace nonwoven substrate laminated to the elastomeric film in an unstretched state.
However, Schonbeck discloses the laminate comprising the at least one nonwoven substrate being a spunlace nonwoven substrate laminated to the elastomeric film in an unstretched state (the cover layer comprising hydroentangled nonwovens and the elastomeric film being attached to the cover layers after being pre-activated; paragraphs [0060] and [0074]) The hydroentangled nonwovens are considered to be spunlace nonwovens as a spunlace nonwoven is a nonwoven created by hydroentanglement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to include the hydroentangled nonwoven of Schonbeck for the nonwoven of Turner because doing so provides the desired extensibility for the nonwoven (paragraph [0060] of Schonbeck).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1) in view of Thomas et al (US 2015/0147539 A1) in further view of Schonbeck et al 2014/0330234 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above.
Turner and Thomas do not disclose the stretchable laminate comprising the at least one nonwoven substrate being a spunlace nonwoven substrate laminated to the elastomeric film in an unstretched state..
However, Schonbeck discloses the stretch laminate comprising the cover layer comprising hydroentangled nonwovens (paragraph [0060]) and the elastomeric film being attached to the cover layers after being pre-activated (paragraph [0074])
The hydroentangled nonwovens reads on the claimed spunlace nonwoven as a spunlace nonwoven is a nonwoven created by hydroentanglement. elastomeric film being attached to the cover layers after being pre-activated reads on the claimed at least one nonwoven substrate laminated to an elastomeric film in an unstretched state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Turner, Thomas and Schonbeck before him or her, to modify the stretchable laminate of Turner to include the hydroentangled nonwoven of Schonbeck for the nonwoven of Turner because doing so provides the desired extensibility for the nonwoven (paragraph [0060] of Schonbeck).
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1) in view of McCormack et al (US 5,695,868 A).
Regarding claim 6, Turner discloses the laminate of claim 1 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 7, Turner discloses the laminate of claim 6 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate being substantially free of adhesive.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate being substantially free of adhesive (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 12, Turner discloses the laminate of claim 8 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 13, Turner discloses the laminate of claim 12 as noted above. Turner does not disclose the laminate being substantially free of adhesive.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate being substantially free of adhesive (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner et al (US 2010/0262105 A1) in view of Thomas et al (US 2015/0147539 A1) in further view of McCormack et al (US 5,695,868 A).
Regarding claim 6, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 1 as noted above.
Turner and Thomas do not disclose the stretch laminate comprising ultrasonic welds.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner and Thomas to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 7, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 6 as noted above.
Turner and Thomas do not disclose the laminate being substantially free of adhesive.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate being substantially free of adhesive (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner and Thomas to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 12, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 8 as noted above.
Turner and Thomas do not disclose the stretch laminate comprising ultrasonic welds.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate comprising ultrasonic welds (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner and Thomas to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Regarding claim 13, Turner and Thomas disclose the laminate of claim 12 as noted above.
Turner and Thomas do not disclose the laminate being substantially free of adhesive.
However, McCormack discloses a method comprising the laminate being substantially free of adhesive (joining films and nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding; col. 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner and Thomas to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminate of Turner and Thomas to apply the technique of ultrasonic bonding of McCormack for bonding of the elastomeric film and cover layer of Turner because applying the technique of ultrasonic bonding allows for a liquid barrier to be maintained and prevents undue blockage of breathable film pores and overall stiffness of the laminate (col. 2, lines 34-43 of McCormack).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Turner does not both the elastomeric film and the spunlace nonwoven substrate being stretchable in only one direction.
This argument is not persuasive as paragraphs [0068] and [0093] of Turner disclose the elastomeric film and the spunlace nonwoven substrate being stretchable in only one direction.
Applicants argue that the use of hot-melt adhesive in Turner does not improve the breathability of the laminate
This argument is not persuasive as it is a limitations argued by applicants which is not in the claims. Also, the scope of the claims does not deter one of ordinary skill in the art from using prior art using hot-melt adhesive due to the use of open language such as “comprising”.
Applicants argue that Turner teaches away from the claimed subject matter.
This argument is not persuasive in that there is no negative teaching in Turner in regard to the claimed subject matter.
Applicants argue that Thomas does not cure the deficiencies of Turner.
This argument is not persuasive as Thomas is a teaching reference used to teach peak load.
However, note that while McCormack does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, McCormack is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely ultrasonic bonding, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that Schonbeck does not cure the deficiencies of Turner.
This argument is not persuasive as Schonbeck is a teaching reference used to teach a hydroentangled nonwoven.
However, note that while Schonbeck does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Schonbeck is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely a hydroentangled nonwoven, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicants argue that McCormack does not cure the deficiencies of Turner.
This argument is not persuasive as McCormack is a teaching reference used to teach ultrasonic bonding.
However, note that while McCormack does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, McCormack is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely ultrasonic bonding, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785