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 11/03/2025 in which claims 1 and 4 were amended and claim 22 was added, claims 1-9 and 11-22 are pending in the instant application and in light of the restriction requirement, claims 1-9, 11-12, and 22 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 1-9 and 11-22 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 09/30/2021.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification filed 11/03/2025.
Objections to the Claims
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 11/03/2025.
Rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or wherein the claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant asserts on pg. 2 that the prior art to Smith, Arora, and Buell fail to teach or suggest the newly added limitations.
In response to the applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully notes that the prior art to Smith, Arora, and Buell were not used in the previous Office Action filed 05/22/2025 to read on the newly added limitations; therefore, the amendments to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 includes the limitation “wherein the first closed cell” in ln. 1. This should read “wherein the first closed cell unit”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a second repeating unit” in ln. 1. This is considered to be indefinite in that it is unclear if this is the same as the second repeating unit of claim 1, which claim 8 is dependent upon. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner is treating the limitation as though it says “the second repeating unit”.
Claim 9 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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, 5-9, 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO/2020/068522 A1 to Smith in view of WO/0231245 A2 to Arora.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses 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 ln. 25-29; pg. 6 ln. 5-17), 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 ln. 5-17; pg. 14 ln. 28-31 and pg. 15 ln. 1-8) having:
a first bond pattern (pg. 14 ln. 28-31 and pg. 15 ln. 1-8; pg. 15 ln. 25-31 and pg. 16 ln. 1-6; pg. 18 ln. 29-31 and pg. 19 ln. 1-7) comprising a plurality of first repeating units, each first repeating unit comprising a first closed cell unit (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first bond pattern made from repeating first closed cell units)
a second bond pattern (pg. 14 ln. 28-31 and pg. 15 ln. 1-8; pg. 15 ln. 25-31 and pg. 16 ln. 1-6; pg. 18 ln. 29-31 and pg. 19 ln. 1-7) comprising a plurality of second repeating units (Ex. Fig. 1 showing second bond pattern made from repeating second closed cell 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 closed cell units overlapping repeated second closed cell units).
Smith differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Smith fails to explicitly disclose wherein bonds in the first bond pattern comprise a Bond Separation Distance of 3.5 mm or less.
Arora discloses (pg. 2 para. 4 and pg. 3 para. 1) that the distance between bonds needs to be optimized such that “more fibers are bonded and abrasion resistance can be increased (fuzzing can be reduced).” As explained by Arora, by decreasing distance between bonds, fuzzing is reduced which affects the integrity of nonwoven material. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Smith device to have a bond separation distance within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, 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 device of Smith and Arora by making the bond separation distance by 3.5 mm or less as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further, Smith differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Smith fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the second bond pattern overlaps an inelastic region of the elastic laminate. Smith teaches that the elastic laminate comprises an inelastic region (Fig. 6, elastic free zone 70 in belts 54 and 56) and that the bonds may be on a portion of a nonwoven article (pg. 14 ln. 27-31 and pg. 15 ln. 1-8).
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the bonds on inelastic/elastic regions of the elastic laminate would result in a difference in function of the Smith device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the bond pattern placement of Smith, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended with the bond pattern placement claimed. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that the arrangement “may” be as claimed, and offering other acceptable placements (specification at pg. 15 ln. 14-20) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 pattern of Smith to overlap any region of the elastic laminate as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, 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 fail to disclose wherein the first bond pattern comprises a first Percent Bond Area of at least 3%.
Arora discloses (pg. 2 para. 4 and pg. 3 para. 1) that the bond area needs to be optimized as “[an] increase in bond area of the nonwoven…increases the bending rigidity (i.e. stiffness), which is inversely related to a perception of softness.” As explained by Arora, bond area is directly related to a perception of softness which affects the user experience. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Smith device to have a bond area within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, 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 device of Smith and Arora by making the bond area of at least 3% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, 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 fail to explicitly disclose wherein the Bond Separation Distance is 3 mm or less.
Arora discloses (pg. 2 para. 4 and pg. 3 para. 1) that the distance between bonds needs to be optimized such that “more fibers are bonded and abrasion resistance can be increased (fuzzing can be reduced).” As explained by Arora, by decreasing distance between bonds, fuzzing is reduced which affects the integrity of nonwoven material. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Smith device to have a bond separation distance within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, 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 device of Smith and Arora by making the bond separation distance by 3 mm or less as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses: wherein the first closed cell unit is selected from the group consisting of: polygons, hearts, circles, ellipses, and combinations thereof (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first closed cell unit as a polygon).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses: wherein the first closed cell comprises a perimeter formed of at least 10 bonds (Ex. Fig. 1 showing first closed cell comprising a perimeter of 16 discrete bonds).
Regarding claim 7, 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 wherein the first closed cell unit comprises a Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of at least about 1.2.
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 of Smith and Arora to have a Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of at least about 1.2 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 and Arora 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 ln. 8-10).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses: a second repeating unit (Ex. Fig. 1 showing a second repeating closed cell unit).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 8. Smith further discloses: wherein the second repeating unit comprises a second closed cell unit (Ex. Fig. 1 showing the second repeating unit as a closed cell unit in the shape of a diamond).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 1. Smith further discloses: wherein the second bond pattern comprises a second Percent Bond Area (Ex. Fig. 1 showing second bond pattern comprising a second Percent Bond Area); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the second Percent Bond Area is at least 3%.
Arora discloses (pg. 2 para. 4 and pg. 3 para. 1) that the bond area needs to be optimized as “[an] increase in bond area of the nonwoven…increases the bending rigidity (i.e. stiffness), which is inversely related to a perception of softness.” As explained by Arora, bond area is directly related to a perception of softness which affects the user experience. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Smith device to have a bond area within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, 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 device of Smith and Arora by making the bond area of at least 3% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 22, 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 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.
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 of Smith and Arora to have a Stretched Enclosed Area to Relaxed Enclosed Area ratio of at least about 1.2 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 and Arora 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 ln. 8-10).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Arora 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).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 11; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fail to disclose wherein the second bond pattern at least partially overlaps an unstretched region of the elastic laminate, a reinforcement region, a fastening system, or combinations thereof.
Buell teaches an absorbent article comprising an elastic laminate as a waist band comprising bonding regions throughout that comprises a reinforcement layer to reduce tearing (col. 14 ln. 4-26; Fig. 5, diaper 20 comprising waist band formed from belt layer 542, elastic panel member 78, reinforcement layer 512, and chassis layer 540).
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 waist band of Smith and Arora to comprise a reinforcement layer bonded within as taught by Buell, because Buell teaches that a reinforcement layer acts to strain reinforce a stretch laminate to allow the deep mechanical stretching of the stretch laminate without creating local tears or holes in the stretch laminate (col. 23 ln. 33-46).
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 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 2 February 2026