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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, and 6-23 are pending in this application. Claims 14-23 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2 and 4-5 are cancelled. Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Though overall the same prior art references are used herein, at least applicant’s amended
independent claim 1 required a change in the grounds of the rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2018/0071155 A1) in view of Lenser et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0042787 A1), Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0000658 A1), hereby referred to as “Chatterjee ‘658”, Popp et al. (US 2014/0350504 A1) and Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0333261 A1), hereby referred to as “Chatterjee ‘261”.
Regarding claim 1, Bishop teaches a disposable absorbent article (absorbent article 10; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0048 and 0089) comprising:
a front waist region (front waist region 12; Paragraph 0048 and 0089; Figure 2), a back waist region (back waist region 14; Paragraph 0048 and 0089; Figure 2), and a crotch region disposed between the front and back waist regions (crotch region 16; Paragraph 0048; Figure 2);
a longitudinal axis (axis 29; Figure 2; Paragraph 0051) and a lateral axis (axis 31; Paragraph 0051; Figure 2);
a front waist edge (edge 22; Figure 2; Paragraph 0049-0050), a back waist edge (edge 24; Figure 2; Paragraph 0049-0050), a first side edge extending longitudinally and a second side edge extending longitudinally (side edges 18, 20 extending longitudinally; Figure 2; Paragraph 0049-0050);
a chassis (chassis 11; Figure 2; Paragraph 0051-0052) comprising a topsheet (bodyside liner 28; Paragraph 0051; Figure 2), a backsheet (outer cover 26; Paragraph 0051; Figure 2), and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (absorbent body 34 is between outer cover 26 and bodyside liner 28; Paragraph 0052);
a waist gasketing element (waist containment member 54; Figure 2; Paragraph 0053-0054) comprising a proximal end edge (edge of proximal portion 76; Paragraph 0092; Figure 3A-3B), a distal end edge (edge of distal portion 78; Figure 3A-3B; Paragraph 0092), a first side edge (edge 72; Figure 2; Paragraph 0091)and a second side edge (edge 74; Figure 2; Paragraph 0091), wherein the waist gasketing element is a laminate comprising a nonwoven and an elastic film (waist containment 54 has laminate 90 that contains elastic members 86 – elastic member 86 can be elastic film, waist containment member 54 made of non-woven material that is laminate with other materials, Paragraph 0097-0098 and 0103; Figure 2);
a leg gasketing element (containment flap 50; Paragraph 0082; Figure 2) comprising a proximal end edge, a distal end edge, a first side edge and a second side edge (inherent that containment flap 50 has proximal, distal, first and second side edges; Figure 2), and an elastic material (containment flaps 50 has elastic members 68; Paragraph 0082; Figure 2),
wherein at least a portion of the leg gasketing element is bonded with the chassis (containment 50 is bonding with chassis 11 with barrier adhesive 49, however “the containment flaps 50, 52 can be bonded to other components of the chassis 11 and can be bonded with other suitable means other than a barrier adhesive 49”; Figure 4; Paragraph 0079); and wherein at least a portion of the waist gasketing element is adhesively attached to the chassis (member 54 is adhesive bonded 80 to chassis 11, however “proximal portion 76 of the waist containment member 54 can be coupled to the body facing surface 19 of the chassis 11 or the body facing surface 45 of the absorbent assembly 44 by means other than an adhesive 80, such as by pressure bonding, ultrasonic bonding, thermal bonding, and combinations thereof”; Figure 3A-3B; Paragraph 0093); and
wherein no elastic film of the waist gasketing element is positioned in the region where the leg gasketing element is bonded with the chassis (elastic members 86 of waist containment member 54 is not present at bonding with chassis 11 – containment flaps 50, 52 is under waist containment member 54 and is mechanically bonded to chassis at barrier adhesive 49, “containment flaps 50, 52 can be bonded to other components of the chassis 11 and can be bonded with other suitable means other than a barrier adhesive 49” - see [0079], which overlaps with waist containment member 54 but does not bond with elastic members 86; Figure 3A-3B and 4; Paragraphs 0080-0081 and 0101).
Bishop does not teach wherein the waist gasketing element further comprises a first nonwoven dead zone and a second nonwoven dead zone where the elastic film is not present, wherein the waist gasketing element further comprises a first film dead zone and a second film dead zone comprising unstretched regions of the elastic film, the first nonwoven dead zone extending laterally between the first side edge and the first film dead zone, and the second nonwoven dead zone extending laterally between the second side edge and the second film dead zone; and wherein at least a portion of the first nonwoven dead zone and the second nonwoven dead zone of the waist gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis.
