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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11 and 13-16 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Terada only needs to provide motivation to modify Zinc, not teach all the features of the claim language. The examiner admits that the fibres have different properties, but the act of embossing still has the same result of creating raised 3 dimensional patterns. These 2 dimensional patterns serve the same purpose in Terada as it would in Zinc.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the combination fails to teach embossing between strands, the examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,particular properties of the strands) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Overall, there is nothing within the claim language that prevents Terada for being used to provide motivation for embossing in-between strands.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink (US 20180092785 A1) in view of Daponte (US 4863779 A) in view of Terada (JP 2012233276 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Zink teaches a method comprising: stretching a plurality of elastic strands (paragraph [0142]), positioning the strands between two or more nonwoven facing layers (fig. 3A);
attaching the stretched strands to the two or more nonwoven facing layers to form an elastic laminate thereby partially relaxing the elastic laminate (paragraph [0142]);
embossing the relaxed elastic laminate (paragraph [0097]).
Zink fails to teach the embossing step is performed by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls and wherein the embossing occurs only between strands.
Daponte teaches a composite elastic material wherein the embossing step is performed by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls (column 15, lines 42-47). 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 modify embossing step of Zink by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls similar to Daponte so the pattern will remain smooth.
Zink and Daponte fail to teach wherein the embossing occurs only between strands. Terada teaches a method of obtaining a stretchable fabric wherein the embossing occurs only between strands (page 10, paragraph 10 “the bondsbetween the fibers at the contact points are in the bonded portion between the first fiber layer and thesecond fiber layer. Unlike adhesion by hot pressing (such as embossing), it is preferable that the adhesion point is formed only at the contact point between the fibers.”). 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 modify Zinc in view of Daponte so the embossing only occurs between strands, similar to Terada, so the formation of a bellows-like or spiral three-dimensional structure in the convex protrusions is suppressed when the fibers are strongly fixed and their degree of freedom is greatly deprived as in to prevent the structure from deforming and creating an undesirable shape. The adhesion point allows for the fibers to be held in place, maintaining ideal shape (as motivated by Terada, page 10, paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 13, Zink in view of Daponte and Terada teaches the elastic strand laminate of claim 11. Zink further teaches wherein the patterned elastic laminate is used in an absorbent article (paragraph [0002])).
Regarding Claim 14, Zink in view of Daponte and Terada teaches a method, comprising: stretching a plurality elastic strands (paragraph [0142]);
positioning the strands between two or more nonwoven facing layers (fig. 3A) and attaching the stretched strands to the facing layers to form an elastic laminate (paragraph [0142]);
keeping the elastic strands in the stretched state (paragraph [0142]); and relaxing (paragraph [0142]) and embossing the relaxed elastic laminate (paragraph [0097]) wherein the embossing occurs only between strands (paragraph [0097]).
Zink fails to teach the relaxing and embossing step is performed by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls.
Daponte teaches a composite elastic material wherein the embossing step is performed by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls and wherein the embossing occurs only between strands (column 15, lines 42-47). 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 modify embossing step of Zink by passing it through the nip of an anvil set of rolls similar to Daponte so the pattern will remain smooth.
Regarding Claim 16, Zink in view of Daponte and Terada teaches the method of claim 14. Zinc further teaches wherein the patterned elastic laminate is used in an absorbent article (paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zink (US 20180092785 A1) in view of (Daponte (US 4863779 A) in view of Terada (JP 2012233276 A) in view of Van Gompel (US 6193701 B1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zink in view of Daponte and Terada teaches the method of claim 14. Zink fails to teach wherein embossing the relaxed elastic laminate is done by passing it through the nip of a pattern set of rolls. Van Gompel teaches wherein embossing the relaxed elastic laminate is done by passing it through the nip of a pattern set of rolls (column 3, lines 30-31). 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 modify the process of embossing the laminate of Zink to include by passing it through the nip of a pattern set of rolls similar to that disclosed by Zink so that the first zone has a different resistance-to-stretch than the second zone (column 3, lines 30-31).
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 KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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 on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights