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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment was filed on 06/08/2026. Claims 1 and 24 have been amended, and claims 8 and 21 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1, 4-5, 11-18, and 24 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are considered moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Notably, in response to the amendment to claim 24, newly cited Bivigou-Koumba (WO 2015038977) is utilized to explicitly teach the elastic fiber being entrapped in the laminate using ultrasonic methods.
In response to the applicant’s argument that molecular weight being measured in grams/mole is known in the art, the examiner withdraws the claim objection. However, it will be assumed that prior art citing unitless molecular weight is a sufficient teaching for a molecular weight in grams/mol
In response to the applicant’s argument that the average molecular weight range of 450-1600 grams/mole is critical to achieving the desired results of the present invention, wherein when a polyol having a number average molecular weight is used towards the higher end of the required range, and ultimately outside the required range, less desirable results are produced, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the ranges of 450-1800, 450-1600, and 450-1400 grams/mol shows desirable results, the fact that the results may be achieved past the 450-1600 grams/mol range (e.g., with the 450-1800 grams/mol range) appears to demonstrate that the range is not critical.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 11-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20110174317) in view of Yoshizato (US 20190249005).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses an elasticized nonwoven laminate (paragraph 0076 describes a laminate structure of two nonwoven substrates sandwiching spandex elastomeric fibers recovering from extensions as great as 350%, paragraph 0076) comprising a high recovery power elastic fiber (paragraph 0076 describes the spandex in complete recovery) and a nonwoven laminate (paragraph 0076 describes two outer layers of nonwovens and an inner layer of the elastic),
wherein the fiber is adhesively bonded to the nonwoven laminate using a hot melt adhesive (paragraph 0078 of Martin teaches the adhesion of the fiber to the laminate via hot melt adhesive)
but fails to teach an elasticized nonwoven laminate comprises said high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber, wherein the polyurethane elastic fiber is prepared from a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound, wherein the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1600 g/mol, wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle of at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex.
However, Yoshizato teaches a high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber (paragraph 0003, “Polyurethane elastic fibers possess high elongation and superior elasticity”).
Moreover, Yoshizato teaches wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber comprises a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound (paragraph 0041 describes the polyurethane polymerized from polyol, organic diisocyanate compound, and diamine compound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin such that the elasticized nonwoven laminate uses a high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber, wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber comprises a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound, as taught and suggested by Yoshizato, for the purpose of providing a suitable material known for high elongation and superior elasticity (see Yoshizato, paragraph 0003).
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, is silent to wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle, or at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex, and does not teach wherein the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1600.
However, Yoshizato teaches wherein the polyol has a molecular weight ranging from 200-4000 (paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin such that the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1600, as taught by Yoshizato, since the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0008 describes the ranges of the average molecular weight as a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, does not explicitly teach that a molar ratio of the organic diisocyanate compound to the polyol is greater than 1 but less than 1.7.
However, Yoshizato teaches that such a ratio may range from 1.01-21 of the diol , preferably between 1.3-1.8 (paragraph 0083).
Moreover, applicant appears to have not placed criticality on the claimed range, in fact citing that, in a non-limiting embodiment, the molar ratio would be greater than 1 but less than 2 (paragraph 00025), thus suggesting that the molar ratio being less than 1.7 is non-critical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin in view of Yoshizato such that the molar ratio is between 1 and 1.7, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, is silent to wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle, or at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex.
However, because the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber in Yoshizato comprises the same structure as the fiber described in the instant specification (paragraph 0093 describes a high-molecular polyol, a diisocyanate, a diamine, and a terminal stopper having a monofunctional active hydrogen atom, and also the range as modified above), and products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, In re Spada, 9111 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, discloses wherein the elastic fiber has a decitex of 540-1880 (paragraph 0063), does not teach wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber has a decitex of 30-1500.
However, because the decitex of any material can be adjusted by adding more or less material to the overall yarn, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of achieving the same decitex using the elastic fiber taught in Yoshizato.
Moreover, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 00017 describes the ranges being a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, discloses wherein the elastic fiber has a decitex of 540-1880 (paragraph 0063), does not teach wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber has a decitex of 33-1100.
However, because the decitex of any material can be adjusted by adding more or less material to the overall yarn, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of achieving the same decitex using the elastic fiber taught in Yoshizato.
Moreover, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 00017 describes the ranges being a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Martin, as modified by Yoshioka, discloses an article of manufacture, at least of portion of which comprises the elasticized nonwoven laminate of claim 1 (Paragraph 0002 of Martin teaches the use of the composite structure as a whole in disposable hygiene products such as diapers, and Martin in view of Yoshioka discloses the nonwoven laminate of claim 1 in the analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses the article of manufacture which is a disposable hygiene product, disposable diaper, training pant or adult incontinence device or product; a catamenial device, garments or product; a bandage, wound dressing, surgical drape, surgical gown, surgical or other hygienic protective mask, hygienic gloves, head covering, head band, ostomy bag, bed pad or bed sheet (paragraph 0002 of Martin describes the use in diapers).
Regarding claim 13, Martin discloses the article which is a disposable diaper or training pant (paragraph 0002 of Martin describes the use in diapers).
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses wherein the elasticized nonwoven laminate is positioned at a front panel, back panel, side panel, leg cuff, leg hole, belly band and/or waist band of the diaper or training pant (paragraph 0039 of Martin, “Such elements can include, for example, front, back and side panels, leg cuffs, and/or waist bands of diapers or training pants)
Regarding claim 15, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, discloses said method comprising adhering a high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber to with the nonwoven laminate (Yoshizato discloses the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber, and Martin discloses where the elastic fiber is juxtaposed with the nonwoven laminate in paragraph 0076)
Regarding claim 16, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, is silent to wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle, or at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex.
However, because the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber in Yoshizato comprises the same structure as the fiber described in the instant specification (paragraph 0093 describes a high-molecular polyol, a diisocyanate, a diamine, and a terminal stopper having a monofunctional active hydrogen atom), and products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, In re Spada, 9111 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, discloses wherein the elastic fiber has a decitex of 540-1880 (paragraph 0063), does not teach wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber has a decitex of 30-1500.
However, because the decitex of any material can be adjusted by adding more or less material to the overall yarn, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of achieving the same decitex using the elastic fiber taught in Yoshizato.
Moreover, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 00017 describes the ranges being a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, discloses wherein the elastic fiber has a decitex of 540-1880 (paragraph 0063), does not teach wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber has a decitex of 33-1100.
However, because the decitex of any material can be adjusted by adding more or less material to the overall yarn, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of achieving the same decitex using the elastic fiber taught in Yoshizato.
Moreover, the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 00017 describes the ranges being a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Yoshizato and further in view of Bivigou-Koumba (WO 2015038977).
Regarding claim 24, Martin discloses an elasticized nonwoven laminate (paragraph 0076 describes a laminate structure of two nonwoven substrates sandwiching spandex elastomeric fibers recovering from extensions as great as 350%, paragraph 0076) comprising a high recovery power elastic fiber (paragraph 0076 describes the spandex in complete recovery) and a nonwoven laminate (paragraph 0076 describes two outer layers of nonwovens and an inner layer of the elastic),
wherein the fiber is adhesively bonded to the nonwoven laminate using a hot melt adhesive (paragraph 0078 of Martin teaches the adhesion of the fiber to the laminate via hot melt adhesive)
but fails to teach an elasticized nonwoven laminate comprises said high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber, wherein the polyurethane elastic fiber is prepared from a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound, wherein the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1800 g/mol, wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle of at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex.
However, Yoshizato teaches a high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber (paragraph 0003, “Polyurethane elastic fibers possess high elongation and superior elasticity”).
Moreover, Yoshizato teaches wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber comprises a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound (paragraph 0041 describes the polyurethane polymerized from polyol, organic diisocyanate compound, and diamine compound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin such that the elasticized nonwoven laminate uses a high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber, wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber comprises a polyol, an organic diisocyanate compound, and a diamine compound, as taught and suggested by Yoshizato, for the purpose of providing a suitable material known for high elongation and superior elasticity (see Yoshizato, paragraph 0003).
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, is silent to wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle, or at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex, and does not teach wherein the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1800.
However, Yoshizato teaches wherein the polyol has a molecular weight ranging from 200-4000 (paragraph 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin such that the polyol has a minimum number average molecular weight of 450 and a maximum of 1600, as taught by Yoshizato, since the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (paragraph 0008 describes the ranges of the average molecular weight as a nonlimiting embodiment), and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, does not explicitly teach a weight by weight ratio of the polyol to the organic diisocyanate is about 1.86:1.00 to about 3.66:1.00.
However, Yoshizato teaches the molar ratio of the organic diisocyanate to the polyol having a range as large as between 1.01-2.1 (paragraph 0083). Moreover, the diol/polyol may have an average molecular weight ranging from 200-4000 grams/mol (paragraph 0056). The factors of the molecular weight of the polyol and the molar ratio between the diisocyanate and the polyol both define the weight by weight ratio of the polyol to the organic diisocyanate, and grant a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin in view of Yoshizato such that a weight by weight ratio of the polyol to the organic diisocyanate is about 1.86:1.00 to about 3.66:1.00, since it has been held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the given weight by weight ratio with a reasonable expectation of success based on a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to Yoshizato’s recognized need or problem.
Martin, as modified by Yoshizato, is silent to wherein the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber exhibits a normalized recovery force, expressed as the recovery power at 200% elongation of the 5th unload cycle, or at least 0.023 centinewtons per decitex.
However, the high recovery power polyurethane elastic fiber in Yoshizato comprises the same structure as the fiber described in the instant specification (paragraph 0093 describes a high-molecular polyol, a diisocyanate, a diamine, and a terminal stopper having a monofunctional active hydrogen atom, and also the ranges as modified above), and products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, In re Spada, 9111 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martin discloses wherein the elastic fiber is entrapped within the nonwoven laminate (paragraph 0034), but is silent to wherein the elastic fiber is entrapped in or juxtaposed within the nonwoven laminate using ultrasonic or thermos-mechanical methods.
However, Bivigou-Koumba teaches wherein in a laminate structure, the elastic fiber may be adhered by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding (claim 4, also see pg. 1, 3rd paragraph that describes the elastomeric fiber laminated between two or more layers of nonwovens describing the fiber entrapped within the nonwoven laminate)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Martin such that the elastic fiber is entrapped in or juxtaposed within the nonwoven laminate using ultrasonic or thermos-mechanical methods, as taught by Bivigou-Koumba, for the purpose of providing a suitable means of forming a laminate with an elastic fiber known in the art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRANDON W LEVY whose telephone number is (571)272-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM- 4:00 PM.
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 5712705879. 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.
/Brandon W. Levy/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights