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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 of the claims recite “to the a”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro (US 2017/0231837).
With reference to claim 1, Tashiro discloses an absorbent garment (i.e., disposable diaper) comprising:
a longitudinal direction (Y), a lateral direction (X), and a central lateral axis (figure 2);
a front region (1), a back region (2), a crotch region (3), the crotch region being disposed between the front region and the back region (figure 2), the crotch region including an absorbent assembly (30);
the absorbent assembly including a skin-facing liner (32) and an absorbent composite (31), the absorbent assembly also includes a front edge, a back edge and a pair of laterally-opposed side edges (figure 2);
a front panel in the front region (10), wherein the front panel includes an inner layer (41), an outer layer (42), a softened material layer (44), and an elastic area (43) disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer (figure 3),
a portion of the front panel being folded over forming a front waist edge about a front fold line, wherein a portion of the softened material is folded over the front fold line (figure 11a),
a back panel in the back region (20), wherein the back panel includes an inner layer (41), an outer layer (42), a softened material layer (44), and an elastic area (43) disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer (figure 3), a portion of the back panel being folded over forming a back waist edge about a back fold line, wherein a portion of the softened material is folded over the back fold line as shown in figure 11a.
Tashiro also discloses that the front panel and the back panel are bonded to each other to form side seams of the absorbent garment as shown in figure 1.
The difference between Tashiro and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that that the front panel includes a first attachment regions bonding the outer layer to the skin facing liner and a second attachment region bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer and a back panel that includes a third attachment region bonding the outer layer to the skin-facing liner and a fourth attachment region bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the front and back panels of Tashiro with first and third attachment regions which bond the outer layer to the skin-facing liner because Tashiro discloses that the skin-facing liner and the outer layer may be connected and/or integrally formed as set forth in [0070].
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the front and back panels of Tashiro with second and fourth attachment regions bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer because Tashiro discloses that the softened material layer may overlap the outer layer with an integral connection in [0073].
With reference to claim 2, Tashiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tashiro and claim 2 is the provision that the softened material layer has a folded over portion in the front and back panels having ends that are disposed closer to the central lateral axis as compared to an end of the outer layer in the folded over portion of the respective panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the softened material layer as desired since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of an element previously disclosed by the prior art is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill of one in the art.
As to claim 3, Tashiro discloses a garment wherein the portion of the outer layer in the folded over portion of the front panel has an end that is disposed closer to the central lateral axis as compared to an end of the softened material layer in the folded over portion of the front panel, and wherein the portion of the outer layer in the folded over portion of the back panel has an end that is disposed closer to the central lateral axis as compared to an end of the softened material layer in the folded over portion of the back panel as shown in figure 11a.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, Tashiro discloses a garment wherein the attachment regions include an adhesive for bonding the material layers as set forth in [0072], [0076] and [0114].
With reference to claim 5, Tashiro teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tashiro and claim 5 is the provision the adhesive has specific dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the dimensions of the adhesive as desired since it has been held that the mere change in size and/or shape of a previously disclosed element is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill of the art.
As to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1.
The difference between Tashiro and claim 9 is the provision the garment includes fifth and sixth attachment regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the article of Tashiro with fifth and sixth attachment regions as claimed since it has been held that the duplication of essential workings parts of a device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
The difference between Tashiro and claim 10 is the provision that the second attachment region is located from about 10 mm to about 40 mm from the front waist edge and, wherein the fourth attachment region is located from about 10 mm to about 40 mm from the back waist edge.
Tashiro provides the general teaching of providing attachment regions as claimed as set forth in [0070-0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the attachment regions as desired in order to provide the desired product. The attachment of Tashiro provides the same function as the attachment of the instant application. The change in location is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 2013/0317471) and further in view of Tashiro (US 2017/0231837).
With reference to claim 1, Morimoto et al. (hereinafter “Morimoto”) discloses an absorbent garment (i.e., disposable diaper) comprising:
a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction, and a central lateral axis (figure 2);
a front region (LF), a back region (LB), a crotch region (3), the crotch region being disposed between the front region and the back region (figure 2), the crotch region including an absorbent assembly (38);
the absorbent assembly including a skin-facing liner and an absorbent composite [0020], the absorbent assembly also includes a front edge, a back edge and a pair of laterally-opposed side edges (figure 2);
a front panel (84) in the front region (figure 2) and a back panel (86) in the back region (figure 2) , wherein the front and back panel each include an inner layer (94), an outer layer (92), a softened material layer (200), and an elastic area (96) disposed between the inner layer and the softened material layer (figure 4a),a portion of the respective panel being folded over to form a respective waist edge (see figures 4a-4d) and wherein the front and back panel are bonded to form side seams as shown in figure 1.
The difference between Morimoto and claim 12 is the explicit recitation that that the front panel includes a first attachment regions bonding the outer layer to the skin facing liner and a second attachment region bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer and a back panel that includes a third attachment region bonding the outer layer to the skin-facing liner and a fourth attachment region bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer.
Tashiro teaches an analogous garment that includes integral bonding of the layers of the article as set forth in [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the front and back panels of Morimoto with first and third attachment regions which bond the outer layer to the skin-facing liner as taught by Tashiro in order to provide the article with a stable and fitted connection as taught by Tashiro in in [0070].
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the front and back panels of Morimoto with second and fourth attachment regions bonding the softened material layer to the outer layer as taught by Tashiro in order to provide the article with a stable and integral connection as taught by Tashiro in [0073].
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 5.
With respect to claim 14, Morimoto modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
The difference between Morimoto modified and claim 14 is the provision that the adhesive includes at least two strips of adhesive having different lengths.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the adhesive in the form of strips, duplicate the strips and provide them at different lengths as desired because Tashiro provides the general teaching of utilizing adhesive the secure the elements of the article.
A change in size and/or shape, as well as a duplication of the essential working parts of the device is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 15, see figures 4a-4d of Morimoto.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (US 2013/0317471) in view of Tashiro (US 2017/0231837) and further in view of Yahiaoui et al. (US 2012/0328850).
With reference to claim 19, Morimoto modified teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
The difference between Morimoto modified and claim 19 is the provision that the nonwoven material is treated with a softener additive.
Yahiaoui et al. (hereinafter “Yahiaoui”) teaches an analogous absorbent article including a nonwoven material treated with a softener additive as set forth in [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the nonwoven of Morimoto with a softening additive as taught by Yahiaoui in order to improve the softness of the layer without sacrificing any durability of the layer as taught by Yahiaoui in [0028].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 20-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination of front and back panels in respective front and back regions, wherein the front and back panel each include an inner layer, an outer layer, and an elastic area disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer, wherein the inner layer includes an end comprising a softened material layer, wherein the end including the softened material layer is folded over the elastic area such that the softened material layer forms a folded over portion disposed between the elastic area and the outer layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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 at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781