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 .
In light of the amendments to the claims filed 06/02/2026 in which claim 1 was amended, claims 7-9 and 13-21 were cancelled, and claims 23-28 were added, claims 1-6, 11-12, and 22-28 are pending in the instant application and in light of the restriction requirement, claims 1-6, 11-12, and 22-28 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. no. 63/250,350 filed on 09/30/2021.
Claims 1-6, 11-12, and 22-28 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 09/30/2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 06/02/2026.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 06/02/2026.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended claim(s) 1 (as comprising the limitations of cancelled claim 9) under 35 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Mecl as explained below.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts on pg. 2 that the prior art to Smith and Arora fail to teach or suggest the limitations from newly cancelled claim 9: wherein the second repeating unit comprises a second closed cell unit.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s characterization of the phrase “closed cell unit” as explained in the applicant’s specification; therefore, the previous characterization of the art did not read on the limitations of claim 9.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “closed cell unit” in the claims is understood to mean a unit that is identifiable by a to the human eye with 20/20 vision from 12 inches away as a shape having a perimeter, the perimeter being formed by at least 5 bonds substantially surrounding an area free of permanent bonds that are less than about 3.5 mm Bond Separation Distance as explained in the applicant’s specification (pg. 5:24-31).
Although the definition of “closed cell unit” requires that the Bond Separation Distance be determined by the Bond Measurement Test Method, it is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the bond measurement test method to determine the bond separation distance to read on the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 includes the limitation “Brethability Value” in ln. 1. This should read “Breathability Value”. Claim 24 further includes the limitation “according to Air Permeability” in ln. 2. This should read “according to the Air Permeability”.
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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
865
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 1 of Smith Fig. 21
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-12, 22-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2020/068522 A1 to Smith in view of US/2019/0161897 A1 to Mecl.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, and 11, Smith discloses
(Claim 1) an absorbent article (Fig. 6, absorbent article 10) comprising:
a first waist region (Fig. 6, first waist region 12), a second waist region (Fig. 6, second waist region 16), and a crotch region disposed between the first and second waist regions (Fig. 6 showing crotch region 14 disposed between first and second waist regions 12 and 16);
a chassis (Fig. 6, chassis 52) comprising a topsheet (Fig. 7, topsheet 26), a backsheet (Fig. 7, backsheet 28), and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (Fig. 7, absorbent core 30 disposed between topsheet 26 and backsheet 28); and
an elastic laminate joined to the chassis in one of the first or second waist regions (Fig. 6, front and back belts 54 and 56 as elastic laminates disposed in first and second waist regions 12 and 16; pg. 5:25-29; pg. 6:5-7:23), wherein the elastic laminate comprises an ultrasonically bonded laminate (Fig. 6, front and back belts 54 and 56 comprise front and back inner belt layers 66 and 67, front and back outer belt layers 64 and 65, and elastic strands or film 68; pg. 6:5-7:23; pg. 14:28-16:6) having:
a first bond pattern (pg. 14:28-16:6; pg. 18:29-19:7) comprising a plurality of first repeating units, each first repeating unit comprising a first unit (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first bond pattern made from repeating first units)
a second bond pattern (pg. 14:28-16:6; pg. 18:29-19:7) comprising a plurality of second repeating units (Ex. Fig. 1 showing second bond pattern made from second repeating units), wherein a shape of the plurality of second repeating units differs from a shape of the plurality of first repeating units (Ex. Fig. 1, first repeating units as an irregular polygon and second repeating units as a rhombus);
wherein the first bond pattern is in overlapping relation to the second bond pattern (Ex. Fig. 1 showing repeating first units overlapping repeating second units); and
wherein at least a portion of the second bond pattern overlaps an inelastic region of the elastic laminate (Fig. 6, elastic free zone 70 in belts 54 and 56; pg. 14:28-16:6, “various nonwoven absorbent article components may be or comprise at least a portion of…a belt of a pant” indicating that the patterns can overlap the entirety of the belts).
Smith differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Smith fails to explicitly disclose
(Claim 1) the first bond pattern wherein each first repeating unit comprises a first closed cell unit wherein bonds in the first bond pattern comprise a Bond Separation Distance of 3.5 mm or less, and the second bond pattern wherein each second repeating unit comprises a second closed cell unit;
(Claim 2) wherein the first bond pattern comprises a first Percent Bond Area of at least 3%;
(Claim 3) wherein the Bond Separation Distance is 3 mm or less;
(Claim 5) wherein the first closed cell unit is selected from the group consisting of: polygons, hearts, circles, ellipses, and combinations thereof;
(Claim 6) wherein the first closed cell unit comprises a perimeter formed of at least 10 bonds;
(Claim 11) wherein the second bond pattern comprises a second Percent Bond Area, wherein the second Percent Bond Area is at least 3%.
Mecl teaches a nonwoven for any component of an absorbent article (para. 0001; para. 0043; para. 0210-0211) comprising
(Claim 1) ultrasonic bonds (para. 0113) having:
a first bond pattern comprising a plurality of first repeating units, each first repeating unit comprising a first closed cell unit wherein bonds in the first bond pattern comprise a Bond Separation distance of 3.5 mm or less (Fig. 5, visually primary patterns 10 comprising basic bond impressions 11 forming fan-shaped areas as first closed cell units; para. 0105; para. 0155, Pattern D minimum distance between primary bonding impressions 0.8 mm);
a second bond pattern comprising a plurality of second repeating units, wherein a shape the plurality of second repeating units differs from a shape of the plurality of first repeating units, and wherein the second repeating unit comprising a second closed cell unit (Fig. 5, visually secondary patterns 12 comprising auxiliary bond impressions 13 forming arcs and circles as second closed cell units; para. 0105);
wherein the first bond pattern is in overlapping relation to the second bond pattern (Fig. 5, visually primary pattern 10 overlapping visually secondary pattern 12);
(Claim 2) wherein the first bond pattern comprises a first Percent Bond Area of at least 3% (para. 0155, Pattern D total bond area of the nonwoven 13.1%, primary pattern bond area 53% of total bond area such that primary pattern bond area is 6.943% of nonwoven);
(Claim 3) wherein the Bond Separation Distance is 3 mm or less (para. 0155, Pattern D minimum distance between primary bonding impressions 0.8 mm);
(Claim 5) wherein the first closed cell unit is selected from the group consisting of: polygons, hearts, circles, ellipses, and combinations thereof (Fig. 5, fan-shaped areas as first closed cell units created by combination of shapes [i.e. could be considered to be generally created by a triangle and half-ellipse]);
(Claim 6) wherein the first closed cell unit comprises a perimeter formed of at least 10 bonds (Fig. 5, fan-shaped areas as first closed cell units comprising perimeter formed of 30 bonds);
(Claim 11) wherein the second bond pattern comprises a second Percent Bond Area, wherein the second Percent Bond Area is at least 3% (para. 0155, Pattern D total bond area of the nonwoven 13.1%, auxiliary pattern bond area 47% of total bond area such that primary pattern bond area is 6.157% of nonwoven); and
wherein the specific bond pattern will give the impression to a user of a quilted textile fabric and will arouse an expectation of a softness and fullness of areas between lines of apparent quilting threads (para. 0075).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the pattern of Smith to be the pattern of Mecl, because Mecl teaches that their specific bond pattern will give the impression to a user of a quilted textile fabric and will arouse an expectation of a softness and fullness of areas between lines of apparent quilting threads (para. 0075).
The combination of the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fail to explicitly disclose wherein the Bond Separation Distance is (Claim 1) 3.5 mm or less or (Claim 3) 3.0 mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Bond Separation Distance of Smith in view of Mecl from a minimum of 0.8 mm to (Claim 1) 3.5 mm or less or (Claim 3) 3.0 mm or less as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pg. 6:25-28 indicating the bond separation distance “may” be within the claimed range) 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.” See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 11. Smith further discloses: wherein the second bond pattern at least partially overlaps an unstretched region of the elastic laminate (Fig. 6, elastic free zone 70 [considered an unstretched region] in belts 54 and 56; pg. 14:28-16:6, “various nonwoven absorbent article components may be or comprise at least a portion of…a belt of a pant” indicating that the patterns can overlap the entirety of the belts).
Regarding claims 22-23, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differ from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose
(Claim 22) wherein the first closed cell unit of each of the first repeating units comprises a Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of at least about 1.2; and
(Claim 23) wherein the second closed cell unit of each of the second repeating units has a Stretch Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of less than the Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of the first closed cell unit of each of the first repeating units.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first closed cells and the second closed cells of Smith in view of Mecl such that the first closed cells have a Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of at least about 1.2 and the ratio of the Stretched to Relaxed area of the second repeating units is less than the ratio of the Stretch to Relaxed area of the first repeating units since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Smith in view of Mecl would not operate differently with the claimed area ratio and since the elastic belts of Smith are meant to stretch the device would function appropriately having the claimed area ratio. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ratio claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pg. 14:8-10 and 14:13-22).
Regarding claims 25-27, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses wherein the bond pattern may be on the nonwoven of any absorbent article component such as a topsheet, ear (pg. 12:13-27, ears comprise fasteners), leg cuff, outer cover nonwoven material, discrete landing zone, discrete, non-elasticized front belt, wing of a sanitary napkin, belt of a pant, or a waistband (pg. 14:28-16:6) such that the bond pattern of the elastic laminate can coordinate with any other absorbent article component.
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first closed cell unit and the second closed cell unit is diamond-shaped.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the first or second closed cell units to be generally diamond-shaped, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Mecl as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Patent no. 5,769,838 A to Buell.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to explicitly disclose wherein the elastic laminate is elastic in a lateral direction.
Buell teaches an absorbent article comprising a waist band that comprises an elastic laminate (Fig. 5, diaper 20 comprising waist band formed from belt layer 542, elastic panel member 78, reinforcement layer 512, and chassis layer 540), wherein the elastic laminate is elastic in the lateral direction to provide an improved fit (col. 13 ln. 3-13).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the elastic laminate of Smith and Arora to be elastic in the lateral direction as taught by Buell, because Buell teaches that the elastic waist feature of their invention provides a member that is elastically extensible in the lateral direction so as to provide a portion of the belt that dynamically fits and conforms to the waist of the wearer so as to provide an improved fit (col. 12 ln. 29-32; col. 13 ln. 3-13; col. 15 ln. 53-63).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Mecl as applied above, and further in view of US/2020/0260798 A1 to Morimoto.
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1.
The combination of the cited prior art suggests all aspects of the claimed invention with the exception of the elastic laminate having a Breathability Value of from about 1/m3/m2/min to about 125 m3/m2/min, according the Air Permeability Test Method. While the combination of the cited prior art does not suggest a breathability value of the elastic laminate with the respect to the embodiment relied upon in the rejection, Morimoto teaches that breathability is a desired property in an elastic laminate (Fig. 2B, front and back elastic belts 84/86 formed from laminates comprising elastic bodies 96, inner sheet 94, and outer sheet 92; para. 0064; para. 0073; para. 0085; para. 0126). Breathability is concerned with improving skin health (para. 0073; para. 0126), and it is known in the art to improve skin health.
It would therefore have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide the elastic laminate of the cited prior art with a breathability of from about 1/m3/m2/min to about 125 m3/m2/min to achieve the predictable result of improving skin health.
It is the Office’s position that the testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the testing method. As such, a reference does not need to recite using the air permeability test method to determine the breathability value of the elastic laminate to read on the claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached on (571)272-7159. 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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 9 July 2026
Prosecution Insights