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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10, amended claim 1 recites limitations directed to a two or more rectangular shapes and first and second regions, including the arrangement of the regions and recitation of rows being parallel and a long side length of the rectangular shapes. Applicants’ specification does not appear to recite express support for the limitations at original claim 9 and paragraph 0050 of the application as filed. Additionally, note that support based on the Figures is inconclusive. For example, although the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art, the patent drawings are not presumed to be drawn to scale, and the specification does not recite that rows are necessarily parallel. Therefore, the limitations appear to constitute new matter.
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 1-3, 8, and 10 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10, claim 1 recites a plurality of two or more rectangular shapes. It is unclear if the scope of the claim is requiring two or more rectangular shapes generally, or if the scope of the claim is requiring two or more different rectangular shapes.
Additionally, the claim recites that in the second region, only rows of the sheet joined portions having the two or more rectangular shapes arranged in a straight line at intervals are disposed parallel at intervals in a direction orthogonal to the rows. The verbiage of the claim is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. For example, the claim recites rows of the sheet joined portions without previously requiring that the sheet joined portions are provided in rows. Additionally, it is unclear how rows are simultaneously disposed in parallel and in a direction orthogonal to the rows.
Additionally, the claim recites that the intervals between the rectangular sheet portions in each of the rows are different from intervals between the rectangular sheet portions in the adjacent rows. The claims do not set forth “a rectangular sheet portion”. Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is requiring the sheet portions collectively to be rectangular in shape, or if the claim is referencing the sheet portions having the two or more rectangular shapes. If the latter, it is unclear which sheet portions having the rectangular shapes are referenced, as there are two or more rectangular shapes.
Additionally, claim 1 recites that directions of the rows and directions of long sides of all the two or more rectangular shapes are parallel, wherein a long side length of each of the rectangular shapes is as claimed. The claim does not recite that the rectangular shapes require long sides, and rectangular shapes are not defined in Applicants’ specification to necessarily require long sides. Additionally, it is unclear if the rectangular shapes comprise long sides, or if rectangular shapes further require short sides, or if the rectangular shapes may only comprise long sides, such as a square.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/121976 to Takahashi, with US Pub. No. 2018/0008481 cited as the English equivalent, in view of USPN 6,610,390 to Kauschke and US Pub. No. 2003/0124310 to Ellis and JP 2014-198179 to Nawata.
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 10, Takahashi teaches a disposable diaper including a stretchable region stretchable in at least one direction, in which the stretchable region is formed by stacking an elastic film between a first sheet layer composed of a nonwoven fabric and a second sheet layer composed of a nonwoven fabric, and in a state in which the elastic film is stretched in the stretching direction and contracting direction, the first sheet layer and the second sheet layer are joined via through holes formed in the elastic film at a large number of sheet bond portions arranged at intervals, the first and second sheet layer joined by a melted and solidified material of the elastic film (Takahashi, Abstract, Fig. 8). Takahashi teaches that a shape of the sheet bond portions may be a perfect circle, an ellipse, a polygon, a rectangle, a rhombus, a star shape, a cloud shape, etc. (Id., paragraph 0157), wherein the geometry of each group may be regular or irregular (Id., paragraph 0159). As shown in at least Figs. 9 and 10, the bond portions appear to comprise different shapes, including varied areas of the sheet bond portions which are within the scope of the two or more rectangular shapes, and appear to be adjacent and arranged in rows (Id., paragraph 0141). Takahashi teaches an area of the bond portion is in a range of 0.14 to 3.5 mm2, a maximum length is 0.5 to 3.0 mm, and a maximum width is 0.1 to 3.0 mm (Id., paragraphs 0023-0026, 0157). Takahashi teaches that a size of each may be appropriately determined, as the hardness of the sheet bond portions affects the sense of touch at larger sizes, whereas the bonded area is too small to bond the layers at a smaller size (Id., paragraphs 0133, 0158). Note that as shown in at least Fig. 10, the bond portions have different sizes, which will have different reference bonding diameters.
Additionally, Kauschke teaches a similar nonwoven and laminate with non-symmetrical bonding configuration, having low tensile and high elongation, comprising a plurality of bonding points having unbonded and bonded fiber portions (Kauschke, Abstract, column 2 lines 3-62). Kauschke teaches that the bonding points are circular or substantially oval, although other shapes such as rectangular may be used (Id., column 4 lines 14-17, column 6 lines 20-23, column 6 lines 36-56). Kauschke teaches that a wide variety of shapes and configurations may be used on a single fabric (Id., column 7 lines 26-40). Kauschke teaches that circular bonding points have a diameter of about 0.3-1.0 mm (Id., column 4 lines 37-40), and that oval bonding points have a preferred width or minor dimension of about 0.526 mm (Id., column 4 line 66 to column 5 line 11). Kauschke teaches MD and CD properties arise out of the selective bonding process (Id., column 7 line 55 to column 8 line 10). Kauschke teaches that the bonding pattern may be effected by calendering or ultrasonic bonding, creating fusion bonding of the fibers (Id., column 8 line 66 to column 9 line 7). Kauschke teaches that the composites are suitable for use in hygiene applications (Id., column 9 lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of Takahashi, wherein bond portions comprise different shapes and properties, such as within the claimed ranges and with the claimed relationship, as taught by Takahaski and Kauschke, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional absorbent article comprising bonding portion shapes and properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for elastic composites used in disposable article applications. Note that a perimeter of a circle is 1 times a length of a circumference as claimed, whereas any other shape would have a perimeter that is greater than 1 times a length of a circumference as claimed.
