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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the limitation “the elastic region is from about 30% to about 80% of a maximum width of the laminate.” This limitation broadly covers nearly the entire area of the laminate, and the present specification does not disclose any criticality to this range. Making the elastic region comprise a majority such as 80% of the laminate will result in a laminate that has more ability to stretch and conform during use, which will achieve the predictable advantage of providing an improved fit.
Applicant further argues that the prior art does not disclose “the elastomeric laminate comprises an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater” and that the Office Action does not show how this specific quantitative result would be obvious. The force required to break a laminate is related to the strength and sturdiness of the laminate. It would have been obvious to produce a laminate with sufficient strength to withstand tearing under pressure exerted during wearing of the article, and therefore it would have been obvious to produce a laminate having an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater.
With respect to claim 7, Applicant argues that Henke does not disclose an Air Permeability Value of at least about 1 m3/m2/min. Improving air permeability in an absorbent article is well known to improve wearer comfort by allowing gasses to escape and preventing a buildup of humid conditions within the diaper which leads to a clammy feeling for the wearer. Henke discloses a desire for a breathable laminate, and therefore it would have been obvious to provide the laminate with an Air Permeability Value of at least about 1 m3/m2/min to achieve the predictable result of improving the comfort to the wearer of the article.
With respect to claim 16, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the limitation “a total area of the elastic region is from about 30% to about 80% of a total area of the laminate.” This limitation broadly covers nearly the entire area of the laminate, and the present specification does not disclose any criticality to this range. Making the elastic region comprise a majority such as 80% of the laminate will result in a laminate that has more ability to stretch and conform during use, which will achieve the predictable advantage of providing an improved fit.
Applicant further argues that Henke discloses bonded carded web, and therefore does not disclose the first and/or second nonwoven are free of carded nonwoven layers. Henke discloses bonded carded webs as one of several possible nonwoven webs, including airlaying, spunbond, spunlace, and bonded melt blow webs, as disclosed in paragraph [0047]. Henke therefore discloses embodiments in which the nonwovens are not carded webs, but instead airlaid, spunbond, spunlace, or bonded melt blow webs. While Henke discloses carded webs as one possible embodiment, Henke also discloses other embodiments that are free of carded layers.
With respect to claim 26, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a maximum film width that is less than the maximum laminate width by at least 10 mm. However, Schroer shows that the laminate extends well beyond the width of the film in the elastic region, as shown in the annotated figure 2 below, and changes in relative dimension do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
With respect to claims 27, 28, and 29, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the laminate having an Average Extension at 2 N of between 5 mm and 20 mm. Making the laminate more extensible will result in a laminate that has more ability to stretch and conform during use, which will achieve the predictable advantage of providing an improved fit.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19, 23-24, 27-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henke et al. (2014/0041786) in view of Ryu et al. (9,913,763).
With respect to claim 1, Henke discloses an absorbent article comprising a chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core, as described in paragraph [0078]. The article comprises ears (i.e. side panels), as disclosed in paragraph [0002]. The ears comprise an elastic laminate, as disclosed in paragraph [0009], comprising a first nonwoven 22, a second nonwoven web 24, and a preactivated film 12, as shown in figure 3 and disclosed in paragraphs [0046] and [0060]. The laminate further comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0064]. The elastomeric laminate comprises an elastic region and an inelastic region, as disclosed in paragraph [0031]. The first and second nonwovens are spunbond nonwovens, as disclosed in paragraph [0047], and therefore are free of carded nonwoven layers.
Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of an elastic waist feature at partially unattached to the chassis to form a pocket, a fastening system joined to the elastomeric laminate in the elastic region, an elastic region that is about 30-80% of a maximum width of the laminate, and the laminate comprising an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater.
Ryu discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising an elastic waist feature 92 that is partially attached to the chassis of the article to form a pocket 99, as shown in figure 4B. The elastic waist feature 92 comprises elastic material, as disclosed in column 17, lines 32-33, and provides a barrier to contain body exudates, as disclosed in column 17, lines 30-31. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Henke with an elastic waist feature partially attached to the chassis to form a pocket, as taught by Ryu, to provide a barrier to contain body exudates.
Ryu further teaches providing an absorbent article with a fastening system 97 joined to an elastomeric laminate 94, as shown in figure 4B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Henke with a fastening system joined to the laminate in an elastic region, as taught by Ryu, to achieve the predictable result of allowing the article to be snuggly fastened around the waist of a wearer.
With respect the laminate comprising an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laminate of Henke with an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater to achieve the predictable result of a laminate with improved strength that will not tear during wearing of the article.
With respect to an elastic region that is about 30-80% of a maximum width of the laminate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elastic region about 80% of the laminate of Henke to achieve the predictable result of a side panel that is highly elastic to provide a snug fit around the waist of the wearer.
With respect to claim 2, Henke discloses the first nonwoven comprises a spunbond layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0047].
With respect to claim 4, Henke discloses the absorbent material comprises superabsorbent polymers and wood pulp, as disclosed in paragraph [0081].
With respect to claims 5-6, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the absorbent core comprising two channels symmetrically disposed about the longitudinal axis. Ryu teaches providing the absorbent core with two channels 50 symmetrically disposed about the longitudinal axis 100, as shown in figure 1A. The channels 50 improve the flexibility of the core for an improved shape, as disclosed in column 21, lines 8-13. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the absorbent core of Henke with two channels symmetrically disposed about the longitudinal axis, as taught by Ryu, to improve the flexibility and shape of the core.
With respect to claim 7, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate comprising an Air Permeability Value of at least about 1m3/m2/min. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laminate of Henke with an Air Permeability Value of at least about 1m3/m2/min to achieve the predictable result of a laminate that is breathable to improve the comfort of the article.
With respect to claim 10, Henke discloses the laminate comprises one or more inelastic regions, as disclosed in paragraph [0031].
With respect to claim 11, Henke discloses the laminate is a gathered laminate, as shown in figure 2.
With respect to claim 12, Henke discloses in paragraph [0002] that the laminate is a side panel, or ear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ear to be disposed in a rear waist region of the article of Henke to achieve the predictable result of a fastening tab that can be pulled from the back of the wearer and fastened in the front.
With respect to claim 14, the film comprises a styrenie block copolymer, as disclosed in paragraphs [0033-0034].
With respect to claim 15, Henke discloses the film comprises a basis weight of 40 gsm, as disclosed in paragraph [0153].
With respect to claim 16, Henke discloses an absorbent article comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core, as described in paragraph [0078]. The article comprises ears (i.e. side panels), as disclosed in paragraph [0002]. The ears comprise an elastic laminate, as disclosed in paragraph [0009], the laminate being a gathered laminate, as shown in figure 2, and comprising a first nonwoven 22, a second nonwoven web 24, and a preactivated film 12, as shown in figure 3 and disclosed in paragraphs [0046] and [0060]. The laminate further comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0064]. The elastomeric laminate comprises an elastic region and an inelastic region, as disclosed in paragraph [0031]. The first and second nonwovens are spunbond nonwovens, as disclosed in paragraph [0047], and therefore are free of carded nonwoven layers.
Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a total area of the elastic region being from about 30-80% of the total area of the elastomeric laminate, and a fastening system joined to the elastomeric laminate in the elastic region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elastic region about 80% of the laminate of Henke to achieve the predictable result of a side panel that is highly elastic to provide a snug fit around the waist of the wearer.
Ryu further teaches providing an absorbent article with a fastening system 97 joined to an elastomeric laminate 94, as shown in figure 4B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Henke with a fastening system joined to the laminate in an elastic region, as taught by Ryu, to achieve the predictable result of allowing the article to be snuggly fastened around the waist of a wearer.
With respect to claim 19, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate comprising an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laminate of Henke with an Average Peak Force at Break of 26 N or greater to achieve the predictable result of a laminate with improved strength that will not tear during wearing of the article.
With respect to claim 23, the film of Henke comprises a styrenic block copolymer, as disclosed in paragraphs [0033-0034].
With respect to claim 24, the film of Henke comprises a basis weight of 40 gsm, as disclosed in paragraph [0153].
With respect to claim 27, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the elastomeric laminate having an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastomeric laminate of Henke with an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method to achieve the predictable result of an absorbent article that is elastic enough to stretch to fit a wearer while not being too extensible so that the article can provide a snug fit around the waist of the wearer.
With respect to claim 28, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the elastomeric laminate having an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastomeric laminate of Henke with an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method to achieve the predictable result of an absorbent article that is elastic enough to stretch to fit a wearer while not being too extensible so that the article can provide a snug fit around the waist of the wearer.
