DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/3/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 17-23 have been cancelled. Claim 11 has been amended. Claims 11 and 15-16 are pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0128366), hereinafter SCHNEIDER, in view of MORITANI (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0312144).
Regarding claim 11, SCHNEIDER teaches: A production method for producing a composite web, for making absorbent sanitary articles (SCHNEIDER teaches a method for producing a composite web for making absorbent articles [Abstract].), comprising the following steps: feeding a first continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches feeding a first continuous web (202) [Fig. 2; 0097].), feeding a second continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches feeding a second continuous web (200a) [Fig. 2; 0100].), cutting and then spacing the second continuous web to obtain segments of the second continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches cutting and spacing the second continuous web to obtain segments (200) of the second continuous web [Fig. 2; 0097].), after the cutting and spacing steps, molding each of the segments of the second continuous web to obtain at least one molded segment of the second continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches after cutting and spacing, molding each segment with a pattern from the pattern roll (340) [Fig. 2; 0115].), the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web having at least one protrusion delimited at least partly by a base portion (SCHNEIDER teaches the pattern roll (340) may have various quantities and/or shapes of bonding surface (356) and that such bonding surfaces (356) may be positioned in various locations on the pattern roll (340), as shown in Figs. 11, 11A, 12 and 13; 0131]. For example, in Figure 13, the first region (234) and the second region (236) are cavities with bonds and/or bond regions (242).). teaches at least one protrusion delimited at least party by a base portion,), wherein the molding is performed by passing the segments between opposing first and second drums (SCHNEIDER teaches the molding may be performed by passing the segments between a first opposing drum (340) and a second drum (322/326) [Fig. 2; 0132].), wherein one of the first and second drums has a male pattern positioned on an external surface thereof and the other of the first and second drums has a corresponding female pattern positioned on an external surface thereof such passing the segments between the first and second drums embosses the pattern onto the segments to form the molded segments (SCHNEIDER teaches one of the first and second drums has a male pattern (358) positioned on an external surface [Figs. 11, 11A, 2, 9A; 0126]. SCHNEIDER teaches one of the first and second drums corresponds to a female pattern positioned on an external surface [0132]. SCHNEIDER teaches the bonding elements (358) on the pattern roll (340) may be configured to intermesh with the numbs (336) protruding from the rims (330b, 332b) of the first and second disks (330, 332) [0132].), feeding the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web directly to an exposed side of the first continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches feeding the segments directly to an exposed side of the first continuous web [Fig. 2; 0125].), . . . , wherein the first continuous web and the molded segments move in a same direction at the joining (SCHNEIDER teaches the first continuous web and segments move in the same direction (horizontal) at the joining [Fig. 2; 0126].), wherein the step of joining the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web to the first continuous web comprises a step of ultrasonically welding the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web to the first continuous web at least at the base portion (SCHNEIDER teaches the step of joining may comprise ultrasonic welding the segments to the first continuous web [Fig. 2; 0166; 0129-0130].).
SCHNEIDER does not explicitly teach: the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web having at least one protrusion delimited at least partly by a base portion and joining the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web to the first continuous web at the base portion to delimit at least one cavity between the first continuous web and the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web at the at least one protrusion. In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, MORITANI teaches a patterned embossing roller (91) and a squeeze roll (90) [0132; 0134]. MORITANI teaches a web (30S) is embossed [0134; Fig. 12]. MORITANI teaches at least one protrusion delimited at least partly by a base portion and joining the base portion of the embossed web (30S) to another web (40S) to delimit at least one cavity between the two webs at the at least one protrusion [Figs. 12, 18(a); 0135]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER, by having the patterned roll and the squeeze roller in SCHNIEDER form the pattern, as suggested by MORITANI, in order to prevent wrinkles [0135].
Regarding claim 16, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web includes a discrete succession of molded segments of the second continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches at least one molded segment of the second continuous substrate (200a) includes a discrete succession of molded segments (200) of the second continuous substrate (200a) [Fig. 2; 0097]), the step of joining the at least on molded segment of the second continuous web to the first continuous web comprises a step of joining the discrete succession of molded segments of the second continuous web to the first continuous web (SCHNEIDER teaches joining the segments (200) in discrete succession to the first continuous substrate (202) [Fig. 2; 0166; 0129-0130]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNEIDER et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0128366), hereinafter SCHNEIDER, and MORITANI (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0312144), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Marchke (U.S. 6,311,754), hereinafter MARSCHKE.
Regarding claim 15, SCHNEIDER and MORITANI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the step of joining the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web to the first continuous web comprises a step of disposing a layer of adhesive between the at least one molded segment of the second continuous web and the first continuous web. In the same field of endeavor, webs, MARSCHKE teaches joining at molded segment to the first continuous web (26) comprises a step of disposing a layer of adhesive (24) between the molded segment and the first continuous web (26) [Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 40-51]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER and MORITANI, by having adhesive applied between the molded segment and the first continuous web, as suggested by MARSCHKE, in order to bond the tips with the liner web [Col. 3, lines 1-2]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesive for bonding between the webs, as it’s a known method in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748