Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/168,232

ELASTOMERIC LAMINATE WITH SOFT NONCRIMPED SPUNBOND FIBER WEBS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Feb 05, 2021
Examiner
ANDERSON, CATHARINE L
Art Unit
3781
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Procter & Gamble Company
OA Round
8 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

65%
Career Allow Rate
700 granted / 1072 resolved
Without
With
+5.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
46 pending
1118
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103 §112
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 February 2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment It is noted that claim 19 of the claim set filed 26 February 2025 does not match the previous claim set filed 12 November 2024. In the claims filed 12 November 2024, claim 19 included limitations disclosing a laminate comprising a first spunbond nonwoven, which are not present in the claim filed 26 February 2025. For purposes of examination, claim 19 will be considered as written in the claim set filed 26 February 2025. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument that Malchow teaches the percent bond area of the laminate, not the nonwoven component of the laminate, it is noted that the nonwoven component of Malchow is coextensive with the laminate and therefore the percent bond area of the laminate will also be the percent bond area of the nonwoven component. Applicant’s arguments filed 26 February 2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, the amendment filed 26 February 2025 raises new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 as described below. 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 19-20 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. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the laminate" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous reference to a laminate in claim 19 has not been included in the claim as presently written. 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, 4-12, 14-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (2007/0016155) in view of Malchow et al. (2006/0149209) and Schroer, Jr. et al. (2009/0312736). With respect to claim 1, Chang discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a first waist region 112, a second waist region 114, and a crotch region 116. A chassis comprises a topsheet 152, a backsheet, and an absorbent core 154, as disclosed in paragraph [0021]. An ear 124 is joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 1, and comprises a laminate comprising a first nonwoven 318 and an elastic material 322, as shown in figure 3. The laminate comprises an elastic region 214 and an inelastic region 218, as shown in figure 2, wherein the inelastic region is joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 1. A fastening system 1012/1018/1010 is joined to the elastic region 1016, as shown in figure 10A. Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first nonwoven being spunbond comprising a plurality of ultrasonic bonds and having an average bond area of about 7-14% or less, a basis weight of 25 gsm or less, and a fastening attachment bond that overlaps the elastomeric material. Malchow discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 62 joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 2, the ear comprising a laminate of a first spunbond nonwoven and an elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph [0059], and comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The first spunbond nonwoven has an average bond area in a range that fully encompasses the range of about 7-14%, as disclosed in paragraph [0089], and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The spunbond, ultrasonically bonded nonwoven disclosed by Malchow provides the ear with improved strength and tear resistance, as disclose din 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 make the first nonwoven of Chang a spunbond nonwoven having a plurality of ultrasonic bonds and an average bond area of about 7-14% or less, as taught by Malchow, to achieve improved strength and tear resistance. Chang, as modified by Malchow, discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the spunbond nonwoven having a basis weight of 25 gsm or less, and an inelastic region that is free from elastic material. Malchow is silent as to the basis weight, but discloses in paragraph [0081] that the material, or basis, weight of the laminate affects the strength of the bonds in the ear. Therefore, the prior art discloses that the basis weight of the material of the laminate is a result-effective variable. 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 basis weight of the nonwoven of Chang 25 gsm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Schroer discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 2 joined to a chassis 3, as shown in figure 1, the ear having an elastic region 28 and an inelastic region 26 joined to the chassis, and further comprising a fastening system 38 attached to the ear in the elastic region 28, as shown in figure 1, via a fastening attachment bond that overlaps elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph [0014]. Schroer teaches that this configuration allows for a controlled amount of stretch to the ear, as disclosed in paragraph [0016]. 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 attach the fastening system of Chang via a fastening attachment bond that overlaps the elastomeric material, as taught by Schroer, to provide for a controlled amount of stretch to the ear. With respect to claim 2, the elastomeric material of Chang comprises a film, as disclosed in paragraph [0026]. With respect to claim 4, Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the elastomeric material having a basis weight of about 10-100 gsm. Malchow is silent as to the basis weight, but discloses in paragraph [0081] that the material, or basis, weight of the laminate affects the strength of the bonds in the ear. Therefore, the prior art discloses that the basis weight of the material of the laminate is a result-effective variable. 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 basis weight of the elastomeric material of Chang in the range of about 10-100 gsm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claim 5, the ear of Chang comprises a total ear area including regions 214, 216, and 218, as shown in figure 2, wherein the elastic region 214 has an elastic region area. Chang remains silent as to how much of the total ear area the elastic region 214 comprises, but shows in figure 1 that it comprises a significant amount of the total ear area. 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 elastic region area about 80% of the total ear area to achieve the predictable result of an ear that has an elastic region of sufficient size to stretch around the waist of a wearer to provide a good fit. With respect to claim 6, neither Chang nor Malchow disclose the spunbond layer is meltblown, and therefore the spunbond layer is devoid of a meltblown layer. With respect to claim 8, Malchow teaches in Table 1 a bond width dimension of at least 1.25 mm. With respect to claim 9, Malchow teaches in Table 1 a bond thickness dimension of at least 0.5 mm. With respect to claim 10, the laminate comprises a second nonwoven comprising a spunbond layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0059]. With respect to claim 11, modified Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate comprising an air permeability value of at least 1 m3/m2/min. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to provide the laminate of Chang with an air permeability value of at least 1 m3/m2/min to achieve the predictable result of an ear that is breathable to improve the comfort of the article to the wearer. With respect to claims 12 and 17, Chang discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a first waist region 112, a second waist region 114, and a crotch region 116. A chassis comprises a topsheet 152, a backsheet, and an absorbent core 154, as disclosed in paragraph [0021]. An ear 124 is joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 1, and comprises a laminate comprising a first nonwoven 318, a second nonwoven 320, and an elastic film 322, as shown in figure 3. The laminate comprises an elastic region 214 and an inelastic region 218 free of elastic material, as shown in figure 2, wherein the inelastic region is joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 1. A fastening system 1012/1018/1010 is joined to the elastic region 1016, as shown in figure 10A. Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the first and second nonwovens being spunbond, and the first nonwoven comprising a plurality of ultrasonic bonds and having an average bond area of 14% or less. Malchow discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 62 joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 2, the ear comprising a laminate of a first spunbond nonwoven and an elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph [0059], and comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The first spunbond nonwoven has an average bond area of less than 14%, as disclosed in paragraph [0089], The spunbond, ultrasonically bonded nonwoven disclosed by Malchow provides the ear with improved strength and tear resistance, as disclose din 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 make the nonwovens of Chang a spunbond nonwoven having a plurality of ultrasonic bonds and an average bond area of less than 14%, as taught by Malchow, to achieve improved strength and tear resistance. Schroer discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 2 joined to a chassis 3, as shown in figure 1, the ear having an elastic region 28 and an inelastic region 26 joined to the chassis, and further comprising a fastening system 38 attached to the ear in the elastic region 28, as shown in figure 1, via a fastening attachment bond that overlaps the elastic region 28, as disclosed in paragraph [0014]. Schroer teaches that this configuration allows for a controlled amount of stretch to the ear, as disclosed in paragraph [0016]. 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 attach the fastening system of Chang via a fastening attachment bond that overlaps the elastic region, as taught by Schroer, to provide for a controlled amount of stretch to the ear. With respect to claim 14, the ear of Chang comprises a total ear area including regions 214, 216, and 218, as shown in figure 2, wherein the elastic region 214 has an elastic region area. Chang remains silent as to how much of the total ear area the elastic region 214 comprises, but shows in figure 1 that it comprises a significant amount of the total ear area. 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 elastic region area about 80% of the total ear area to achieve the predictable result of an ear that has an elastic region of sufficient size to stretch around the waist of a wearer to provide a good fit. With respect to claim 15, neither Chang nor Malchow disclose the spunbond layer is meltblown, and therefore the spunbond layer is devoid of a meltblown layer. With respect to claim 16, Malchow teaches in Table 1 a bond height dimension of at least 0.35 mm. With respect to claim 18, modified Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate comprising an air permeability value of at least 1 m3/m2/min. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to provide the laminate of Chang with an air permeability value of at least 1 m3/m2/min to achieve the predictable result of an ear that is breathable to improve the comfort of the article to the wearer. With respect to claim 21, the inelastic region of Chang comprises a first inelastic region 218 and a second inelastic region 216 located on opposite sides of the elastic region 214, as shown in figure 2. With respect to claim 22, the fastening system 1012/1018/1010 of Chang comprises a fastening component 1018, as shown in figure 10A. Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (2007/0016155) in view of Malchow et al. (2006/0149209), Schroer, Jr. et al. (2009/0312736), and further in view of Wennerback et al. (8,741,083). With respect to claim 3, modified Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the film comprising a preactivated film. Wennerback discloses a laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven and an elastomeric film for use in an absorbent article, and teaches activating the film to release the elasticity of the film, as disclosed in column 6, lines 30-33. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the film of Chang to comprise a preactivated film, as taught by Wennerback, to release the elasticity of the film. With respect to claim 13, modified Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the film is preactivated and has a basis weight of about 10-100 gsm. Wennerback discloses a laminate comprising a spunbond nonwoven and an elastomeric film for use in an absorbent article, and teaches activating the film to release the elasticity of the film, as disclosed in column 6, lines 30-33. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the film of Chang to comprise a preactivated film, as taught by Wennerback, to release the elasticity of the film. Malchow is silent as to the basis weight, but discloses in paragraph [0081] that the material, or basis, weight of the laminate affects the strength of the bonds in the ear. Therefore, the prior art discloses that the basis weight of the material of the laminate is a result-effective variable. 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 basis weight of the film of Chang in the range of about 10-100 gsm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (2007/0016155) in view of Malchow et al. (2006/0149209). With respect to claim 19, Chang discloses an absorbent article, as shown in figure 1, comprising a first waist region 112, a second waist region 114, and a crotch region 116. A chassis comprises a topsheet 152, a backsheet, and an absorbent core 154, as disclosed in paragraph [0021]. An ear 124 is joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 1, and comprises an elastic film 322, as shown in figure 3. The laminate comprises an elastic region 214 and an inelastic region 218 free of elastic material, as shown in figure 2. Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the laminate comprising a plurality of ultrasonic bonds. Malchow discloses an absorbent article comprising an ear 62 joined to the chassis, as shown in figure 2, the ear comprising a laminate of a first spunbond nonwoven and an elastomeric material, as disclosed in paragraph [0059], and comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as disclosed in paragraph [0063]. The spunbond, ultrasonically bonded nonwoven disclosed by Malchow provides the ear with improved strength and tear resistance, as disclose din 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 make the laminate of Chang a having a plurality of ultrasonic bonds, as taught by Malchow, to achieve improved strength and tear resistance. Modified Chang discloses all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the film total width being from about 25-85% of the laminate total width. The ear of Chang comprises a laminate total width and a film total width 214, as shown in figure 2, but remains silent as to how much of the laminate total width the film total width comprises. Chang shows in figures 2 and 10A that the film comprises a significant amount of the total laminate width. 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 film total width about 25-85% of the laminate total width to achieve the predictable result of an ear that has an elastic region of sufficient size to stretch around the waist of a wearer to provide a good fit. With respect to claim 20, the ear of Chang comprises a total ear area including regions 214, 216, and 218, as shown in figure 2, wherein the elastic region 214 has an elastic region area. Chang remains silent as to how much of the total ear area the elastic region 214 comprises, but shows in figure 1 that it comprises a significant amount of the total ear area. 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 elastic region area about 80% of the total ear area to achieve the predictable result of an ear that has an elastic region of sufficient size to stretch around the waist of a wearer to provide a good fit. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 04, 2023
Response Filed
May 23, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 18, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 24, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 25, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 16, 2023
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 08, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 12, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 23, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 23, 2026
Notice of Allowance
Mar 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12594198
DISPOSABLE WEARING ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582806
Female Catheter Guide
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575977
Composition for wet indicator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575545
PET DIAPER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558273
BREATHABLE ABSORBENT ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+5.0%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1072 resolved cases by this examiner