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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 9 – 10 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 & 3 – 9 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 5, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldauf (U.S. Patent No. 5,769,993), in view of Schönbeck et al. (US 2014/0330234 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Baldauf teaches an elastic (i.e., “stretchable”) multilayer web of material, which may be used as a diaper (Col. 1, Lines 30 – 32), wherein the multilayer web consists of a flexible elastic backing film (13) (i.e., “elastic layer”) made of thermoplastic elastomer and a web of nonwoven material (11) bonded in a wavy (corrugated) manner to both the top and bottom sides of the backing film in an unstretched state (“reserve region…for enabling stretching”) (Fig. 2 below), whereby the elastic backing film and web of nonwoven material are welded together and the weld bonds are distributed over the web of material (i.e., “predetermined direction”) in the form of grip arrangements of spot welding points (22) (i.e., “connecting regions”) (abstract & Col. 1, Lines 6 – 13, Col. 4, Lines 10 – 13). The regions between the spot-welding points are interruptions of connecting regions (See Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
176
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baldauf teach the welding is preferably performed in such a way that the total area of the spot welding points relative to the stretched area of the backing film yields a ratio of 0.5 to 5:10 (0.5 to 5%) (Col. 3, Lines 3 – 16). In other words, the interruptions occupy 95% or more of the total area of the connecting regions. However, Baldauf teach this is a preference and not a requirement of the invention. As such, Baldauf does not teach against Applicant’s claimed range of 5 – 80%.
Baldauf fails to teach the interruption occupy 5 – 80% of the total area of the connection regions.
Schönbeck et al. teach a diaper (paragraph [0001]) comprising a corrugated surface on a film that has hills and furrows., wherein adhesive is pushed into furrows during a bonding step, it increases contact points and hence bonding area. The more bonding surface translates into higher peel force (paragraph [0115]). The peel is often indicator of product robustness. Good bonding between the film and substrate prevents delamination of the substrate or the film during product use (paragraph [00116]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Schönbeck et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the bonding area (and thus occupation area of interruptions based on a total area of connection area) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired peel force for preventing delamination of the corrugated nonwoven material and the backing film taught by Baldauf. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Baldauf teaches the spot welding points (22) (i.e., “connecting regions”) are formed as rows front lines that are straight (23) (i.e., “have a rectilinear extent”) (Fig. 4 shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
390
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Baldauf teaches an unstretched form in Fig. 2 and a stretched form in Fig. 3 (shown below), suggesting a tensile direction in the machine direction and welding points aligned (extended) in the transverse (perpendicular) direction of tensile direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
176
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
196
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 5, as shown in Fig. 4 below, Baldauf teaches the spot welding points (“the connecting regions”) (22) are configured as front lines (23) (“interrupted lines”), and the distance (“spacing”) between front lines (“interrupted lines”) is between 7 and 10 mm (Col. 3, Lines 38 – 42), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of “at least one of more than 1 (mm)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 8, Baldauf teaches nonwoven web 11 is attached to the top side of the backing film (“elastic layer”) and a nonwoven web 12 (“further layer made of nonwoven”) is attached bottom side of the backing film (Fig. 3 above).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldauf & Schönbeck et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Young et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,626,571).
With regard to claim 6, Baldauf fails to teach the layer made of nonwoven is composed of a hydroentangled nonwoven fabric, and the nonwoven fabric has a specific weight of 10 to 80 g/m2.
Young et al. teach absorbent articles, such as diapers (Col. 12, Line 43), which comprises a nonwoven fabric that has a basis weight of about 7.5 gsy to about 27 gsy for desired strength and coverage (Col. 1, Lines 32 – 36). Furthermore, when a carded and hydroentangled nonwoven is employed as a base nonwoven to be permanently mechanically stretched, the higher basis weight to be necessary in order for the stretched nonwoven to have a desired cross-machine direction tensile strength. For example, a basis weight of a hydroentangled base nonwoven that provides tensile strength of at least about 300 g/in after stretching is typically in the range of about 30 gsy to about 50 gsy (Col. 6, Lines 31 – 44). The unit of gsy (grams per square yard) is approximately equivalent to grams per square meter.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Young et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the nonwoven fabric layers for the diaper material taught by Baudauf using a hydroentanglement method and formed to have a basis weight in the range of 7.5 to 50 gsm (g/m2) for providing tensile strength of at least 300 g/in in the cross-machine direction.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldauf & Schönbeck et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angeli et al. (US 2018/0345641 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Baldauf fails to teach the elastic layer is a multi-layered construction and comprises a core layer and at least one further layer.
Angeli et al. teach a diaper product comprising an elastic layer (F) and nonwoven layers (T1 & T2). The elastic layer is a multi-layered construction and includes a core layer (F2) and at least one further layer (F1) formed of different polymer materials and of different thicknesses for achieving optimal performance in terms of elasticity and strength, (abstract, paragraphs [0027] – [0028] & [0080] – [0081], Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
334
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teaching of Angeli et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to form the elastic layer taught by Baldauf as a three-layer construction comprising an inner layer (“core layer”) and at least one further layer, for optimizing elasticity and strength of the elastic layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “…Schönbeck does not disclose any quantitative control of the bonded-area ratio. This reference merely mentions continuous or discontinuous adhesive patterns (‘lines, spirals, spots’) without defining any percentage of bonded surface.
“Applicant notes that the ‘lines’ or ‘furrows’ in Schönbeck are activation zones of the elastomeric film, not connecting regions between the film and the nonwoven and are not related to adhesive bonding. This reference focuses on surface structuring to increase contact points rather than defining a controlled, limited bonding area” (Remarks, Pg. 5).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, paragraph [0115] of Schönbeck explicitly teaches the following (emphasis provided by the Examiner):
[0115] The pre-activated film of Example 2 showed higher bonding force compared to the un-activated film of Example 1. Even though both samples tested are 1'' wide, the wrinkles in the pre-activated sample provides a larger bonding surface compared to the un-activated film. The corrugated surface on the film (wrinkles in the skin) has hills and furrows. As adhesive is pushed into the furrows during bonding step, it increases contact points and hence bonding area. The more the bonding surface area translates into higher peel force. The stretch laminating process uses nipping after adhesive application to create a stronger bond. Having furrows and hills on the film surface therefore enhances the bond properties.
As shown in paragraph [0115] above, Schönbeck teach a corrugated skin (layer) adhered to a film (layer) via an adhesive at contact points, which is bonding area between said corrugated layer and said film area. Furthermore, Schönbeck teaches a direct relationship between the bonding area and the peel force (i.e., bond properties) between the corrugated layer and the film layer adhered thereto. A person of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the adjustment of a bonding area between a corrugated layer and a film area the numerator of Applicant’s “bonding-area ratio,” and therefore adjustment of the bonding area between the layers is “quantitative control of the bonding-area ratio.”
Second, as shown in paragraph [0115], Schönbeck teaches the contact points (connecting regions) are at the furrow (dip) in the corrugated layer where the adhesive joining the layers, which is similar to the structural feature shown in Fig. 2 of Baldauf. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Schönbeck to the structure in Fig. 2 of Baldauf.
Applicant argues, “Further, the nonwoven layer in Schönbeck is not corrugated and does not provide pre-formed reserved regions for stretchability.
“Schönbeck also fails to disclose interrupted connecting regions extending in a predetermined direction. Instead, the discontinuity mentioned in Schönbeck only refers to the adhesion application pattern, not to structural interruptions that control stretch behavior” (Remarks, Pg. 5).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, paragraph [0115] of Schönbeck explicitly teaches the following (emphasis provided by the Examiner):
[0115] The pre-activated film of Example 2 showed higher bonding force compared to the un-activated film of Example 1. Even though both samples tested are 1'' wide, the wrinkles in the pre-activated sample provides a larger bonding surface compared to the un-activated film. The corrugated surface on the film (wrinkles in the skin) has hills and furrows. As adhesive is pushed into the furrows during bonding step, it increases contact points and hence bonding area. The more the bonding surface area translates into higher peel force. The stretch laminating process uses nipping after adhesive application to create a stronger bond. Having furrows and hills on the film surface therefore enhances the bond properties.
As shown in Figure [0115] above, Schönbeck teach a corrugated skin (layer) adhered to a film (layer) via an adhesive at contact points, which is bonding area between said corrugated layer and said film area. Furthermore, Schönbeck teaches a direct relationship between the bonding area and the peel force (i.e., bond properties) between the corrugated layer and the film layer adhered thereto. Therefore, based on the teachings of Schonbeck, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the contact points (bonding area) between a corrugated layer and a film layer, such as taught by the primary reference of Baldauf, for achieving the desired peel force (i.e., bonding properties) between said layers.
Second, with regard to Applicant’s assertion that Schönbeck does not teach pre-formed regions for stretchability, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below). See MPEP 2144.IV.
Applicant argues, “Further, the technical mechanism is entirely different in Schönbeck. Claim 1 in the present case relies on the synergy of (i) a corrugated nonwoven with reserve regions, (ii) interrupted connecting regions, and (iii) a controlled bonded-area ceiling – not further limited to 80% or less for interruptions in the connecting regions.
“Applicant notes that the claimed range for the bonded-area ratio (5 – 80%) is a functional control variable that governs the mechanical interaction between the elastic layer and the corrugated nonwoven. Applicant has found that below approximately 5%, insufficient load transfer occurs, leading to local delamination and uncontrolled relative movement of the nonwoven. Above roughly 80%, the nonwoven’s corrugation is flattened, eliminating the stretch reserve and resulting in excessive stiffness. Only within the claimed interval does the laminate exhibit a non-linear, balanced stress-strain response – high recovery force combined with soft tactile feel. This was discovered by the inventors based on a number of test factors not suggested by delamination issue alleged in the Action to be suggested by Schönbeck” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, as discussed above, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
Second, Applicant’s arguments do not appear to be supported by their specification. The specification does not teach or suggest a maximum of 80% interruption area to be a special value, especially considering the specification explicitly teaches the interruptions should be “less than 90% by area, preferably 80% by area, in particular less than 70% by area, in relation to the total area of the connecting region” (spec, pg. 3). The specification does not provide an explanation for the preferred maximum of 90%. Furthermore, contrary to Applicant’s argument, the specification does not teach or discuss what happens to the elastic diaper element when the interruption area is above 80%.
Third, Applicant appears to be arguing their claimed bonded-area ratio achieves unexpected results, without explicitly using those exact words. However, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d). For the reasons given above, Applicant has failed to show criticality of the claimed range.
Applicant argues, “Further, the claimed parameters and range cannot be identified by routine experimentation. A laminate’s mechanical response is highly non-linear – small variations in bonded area produce disproportionate changes in elasticity, residual set, and peel strength. These effects depend on numerous interrelated parameters (adhesive viscosity, line geometry, web pressure, nonwoven grammage, and elastic modulus). The inventors performed extensive iterative testing before establishing the stable in the present case, and this is beyond what could be reasonably suggested by routine experimentation based on Schönbeck” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the discussion above regarding the lack of necessity for prior art to suggest the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant and the lack of evidence of unexpected results.
Applicant argues, “Claims 3 – 5 and 8 depend from claim 1 and would be similarly patentable over these references” (Remarks, Pg. 6).
“As to claims 6 and 7, neither Young nor Angeli address the deficiencies in Baldauf and Schönbeck, nor does the Action allege this, because neither Young nor Angeli discloses a diaper element comprising connecting regions between the elastic layer and the layer made of the nonwoven with interruptions occupying between 5% and 80% of the total area of the connecting regions, as required by claim 1” (Remarks, Pg. 7).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781