However, Lenser teaches wherein the waist gasketing element further comprises a first nonwoven dead zone and a second nonwoven dead zone where the elastic film is not present (first nonwoven dead zone is in between the first edge region 226a and the right outermost edge of the first elastic laminate 202 where the elastic material 226 is not present and second nonwoven dead zone is in between the second edge region 226b and the left outermost edge of the first elastic laminate 202 where the elastic material 226 is not present; Figure 6) , wherein the waist gasketing element further comprises a first film dead zone and a second film dead zone comprising unstretched regions of the elastic film (first elastic material 216 has a first unstretched zone at first edge region 226a and second unstretched zone at second edge region 226b – elastic material is a film and laminate can be placed as a waist containment element; Paragraph 0063, 0072, and 0074; Figure 5 and 6), the first nonwoven dead zone extending laterally between the first side edge and the first film dead zone (first nonwoven dead zone extends laterally between the right outermost edge and first edge region 226a; Figure 6), and the second nonwoven dead zone extending laterally between the second side edge and the second film dead zone (second nonwoven dead zone extends laterally between the left outermost edge and the second edge region 226b; Figure 6).
Lenser and Bishop are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bishop to incorporate the teachings of Lenser and have the waist gasket of Bishop to have the elastic laminate of Lenser. This allows for the unstretched portions of the elastic material to bond with the nonwoven layers (Lenser; Paragraph 0063) for its incorporation as a stretch component in an absorbent article (Lenser; Paragraph 0074).
The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser does not teach wherein at least a portion of the first nonwoven dead zone and the second nonwoven dead zone of the waist gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis.
However, Chatterjee ‘658 teaches wherein at least a portion of the first nonwoven dead zone and the second nonwoven dead zone of the waist gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis (mechanical bonds 86 is located adjacent to edges 84 where first and second nonwoven dead zones are located; Figure 11; annotated Figure 13B below; Paragraph 0133-0134).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 13B
Chatterjee ‘658 and Bishop in view of Lenser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bishop in view of Lenser to incorporate the teachings of Chatterjee ‘658 and have the elastic laminate/waist gasketing laminate of Bishop in view of Lenser bonded onto the chassis, as taught by Chatterjee ‘658. This allows for a pocket to be formed with the bonding of the waist gasket (Chatterjee ‘658; Paragraph 0133-0134).
Bishop in view of Lenser and Chatterjee ‘658 does not teach wherein at least a portion of the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis.
However, Popp teaches wherein at least a portion of the leg gasketing element can be bonded with the chassis, by adhesive, pressure bonding and ultrasonic bonding (Paragraph 0103; Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the adhesive with pressure bonding, a form of mechanical bonding. When there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to have the bond to be adhesive, pressure, or ultrasonic bonding, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. allow for the leg gasketing/containment flap to be attached to the chassis, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). See MPEP 2143(I)(E). The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, and Popp teaches at least a portion of the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis (pressure bonding, a mechanical bond, attached leg gasketing element/containment flap to chassis; see combination above).
The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, and Popp further teaches wherein no elastic film of the waist gasketing element is positioned in the region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis (leg gasket is mechanically bonded, as taught by Popp, with chassis at bond 49 of Bishop; see combination above).
The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658 and Popp does not teach wherein at least a portion of the waist gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis.
However, Chatterjee ‘261 teaches wherein at least a portion of the waist gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis (chassis bonds 42 can be mechanical bonds - the bond between the leg gasketing element and the waist gasketing element is described wherein at least a portion of the outboard layer edge 47 of the waist gasketing element 40 is attached to the leg gasketing system 70; Paragraph 0047, 0052-0053).
Chatterjee ‘261 and Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, and Popp are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658 and Popp to incorporate the teachings of Chatterjee ‘261 and have the at least a portion of the waist gasketing element that is bonded to the chassis, of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658 and Popp, to be mechanically bonded with the leg gasketing element in a region where the leg gasketing element is mechanically bonded with the chassis, as taught by Chatterjee ‘261. This allows for the separate waist and leg gasketing elements to be fixedly attached onto the chassis (Chatterjee ‘261; Paragraph 0053) and allows for waist gasketing element to be used in conjunction with the leg gasketing element on the chassis (Chatterjee ‘261; Paragraph 0052). Furthermore, Bishop teaches “proximal portion 76 of the waist containment member 54 can be coupled to the body facing surface 19 of the chassis 11 or the body facing surface 45 of the absorbent assembly 44 by means other than an adhesive 80, such as by pressure bonding, ultrasonic bonding, thermal bonding, and combinations thereof”, meaning that mechanical bonds, such as pressure bonds are applicable to the portion 80 of Bishop.
