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 1-22 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-15, filed 12/9/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-22 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakao (WO 2014208651 A1) and Back (US 20170216105 A1).
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao (WO 2014208651 A1) in view of Back (US 20170216105 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakao teaches a pant-type garment (Fig. 2 and 4) (p. 2) having a length direction and a width direction and being divided in the length direction into a front portion (belly side portion, denoted A in Fig. 2), a back portion (dorsal side portion, denoted B in Fig. 2) and a crotch portion (Denoted C in Fig. 2) located between the front portion and the back portion, the front portion having a front waist edge extending in the width direction and a pair of opposing side edges (denoted 6a) (Fig. 2) extending in the longitudinal direction and the back portion having a back waist edge extending in the width direction and a pair of opposing side edges, extending in the longitudinal direction, the front and back portions being joined in a first and a second side seam (a pair of side seal portions formed by joining both side edge portions of the abdomen side portion and both side edge potions of the back side portion, claims 1-3) arranged in first and second side seam regions and being formed by superposed layers of the front and back portions along the opposing side edges of the front and back portions (ventral side sheet member 6A and the inner surfaces of both side edge portions 6b, 6b of the back side sheet member of 6B) , the first and second side seam regions comprising thermoplastic web material (p. 15, paragraph 3), the side seams being constituted by fused thermoplastic material extending along the side edges of the front and back portions of the pant-type garment (p. 15, paragraph 3) (claim 3),
wherein each of the side seams (denoted S in Fig. 4) has a width in the width direction of the pant-type garment in the range of from 0.3 to 1.5 millimetres (p. 11, paragraph 4), and a thickness in the range of from 0.2 to 1.5 millimeters (p. 11, paragraph 4), the thickness of the side seam being perpendicular to the width direction and the length direction of the pant type garment and in that the material of the front and back portions comprises an elastic laminate comprising an elastic film (beltlike elastic member) which is stretch-bonded between two outer nonwoven webs (outer layer sheet and inner layer sheet), the side seams being fully or partly formed in the elastic laminate (p. 3 and p. 5; fig. hange 15-16).
Nakao fails to teach the elastic film being coextensive with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs.
Back teaches an absorbent article comprising an elastic laminate. Wherein the elastic film (20) being coextensive with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs (figure 5) (paragraph [0044-0045] and [0055]). 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 garment Nakao so the elastic film being coextensive with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs similar to Back so that the elastic film extends across the garment so that the diaper may fit comfortably and snugly about the wearer for comfortability and to avoid leakage (Back, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic film is intermittently bonded between the outer nonwoven webs with a bonding pattern comprising discrete bonding elements (beltlike elastic members 105, 106, 107 fixed by an adhesive between the both sheets 131, 132 as shown in FIG. 18. Both the sheets 131, 132 are joined at predetermined positions by an adhesive agent, a heat seal or the like, see p. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein a bonded area of the elastic laminate is from 3% to 20%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bonded area of the elastic laminate shown to be the range of 3% to 20% in order to fit the particular patient since this claimed dimension of the area of bonding is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 8, line 3 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious to experiment with bonding area coverage so the garment is secure against force, however still stretchable.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic laminate has a material thickness and wherein a ratio ts/tm between the thickness of the side seam and the material thickness is in the range of from 1.0 to 1.3 (ratio is 1.0 when the same all the way across) , as measured by the method as disclosed herein (T2 remains the same thickness across)(figure 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic film is severed along the side seams and a non-elastic area extends along 60% to 100%, of each of the side seams (100% of side seem, figure 9), the non-elastic area having a width on each side of the side seam of from 0.7 millimetres to 20 millimetres (page 11: The thickness T1 of the side seal portion S is preferably 0.2 mm or more, more preferably 0.25 mm or more, preferably 2 mm or less, more preferably 1.5 mm or less).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the side seams are located on a garment facing surface of the pant-type garment (see Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 0.7 to 1.5 (the width W of the fusion bonded part 140 is preferably 95%or less, more preferably 50% or less, preferably 10% or more, more preferably 30%or more of the thickness T, see p. 6)
Regarding Claim 8, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein each side seams has a generally rectangular cross- sectional area (S, when laid flat, would create rectangular cross- sectional area) along 60% to 100% of the length of the side seams in the longitudinal direction of the pant-type garment (runs completely down side of diaper until leg hole) (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic laminate constitutes a cover material (outer casing), the cover material forming all or part of an outer cover of the pant-type garment (p. 5) .
Regarding Claim 10, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 9. Nakao further teaches wherein the cover material (outer casing) is a single, unitary cover web (103) comprising a front portion (131), a back portion (132) and a crotch portion (102) between the front portion and the back portion (figure. 15).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 9. Nakao further teaches wherein the cover material comprises a front panel web (131) and a back panel web(132) the front panel web and the back panel web being separate webs and being joined by a crotch material (4) (figure 15).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein at least one nonwoven web which is involved in forming the sides seams of the pant-type garment comprises at least one spunbond layer and optionally at least one meltblown layer (p. 15, paragraph 3: the nonwoven fabric include air-through nonwoven fabric, heat roll nonwoven fabric, spun lace nonwoven fabric, spunbond nonwoven fabric, and melt blown nonwoven fabric.).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the thermoplastic material in the areas of the side seams comprises or consists of polypropylene and/or polyethylene (p. 15, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the pant-type garment comprises a waist elastic feature extending along all or part of one or both of the front waist edge and the back waist edge (abdominal elastic member, 80a).
Regarding Claim 15, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic film is severed along the side seams and a non-elastic area extends along 80% to 100% of each of the side seams (100% of side seam, figure 9), the non-elastic area having a width on each side of the side seam of from 0.9 millimetres to 5 millimetres (page 11: the side seal portion S is in the range of 1 mm to 10 mm).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 0.9 to 1.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 0.9 to 1.2 in order to fit the size need of the patient . Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3, line 26 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious include a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 0.9 to 1.2 so that the thickness is approximately even all the way around to prevent further irritation on the skin.
Regarding Claim 17, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastic laminate has a material thickness and wherein a ratio ts/tm between the thickness of the side seam and the material thickness is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elastic laminate has a material thickness and wherein a ratio ts/tm between the thickness of the side seam and the material thickness is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.3 since it is shown that is not critical to have the range ratio be above 1.0. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3, lines 24-26 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious include a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.3 so that the thickness is approximately even all the way around to prevent further irritation on the skin.
Regarding Claim 18, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastic laminate has a material thickness and wherein a ratio ts/tm between the thickness of the side seam and the material thickness is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elastic laminate has a material thickness and wherein a ratio ts/tm between the thickness of the side seam and the material thickness is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.2 since it is shown that is not critical to have the range ratio be above 1.0. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 3, lines 24-26 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious include a ratio of the width of the side seams to the thickness of the side seams is in the range of from 1.1 to 1.2 so that the thickness is approximately even all the way around to prevent further irritation on the skin.
Regarding Claim 19, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 2. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein a bonded area of the elastic laminate is from 3% to 15%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bonded area of the elastic laminate shown to be the range of 3% to 15% in order to fit the particular patient since this claimed dimension of the area of bonding is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 8, line 3 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious to experiment with bonding area coverage so the garment is secure against force, however still stretchable.
Regarding Claim 20, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 2. Nakao fails to explicitly teach wherein a bonded area of the elastic laminate is from 4% to 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bonded area of the elastic laminate shown to be the range of 4% to 10% in order to fit the particular patient since this claimed dimension of the area of bonding is non-critical. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see page 8, line 3 of applicants specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777. It would be obvious to experiment with bonding area coverage so the garment is secure against force, however still stretchable.
Regarding Claim 21, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao further teaches wherein the elastic film (105, 106, 107) extends through an entirety of the front and back portions (figure 14).
Regarding Claim 22, Nakao in view of Back teaches the pant-type garment according to claim 1. Nakao fails to teach wherein the elastic film is continuous with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs.
Back teaches an absorbent article comprising an elastic laminate. Wherein the elastic film (20) being coextensive with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs (figure 5) (paragraph [0044-0045] and [0055]). 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 garment Nakao so the elastic film being coextensive with a majority of the two outer nonwoven webs similar to Back so that the elastic film extends across the garment so that the diaper may fit comfortably and snugly about the wearer for comfortability and to avoid leakage (Back, paragraph [0002]).
Conclusion
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