With respect to claim 31, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of a leg gasketing system having a portion that overlaps a portion of the elastic waist feature. Ryu teaches providing the absorbent article with a leg gasketing system 80 that overlaps the elastic waist feature 92, as shown in figure 4B, to provide a barrier against the flow of bodily exudates, as disclosed in column 14, lines 3-7. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Henke with a leg gasketing system that overlaps the elastic waist feature, as taught by Ryu, to provide a barrier against the flow of bodily exudates.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henke et al. (2014/0041786) in view of Ryu et al. (9,913,763), and further in view of Wennerback et al. (8,741,083).
With respect to claim 3, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first nonwoven comprising a SMS configuration. Wennerback teaches the use of an SMS nonwoven in a nonwoven-film laminate to provide a soft, flexible, and extensible nonwoven layer, as disclosed in column 4, lines 40-48. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first nonwoven of Henke in a SMS configuration, as taught by Wennerback, to provide a soft, flexible, and extensible nonwoven layer.
With respect to claim 17, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first nonwoven comprising a SMS configuration. Wennerback teaches the use of an SMS nonwoven in a nonwoven-film laminate to provide a soft, flexible, and extensible nonwoven layer, as disclosed in column 4, lines 40-48. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first nonwoven of Henke in a SMS configuration, as taught by Wennerback, to provide a soft, flexible, and extensible nonwoven layer.
Claim(s) 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henke et al. (2014/0041786) in view of Ryu et al. (9,913,763), and further in view of Lam et al. (2006/0287637).
With respect to claim 20, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the preactivated film having a width that is less than the width of the elastomeric laminate. Lam discloses an absorbent article having an elastomeric laminate comprising a film 74 between first and second nonwoven layers 46 wherein the film 74 has a width that is less than that of the nonwoven layers 46 and the laminate as a whole, as shown in figure 2B. Lam teaches that this configuration creates void regions in which the nonwoven layers can be bonded, as disclosed in paragraph [0059]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the width of the film of Henke less than the width of the laminate, as taught by Lam, to create areas in which the nonwoven layers can be bonded together to achieve the predictable result of areas in the laminate that can be more easily bonded to other layers of the article.
With respect to claim 30, modified Henke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the fastening system being joined to the elastomeric laminate by ultrasonic bonds. Lam teaches the use of ultrasonic bonds 43 to join a fastening system 52 to a back ear 42 of an absorbent article, as shown in figure 2A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join the fastening system of modified Henke to the elastomeric laminate by ultrasonic bonds, as taught by Lam, to use a known technique to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching the fastening system to the article.
Claim(s) 26 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroer, Jr. et al. (2009/0312736) in view of Malchow et al. (2006/0149209).
With respect to claim 26, Schroer discloses an absorbent article comprising a topsheet 8 a backsheet 10, and an absorbent core 12, as shown in figure 2. The article comprises a fastening system 38 and ears 2, as shown in figure 1, comprising an elastic laminate, the laminate comprising a first nonwoven, a second nonwoven web, and a film, disclosed in paragraphs [0015] and [0017]. The elastomeric laminate comprises an elastic region 28 and an inelastic region 26, as shown in figure 2, wherein the fastening system 38 is joined to the elastomeric laminate in the elastic region 28, as shown in figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0016]. The inelastic region 28 comprises a first inelastic region disposed laterally inboard of the elastic region 26 and a second inelastic region disposed laterally outboard of the elastic region 26, as shown in the annotated figure 2 below.
Schroer discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate having a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, and a maximum film width is less than the maximum laminate width by at least 10 mm. Malchow discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 62 joined to a chassis, as shown in figure 2, the ear comprising an elastomeric laminate of nonwoven materials and an elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph [0059], and comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The ultrasonically bonded nonwoven laminate of Malchow provides the ear with improved strength and tear resistance, as disclosed in paragraph [0064]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastomeric laminate of Schroer with a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as taught by Malchow, to achieve improved strength and tear resistance.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 29, modified Schroer discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the elastomeric laminate having an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastomeric laminate of Schroer with an average extension at 2N of between about 5-20 mm according to the Extension Test Method to achieve the predictable result of an absorbent article that is elastic enough to stretch to fit a wearer while not being too extensible so that the article can provide a snug fit around the waist of the wearer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LYNNE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights