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
Based on the Pre-Appeal Brief Review of December 29, 2025, the rejection is withdrawn and prosecution has been reopened.
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 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27 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 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27, claims 1 and 9 recite that the stretch laminate is “free of adhesive” whereas claim 22 recites that the stretch laminate is “devoid of adhesive”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. The limitations were added in Applicants’ submissions of August 5, 2025, citing support in the application at least at page 8 lines 5-7. The section recited by Applicants recites “alternative mechanisms may include heat bonding, pressure bonding, ultrasonic bonding, dynamic mechanical bonding, or any other suitable attachment mechanism or combination of these attachment mechanisms.” Absent from lines 5-7 is the recitation of expressly including an adhesive alternatively, or recitation of an adhesive generally.
Additionally, Applicants’ specification only appears to recite bonding the elastomeric film disposed or sandwiched between the nonwovens with the use of an adhesive. Applicants’ specification does not appear to recite that the elastomeric film can be disposed or sandwiched between the nonwovens without the use of an adhesive. Therefore, the recitation of the laminate being free or devoid of adhesive constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27 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 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27, claims 1 and 9 recite that the stretch laminate is “free of adhesive” whereas claim 22 recites that the stretch laminate is “devoid of adhesive”. It is unclear if the limitations are referencing a separate adhesive as a structural component, or if the limitations are referencing an adhesive as a functional component, as the claims do not reference lack of an adhesive material or an adhesive layer.
Additionally, note that the claims require an elastomeric film disposed or sandwiched between the first and second nonwovens. It is unclear how the recitation of an elastomeric film between the nonwovens and the laminate being free of adhesive is consistent, as the elastomeric film would appear to be act as an adhesive.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites that the first and second nonwoven are void of spaced apart stripes in the unactivated zone. However, the claim 3 is dependent from claim 2, which recites that the spaced apart stripes are disposed in an unactivated zone. It is unclear how claim 3 is consistent with claim 2. Note that Applicants’ specification does not set forth “an unactivated zone” and what such a zone necessarily entails. Additionally, although the claim references that the first and second nonwoven are void of spaced apart stripes in the unactivated zone, the claim clearly indicates the nonwovens but does not reference “the spaced apart stripes.” It is unclear if “spaced apart stripes” in the claim are referencing “the spaced apart stripes” or if the claim is referencing the nonwovens themselves being spaced apart stripes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2006/0228969 to Erdman.
Regarding claims 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27, Erdman teaches an elasticized panel for a training pant or other absorbent article, wherein the panel is of a laminated structure and includes a first and second non-woven layer and an elastomeric or elastic film positioned between the first and second non-woven layers (Erdman, Abstract, paragraphs 0010-0013). Erdman teaches that the layers may be bonded using joining methods known in the art, such as ultrasonic bonds (Id., paragraph 0032). Erdman teaches that the film layer can be joined to the nonwovens using ultrasonic bonding (Id., paragraph 0033). Erdman teaches that the elastic film layer can comprise a plurality of spaced apart strips (Id., paragraphs 0011, 0037, Fig. 3). Erdman teaches that the nonwoven layers may be a conventional spunbond-meltblown-spunbond material (Id., paragraph 0031).
Although Erdman teaches that the elastic film layer can comprise a plurality of strips, note that the recitation of the stripes being formed from or in the film (as set forth in claims 1, 9 and 22) is interpreted as a product by process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
In the event it is shown that Erdman does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Erdman discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, a “zone” is not defined. Since Erdman does not require activated zones, the laminate of Erdman would appear to inherently comprise strips in unactivated zones.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art combination does not require the nonwovens to comprise spaced apart stripes. Therefore, the nonwovens appear to be void of stripes in the unactivated zone.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 27, Erdman teaches that the layers may be bonded using joining methods known in the art, such as ultrasonic bonds. Therefore, 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 laminated structure of Erdman, including directly bonding the nonwovens by ultrasonic bonding, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminated structure having the desired amount of bonding such that the layers do not delaminate, suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 14, and 15, Erdman teaches a film layer or a plurality of spaced apart film strips (Erdman, paragraphs 0033, 0037). Erdman teaches that the configuration minimizes cost since less film is used, wherein the panel has the desired performance criteria and operating characteristics (Id., paragraph 0037). Erdman does not appear to teach the claimed width and distances. Absent unexpected results, 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 laminated structure of Erdman, and adjusting and varying the width and spacing of the spaced apart film strips, such as within the claimed ranges, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable widths and spacing of the film strips such that strips function similarly to a film layer, having the desired performance criteria and operating characteristics suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 9-15, 22, 23, and 25-27, Applicants’ specification does not define a first zone. However, Erdman teaches that the film layer can be joined to the nonwovens using ultrasonic bonding in either a channeled or uniform pattern (Erdman, paragraph 0033). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the areas of ultrasonic bonding will inherently comprise inelastic zones, whereas the areas without the bonding will remain elastic. Such zones also appear to be adjacent. Additionally, since the film is elastic, such as a stretch film (Id., paragraph 0031), the elastic spaced apart film strips would appear to be within the scope of the claimed activated stripes.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, since Erdman teaches ultrasonic bonding in either a channeled or uniform pattern, which would be within the scope of the claimed first zone, and since the purpose of the elastic spaced apart film strips is to provide elasticity, which would be within the scope of the claimed second zone, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the width of the first zone is less than the second zone. Therefore, 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 laminated structure of Erdman, and adjusting and varying the width first and second zones, such as within the claimed relationship, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable bonding widths and non-bonding widths based on the predictably resulting properties, such as level of bonding and elasticity, suitable for the intended application.
Claims 4, 13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdman, as applied to claims 1-15, 22, 23, and 25-27 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0066126 to Mansfield.
Erdman appears to teach or suggest bonding the laminate together with ultrasonic bonds, including directly bonding the first and second nonwovens. Additionally, Mansfield teaches a substantially similar stretch laminate including an elastomer film first layer, a second layer including a nonwoven material, and a third nonwoven layer (Mansfield, Abstract, paragraphs 0034, 0038). Mansfield teaches that alternative attachment mechanisms may include heat bonding, pressure bonding, and ultrasonic bonding (Id., paragraph 0036). Mansfield teaches that the layers may overlie each other completely or the outer layers may extend beyond the inner film layer, and may be attached one other to the other (Id.). Mansfield teaches an absorbent article including an elastic waist feature or side panels made from the stretch laminate (Id., paragraphs 0073-0079).
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 laminated structure of Erdman, wherein the substrates extend beyond the film layer and are directly bonded, such as by ultrasonic bonding, as taught by Mansfield, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminated structure for use in absorbent articles comprising a structure and bonding method known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar stretch laminates for similar uses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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