Regarding the first and second regions being adjacent to each other in a direction orthogonal to the stretch direction, the prior art teaches that a stretchable region is stretchable in at least one direction (Takahashi, Abstract). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that at least one direction includes multiple directions, such that the arrangement of the regions set forth in the prior art would be similarly present orthogonal to a stretch direction.
Alternatively, the prior art teaches that it is possible to provide a plurality of regions having different area rates of the sheet bond portion in the stretchable region, and to change fitness according to a part (Takahashi, paragraph 0179). Additionally, the prior art teaches that the stretching stress of the stretchable region may be adjusted by a ratio of the length of each of the sheet bond portions to a unit length in the front-back directions (Id., paragraph 0175).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of the prior art combination, wherein bond portions are arranged in regions adjacent in the orthogonal direction, as suggested by Takahashi, motivated by the desire to predictably adjust the stretching stress and fitness based on the desired comfort and application.
Regarding the claimed interval, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art teaches and suggests that an area rate of the sheet bond portions may be selected by selecting a size, a shape, and a separation interval (Takahashi, paragraph 0167).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of the prior art combination, wherein bond portions in adjacent rows are arranged in different intervals, as suggested by Takahashi, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine the desired separation intervals based on the desired area rate of the bond portions suitable for intended application.
Regarding the claimed long side and long side length, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, as set forth in at least Figs. 9 and 10, the sides of the bond portions appear parallel and arranged as claimed. Additionally, since the prior art teaches that an area of the bond portion has a maximum length is 0.5 to 3.0 mm and a maximum width is 0.1 to 3.0 mm, the sides of the bond portions appear to be within the claimed range of 3.0 mm or less.
Takahashi teaches that a basis weight of the nonwoven fabric is about 10 to 25 g/m2 (Id., paragraph 0159). Takahashi does not appear to teach the claimed fineness. However, Ellis teaches elastic laminate material having a nonwoven fibrous web bonded to each side of a thermoplastic elastic material such as a film (Ellis, Abstract, paragraph 0043), for use in absorbent products (Id., paragraph 0012). Ellis teaches that the fiber webs have a basis weight of from about 1 to about 34 grams per square meter (Id., paragraph 0040). Ellis teaches examples where the fibers have a linear density of 2.2 denier or 1.5 denier (Id., Examples 1 and 2). Ellis teaches that the laminates have cloth-like tactile aesthetic attributes (Id., paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of the prior art combination, wherein the sheet layers comprise fibers having a denier, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Ellis, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional absorbent article comprising a stretchable region having a properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for such structure in similar applications, having desirably cloth-like tactile aesthetic attributes.
Additionally, Takahashi teaches an area of the bond portion is in a range of 0.14 to 3.5 mm2 and an area rate of the sheet bond portion in the stretchable region in a range of 1.8 to 22.5% (Takahashi, paragraphs 0023-0026, 0157). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the area rate, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional absorbent article comprising a suitable amount of bonding based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Takahashi does not appear to teach the claimed acute angle. However, Nawata teaches a similar structure including an elastic expansion/contraction member which is excellent in flexibility and is easily manufactured (Nawata, Abstract). Nawata teaches a first sheet material and a second sheet material bonded by an adhesive agent, wherein an acute angle side with respect to the extension direction of the elastic expansion/contraction member is more than 45 degrees to form a sheet joint part (Id.), preferably 50 to 85 degrees (Id., paragraph 0081). Note that the angle would be equivalent to 5 to 30 degrees to the direction orthogonal to the stretchable direction. Nawata teaches that the angle allows the orientation of the elastic stretchable members to be oblique to the extension direction, allowing a fit that follows the diagonal direction, particularly in a curved shape (Id., paragraphs 0005-0006, 0008, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the absorbent article of the prior art combination, wherein the bonded portions are angled, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Nawata, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional absorbent article comprising bonded portions arranged to be oblique to the extension direction, allowing a fit that follows the diagonal direction, particularly in a curved shape.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the prior art combination teaches that an area rate of the sheet bond portions in the non-stretchable region is larger than in the stretchable region (Takahashi, paragraphs 0126, 0135-0141).
Regarding the claimed boundary, the prior art combination teaches buffer stretchable sections having ends (see Takahashi at Figures 2 and 10) which appear to extend in a stretchable direction as claimed and has a shape as claimed (Id., paragraphs 0130-0132, Figures 9-14). Such a structure is additionally suggested at Figure 12.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches bond portions having different shapes, including larger and smaller sizes which would have a larger and a smaller perimeter. Additionally, the prior art combination teaches that the geometry of each bond portion group may be regular or irregular.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed December 29, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the bonding pattern of two or more rectangular shapes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in at least Figs. 9 and 10, the prior art discloses two or more rectangular shapes as claimed.
Applicants argue that the regions in Takahashi are situated next to each other and not the direction orthogonal to the stretchable direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, since the prior art teaches a stretchable region is stretchable in at least one direction, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that at least one direction includes multiple directions, such that the arrangement of the regions set forth in the prior art would be similarly present orthogonal to a stretch direction.
Applicants argue that Kauschke fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the first and second regions as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, in that Kauschke is not relied on to teach the first and second regions. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Applicants argue that the sheet joined portions of Nawata are continuous in the direction orthogonal to the stretchable direction but does not have the first and second regions as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees, in that Kauschke is not relied on to teach the first and second regions. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights