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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn for being drawn to nonelected Invention II. No claim amendments were filed. Claims 1-13 are examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight by extracting limitations from Claim 1 to hunt for selections in Maki that justify an obviousness rejection. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Maki has shown (Fig. 6) that an entire portion of the stretch band material (24) that directly faces the inner layer (21) is attached via adhesive (41) to said inner layer (21) (also see [0074] in EP 3 698 763 A1). Given this fact, one skilled in the art would reasonably expect that in all other embodiments of Maki, short of explicit disclosure to the contrary, an entire portion of the stretch band material that directly faces the inner layer to be attached to the inner layer via adhesive. Therefore, even without explicitly disclosure regarding the distribution of stretch band material adhesive for the embodiments of Figs. 4-5B, one skilled in the art would reason that the entire stretch band material (thus more than 40% of its length) is overlapping with the adhesive (note the adhesive has the same length as the entire stretch band material, as suggested by Fig. 6), which in turn overlaps with the inner layer. Examiner has thus provided a preponderance of evidence and established a prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant then argues that Examiner has relied upon the drawings for teachings of dimensions. Examiner respectfully contends that while the drawings are not to scale, one skilled in the art, upon seeing the drawings, is more likely than not to follow the relative ratios shown. Therefore the drawings and the relative proportions shown, would serve as a guide for anyone who wishes to make the disclosed article. Additionally, since Figs. 4-5B shows that the entire stretch band material overlaps with the inner layer and it is reasoned from Maki’s disclosure that any portion of the stretch band material overlapping with the inner layer would be attached to the inner layer by adhesive, the overlapping area/length of the adhesive and the inner layer would necessarily be the entire stretch band material (i.e., 100%).
For these reasons, the rejections from the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 11/3/2025 are maintained and repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (WO 2019/131060 A1, for ease of mapping claim elements, please refer to the English-equivalent patent publication, namely EP 3 698 763 A1).
Re Claim 1, Maki discloses an absorbent garment comprising:
a longitudinal axis (“longitudinal direction” or “up-down direction”, Fig. 2) and a lateral axis (“left-right direction”, Fig. 2);
a front region (first waist portion 20, Fig. 2), a back region (back waist portion 30), a crotch region (where absorbent main body 10 is disposed), the crotch region being disposed between the front region and the back region, and the crotch region including an absorbent assembly (absorbent main body 10);
a front panel in the front region, wherein the front panel includes an inner layer (inner layer sheet 21), an outer layer (outer layer sheet 22) and a front longitudinal end (topmost edge shown in Fig. 2);
a back panel in the back region, wherein the back panel includes an inner layer (inner layer sheet 31), an outer layer (outer layer sheet 22) and a back longitudinal end (bottommost edge shown in Fig. 2);
a stranded elastic area (region where elastic members 23 are disposed, see Figs. 2-3 & 6) disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer in the front panel and in the back panel (best seen in Fig. 3);
a stretch banded area (which is formed by stretchy sheet 24, see Figs. 2-3 & 6) comprising a stretch band material (24) disposed between the outer layer and at least a portion of the inner layer in the front panel (best seen in Fig. 6, where stretchy sheet 24 is disposed between upper end portion 221 of outer layer 22 and inner layer 21), the stretch band material disposed adjacent the longitudinal end of the front panel (Fig. 6) with the stranded elastic area adjacent and discrete from the stretch band material (the stranded elastic area is formed by the elastic members 23, thus it is discrete from the stretch banded area; the exact boundary between the stretch banded area and the stranded elastic area can be defined to be in a midpoint within the middle region CR, see Fig. 6) and disposed closer to the crotch region than the stretch band material (elastic members 23 are clearly closer to the crotch region than stretch band material 24 is relative to the crotch region, Fig. 6); and
a stretch band material adhesive (“a hot-melt adhesive is applied to a fixing portion 41”, [0074]) coupling the stretch band material to the front panel inner layer (Fig. 6 shows stretchy sheet 24 fixed to inner layer sheet 21 via fixing portion 41).
Maki does not explicitly disclose wherein a longitudinal overlap between the stretch band material adhesive and the front panel inner layer is greater than about 40% of an overall longitudinal length of the stretch band material. However, Fig. 6 of Maki shows that the adhesive (41) overlaps with a majority of the longitudinal length of the stretch band material (24), leaving only a small section, “folded portion 241,” being unattached and thus not overlapping with the adhesive (see also [0075]-[0076]). In a separate embodiment, shown in Figs. 4-5B, it also seems that the entire stretch band material is firmly bonded to the inner layer (21). As such, one skilled in the art at the time of filing would be guided by Maki’s teaching to arrive at the claimed invention, wherein a longitudinal overlap between the stretch band material adhesive and the front panel inner layer is greater than about 40% of an overall longitudinal length of the stretch band material.
Re Claims 2-4, Maki discloses claim 1, but Maki does not expressly disclose wherein the longitudinal overlap between the stretch band material adhesive and the front panel inner layer is greater than about 50% or 60% and less than about 80% of the overall longitudinal length of the stretch band material. However, as suggested in Fig. 6 and [0076], a small portion of the longitudinal length of the stretch band material (24) is not attached by the adhesive and thus not overlapping with the adhesive. Paragraph [0076] suggests that the unattached/non-overlap portion (241) overlays only a portion of the attached stretch band material but also sufficient to increase stretchability locally. This leads one skilled in the art to reason that the unattached/non-overlap portion constitutes less than half the total longitudinal length of the stretch band material but also is large enough that it would impact stretchability when folded over the attached portion of stretch band material as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore one skilled in the art would have the guidance to experiment to arrive at the desirable overlap percentage.
Re Claim 13, Maki discloses claim 1 but does not explicit disclose a stretch banded area comprising a stretch band material disposed between the inner layer and the outer layer in the back panel, wherein the stretch band material is disposed adjacent the longitudinal end of the back panel. However, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options (having stretch band material to act as the waist band in both the front and back regions or only in one of the two regions) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success (comfortable and secured fit of the article around the user’s torso), it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. See MPEP 2143 (E).
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0022411).
Re Claims 5-7, Maki discloses claim 1 but does not disclose a front panel inner layer adhesive coupling the front panel inner layer to the front panel outer layer, and wherein a longitudinal overlap between the front panel inner layer adhesive and the stretch band material is greater than about 40% or 50% and less than about 80% of the overall longitudinal length of the stretch band material. While Maki’s inner layer overlaps with the outer layer as well as the stretch band material (see Fig. 6 in region “UR” layers 21 & 22 and stretchy sheet 24 all overlap in the thickness direction), Maki is silent to whether the inner and outer layers are adhesively coupled and therefore it cannot be determined how much of a longitudinal overlap of the inner layer adhesive with the stretch band material exists.
Li discloses a diaper having front and back waist panels each formed of an elastic laminate, the elastic laminate (see Figs. 2 & 3A) being made of an inner layer (94) coupled to an outer layer (92) via discrete adhesive bonds (234, [0049]), and a plurality of elastic strands (96) are disposed therebetween. The adhesive bonds (234) are present throughout the overlapping areas of the inner and outer layers, i.e., between the elastic strands as well as areas where said elastic strands are not present. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Maki with Li’s pattern of adhesive such that the inner and outer layers of the front panel can be firmly attached while still allowing the front panel to stretch with the elastic strands. After modification with Li’s adhesive pattern, the entirety of the overlapped region between the front panel inner and outer layers would include adhesive bonds. Since the front panel inner/outer layer overlapped region also overlaps with the attached portion of the stretch band material (i.e., the portion of stretchy sheet 24 that is adhered at fixing portion 41), then the longitudinal overlap of the front panel inner layer adhesive and the stretch band material would be the same as the longitudinal overlap between the stretch band material adhesive and the front panel inner layer. As explained under claims 1-4, Maki’s teaching guides one skilled in the art to arrive at the claimed range, i.e., greater than about 40% or greater than about 50% and also less than about 80%, of longitudinal overlap.
Re Claim 8, Maki and Li combine to disclose claim 5. Maki does not teach wherein the stretch band material adhesive is an elastic attachment adhesive and wherein the inner layer adhesive is a construction adhesive. Li discloses that the adhesive used for bonding the elastic strands to the inner and outer layers of the elastic laminate are elastic adhesives (“elastic adhesive bondings 230”, [0052]), and the adhesive forming the discrete bonds (234) is “bonding” adhesive (which is interpreted to be the same as construction adhesive because it serves to bond layers of an absorbent article together). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to glean from Li’s choice of adhesives for different purposes because it is necessary to allow the elastics to stretch but also necessary that the various layers and elements of the article do not separate from each other unintentionally when the article is in use.
Re Claims 9 & 11, Maki discloses claim 1. Maki does not teach wherein the front panel inner layer comprises a material having a CD tensile strength of greater than about 12 N/50 mm or that it comprises a multi-layer spunbond material having a basis weight of between about 10 gsm and about 30 gsm. Li discloses a diaper having front and back waist panels each formed of an elastic laminate, the elastic laminate (see Figs. 2 & 3A) being made of an inner layer (94) and an outer layer (92) sandwiching a plurality of elastic strands (96), the inner layer can be made of a multi-layer spunbond material having a basis weight of between about 10 gsm and about 30 gsm ([0069], “inner sheet 94 nonwoven may also be a multilayer or composite structure combining nonwovens made by different processes and fibers such as combining spunbond and carded nonwovens” and “Non-limiting examples of materials suitable for the inner sheet 94 nonwoven of the present invention include: 12-30 gsm air-through carded nonwoven substrate…”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Li’s fabrics since the selection of a material suitable for its intended use, i.e., selecting a spunbond multilayer nonwoven that is already known to be used as an inner layer for an elastic waist panel in an absorbent article, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
While Li also does not disclose that the CD tensile strength of the inner layer is greater than 12 N/50 mm, but that limitation is directed at a material property. When the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims of the instant invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112-2112.01). A prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except for a property or function of having a specific value and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties that anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant. Since Examiner showed that the inner layer material as taught by Li is the same as claimed (i.e., spunbond, multilayer, and 10-30gsm), one skilled in the art would reasonably expect the reference’s inner layer to exhibit the same CD tensile strength.
Re Claims 10 & 12, Maki discloses claim 3 but does not teach wherein the front panel inner layer comprises a material having a CD tensile strength of greater than about 8.0 N/50 mm and that it comprises a TABCW (through-air bonded carded web) material having a basis weight of between about 15 gsm and about 25 gsm. Li discloses a diaper having front and back waist panels each formed of an elastic laminate, the elastic laminate (see Figs. 2 & 3A) being made of an inner layer (94) and an outer layer (92) sandwiching a plurality of elastic strands (96), the inner layer can be made of an air-through bonded carded web having a basis weight range that fully encompasses the claimed 15-25 gsm range ([0069], “inner sheet 94 nonwoven may also be a multilayer or composite structure combining nonwovens made by different processes and fibers such as combining spunbond and carded nonwovens” and “Non-limiting examples of materials suitable for the inner sheet 94 nonwoven of the present invention include: 12-30 gsm air-through carded nonwoven substrate…”). Since the claimed range sits in the middle of the reference’s range and the overlap between the two ranges is substantial, it would take little effort for one skilled in the art, when presented with Li’s range, to select a material that also falls squarely in the claimed range of basis weight. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Li’s fabrics since the selection of a material suitable for its intended use, i.e., selecting a through-air bonded carded nonwoven that is already known to be used as an inner layer for an elastic waist panel in an absorbent article, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07).
While Li also does not disclose that the CD tensile strength of the inner layer is greater than 8 N/50 mm, but that limitation is directed at a material property. When the structure or composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims of the instant invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112-2112.01). A prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except for a property or function of having a specific value and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties that anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant. Since Examiner showed that the inner layer material as taught by Li is the same as claimed (i.e., through-air bonded carded web and having a particular range of basis weight), one skilled in the art would reasonably expect the reference’s inner layer to exhibit the same CD tensile strength.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is (408)918-7575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 Pacific.
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.
/SUSAN S SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 7 March 2026