Regarding claim 3, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 further teaches wherein mechanical bonds extend through the waist gasketing element, a leg gasketing element, the topsheet, and the backsheet (mechanical bonds exist between waist gasketing and chassis of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658 and Popp, between waist gasketing and leg gasketing, as taught by Chatterjee ‘261, and topsheet/bodyliner and backsheet/outer cover are pressure/mechanically bonded, as taught in Paragraph 0051 of Bishop – mechanical bonds are present and extend through and between each layer of waist gasketing element, a leg gasketing element, the topsheet, and the backsheet; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 further teaches wherein the waist gasketing element comprises a first nonwoven, a second nonwoven (Lenser; first substrate 206 and second substrate 230 are nonwovens; Paragraph 0045 and 0071; Figure 6), and the elastic film between the first and second nonwoven (Lenser; elastic material 226 is a film that is between first substrate 206 and second substrate 230; Figure 6; Paragraph 0045), wherein the first nonwoven is ultrasonically bonded to the second nonwoven (Lenser; Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 7, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 6. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 further teaches wherein the first and second nonwovens are connected through the elastic film (Lenser; obvious that ultrasonic bonding of the elastic materials to first and second substrates would be connecting the two substrates through the film since all layers are combined on the anvil for bonding; Paragraph 0052 and 0063).
Regarding claim 10, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 further teaches wherein the waist gasketing element is an adhesively bonded laminate (Bishop; member 54 has laminate 90 that is adhesively bonded by adhesive 387; Figure 3A-3B and 12; Paragraph 0097 and 0111-0112).
Regarding claim 12, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. Bishop further teaches further comprising a first elastic side panel and a second elastic side panel extending laterally outward from the chassis (first and second panels 91, 92 are extending laterally outward from chassis 11 and is a stretch component/elastic material; Figure 2; Paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 13, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 12. Bishop further teaches wherein the first and second elastic side panels further comprise fastening members (panels 91, 92 are fastening components 98; Figure 2; Paragraph 0106).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2018/0071155 A1) in view of Lenser et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0042787 A1), Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0000658 A1), Popp et al. (US 2014/0350504 A1), and Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0333261 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kline et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0296399 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 does not teach wherein the waist gasketing element is a thermal bonded laminate.
However, Kline teaches wherein the waist gasketing element is a thermal bonded laminate (Paragraph 0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to have the waist gasketing laminate be thermal bonded as suggested by Kline from the limited number of bonding types (see Kline et al.; Paragraph 0086), with the expectation of bonding the nonwoven and elastic material together to make stretchable, yet tensile material. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2018/0071155 A1) in view of Lenser et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0042787 A1), Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0000658 A1), Popp et al. (US 2014/0350504 A1), Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0333261 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Schneider (Publication No. US 2018/0169964 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 6. Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, Chatterjee ‘261 does not teach wherein a laminate does not comprise adhesive.
However, Schneider teaches wherein a laminate does not comprise adhesive (laminate 302 can be constructed without adhesives between first and second substrates 306, 308; Paragraph 0075).
Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 and Schneider are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 to incorporate the teachings of Schneider and have a laminate that does not comprise adhesive. This reduces the overall cost of manufacturing the absorbent article by not using adhesives (Schneider et al.; Paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop et al. (US 2018/0071155 A1) in view of Lenser et al. (Publication No. US 2018/0042787 A1), Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0000658 A1), Popp et al. (US 2014/0350504 A1) and Chatterjee et al. (Publication No. US 2017/0333261 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mattingly et al. (Patent No. US 2009/0157034 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 teaches the disposable absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Bishop in view of Lenser, Chatterjee ‘658, Popp, and Chatterjee ‘261 does not teach wherein the waist gasketing element is an extrusion bonded laminate.
However, Mattingly teaches wherein the waist gasketing element is an extrusion bonded laminate (Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to have the waist gasketing laminate be extrusion bonded as suggested by Mattingly from the limited number of bonding types (see Mattingly et al.; Paragraph 0025), with the expectation of bonding the nonwoven and elastic material together to make stretchable, yet tensile material. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781