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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 11/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 5-9 are pending and under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument, pages 5-6, the combination of Tuma, Larsson, and Falzoni fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention as a whole. In particular, i. at least a portion of the plastic material used in polylactide (PLA); ii. an elongation at break of >15% and a tear strength of >40N when measured in a strip of 20mm width by 200 mm length; and iii. A heat distortion resistance HDT according to DIN EN ISO 75 of 50°C -96°C, because
1. (page 5) Falzoni does not discloses values for elongation at break or tear strength for INZEA at all,
2. (pages 5-6) Falzoni refers to a beverage capsule and not to an adhesive fastener. One looking to solve the problems of adhesive fasteners for use in diaper products would not be prompted to search the field of beverage capsules, the film forming the substrate of the present invention differs greatly in structure and function from a beverage capsule as described in Falzoni, and one of skill in the art would not consider that a film used in making injection molded beverage capsules should be chosen as the for an adhesive fastener for a diaper. and
3. (page 6) the alleged use of impermissible hindsight
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons below.
In response to argument 1, while Falzoni may not explicitly teach the claimed numerical values above, Falzoni expressly teaches the use of INZEA, a specific, commercially available bioplastic. As disclosed in applicant’s specification [0025]-[0026], INZEA possess the claimed physical properties (elongation, tear strength and HDT). As set forth MPEP 2112, when the prior art teaches a product that is identical or substantially identical to the claimed product, burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. Since the material (INZEA) taught by Falzoni is the same material described by applicant, Falzoni is considered inherently possess the claimed physical properties, and the burden shifted to applicant to provide evidence (e.g., comparative data) demonstrating that the INZEA of Falzoni differs from the claim.
In response to argument 2, as set forth MPEP 2141.01(a), a reference is analogous art if it either: is from the same field of endeavor, or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved (emphasis added). Falzoni is “reasonably pertinent” to the inventor’s problem: providing a biodegradable, bio-based plastic material suitable for injection molding. The fact that Falzoni applies this material to a beverage capsule molding does not disqualify its teachings regarding the materials’ structure and biodegradable properties. A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to other biodegradable injection molding application, for example INZEA of Falzoni, to replace the plastic material of Tuma and Larsson to provide adequate biocompatible material having suitable melting point for injection molding applications as taught by Falzoni ([0035]), and further provide suitable mechanical strength for the diaper fastener.
In response to argument 3, the motivation to combine the reference does not come from the applicant’s specification, but from the prior art itself. Tuma and Larson teaches overall structure of the claimed adhesive fastener, while Falzoni provides the direct motivation to substitute conventional plastic with a biodegradable material (INZEA) suitable for injection molding. Using the specification to confirm that INZEA of prior art in fact possesses the claimed properties is a proper use of disclosure to establish the state of the art, not a reconstruction of the invention using hindsight.
For the reasons above, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
There are no distinct argument directed to dependent claims.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma (US 20190016058 A1) in view of Larsson et al (US 20030004490 A1) and Falzoni et al (US 20230303314 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Tuma teaches an adhesive fastener (figure 1 and [0002], support part 18, further illustrated in figures 2 and 4 provide adhesive connection with diaper), consisting of at least one plastic material ([0027] support part can be produced from polyolefin, a polyester or from polyamide), having a plurality of hook means ([0027] figures 2 and 4, the support part comprises closing elements 22) integrally connected to a substrate (figure 2, support part 18), each in the form of a stalk part (figure 4, shaft 24) which is provided with a head part (figure 4 and [0027], head of closing element 22 protrude above support parts 18) and which protrudes above the substrate,
Tuma does not teach wherein at least a portion of the plastic material used is polylactide (PLA).
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent product, Larsson teaches adhesive fastener (figure 3, landing zone 20) comprises at least a portion of the plastic material used is polylactide (PLA) ([0040] and [0043] “One or both of the components forming the laminate may also be made from a biodegradable material such as, for example, polylactide”).
Larsson teaches the biodegradable material is suitable for use in an absorbent product which can be composted ([0043] biodegradable materials for example polylactide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tuma to incorporate the teachings of Larsson and provide the adhesive fastener as claimed for the purpose of providing compostable adhesive fastener, as taught by Larsson ([0043]).
The combination does not expressly teach wherein the substrate has a layer thickness between 0.30 mm and 0.36 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tuma, as modified by Larsson, such that the layer has a claimed thickness as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in Size/Proportion. A Change in Size/Proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.) One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of ensuring the fastener has sufficient thickness for manufacturing processes, such as sufficient thickness for welding, while ensuring it remain strong enough for everyday use.
The combination does not teach the plastic material has the following properties:
i.an elongation at break of >15% and a tear strength of >40N when measured in a strip of 20mm width by 200 mm length, and
ii. a heat distortion resistance HDT according to DIN EN ISO 75 of 50°C -96°C.
However, Falzoni teaches a method of producing plastic product using biocompatible material, which solves relatively pertinent problem posed by the applicant of providing biodegradable absorbent diaper component, comprising using INZEA (as disclosed in the applicant specification [0025]-[0028], INZEA is a commercially available product that possesses the above-claimed properties].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tuma, as modified by Larsson, to incorporate the teachings of Falzoni and provide the plastic material having claimed properties for the purpose of providing adequate biocompatible material having suitable melting point for injection molding applications as taught by Falzoni ([0035]), and further provide suitable mechanical strength for the diaper fastener.
Regarding Claim 5, Tuma, as modified by Larsson and Falzoni, teaches the adhesive fastener according to claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the substrate is formed in the manner of a film of the at least one plastic material which has a melting point (Tuma; figures 2, 3 and [002], the substrate is formed in a layer of the plastic material) that enables an adhesive-free connection to another component by thermal joining (abstract, [0002] [0028], the support part is made from a material suitable for ultrasonic welding, a technique that employs high-frequency vibration to fuse materials – specifically, joining the polymer layer of the support part 18 to attachment part 16 – via heat generated from friction, eliminating the need for filler materials. Consequently, this material suitable for ultrasonic welding has a melting temperature enables adhesive-free connection by thermal joining.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma (US 20190016058 A1) in view of Larsson et al (US 20030004490 A1) and Falzoni et al (US 20230303314 A1), and in further view of Cabe et al (US 4859519 A)
Regarding Claim 6, Tuma, as modified by Larsson and Falzoni, teaches the adhesive fastener according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein melting temperature of the another component is greater than melting temperature of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a method and apparatus for preparing textured apertured film, Cabe teaches melting temperature of the another component is greater than melting temperature of the substrate (col 1 lines 25-40, film comprises polyethylene side and EVA side, and the polyethylene side has a higher melting point that the EVA side).
Cabe teaches providing the film comprises two sides that has a different melting point in order to permit the film to be thermally bonded while maintaining structural integrity (col 1 liens 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tuma, as modified by Larsson and Falzoni, to incorporate the teachings of Cable and provide the other component and substrate as claimed for the purpose of thermally bonding the substrate to another component. This method enables use of the adhesive fastener with a separate component, such as a soft layer designed to contact the body.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (US 20170021051 A1) in view of Tuma (US 20190016058 A1), Larsson et al (US 20030004490 A1) and Falzoni et al (US 20230303314 A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Richards teaches a diaper consisting of a production material that is biodegradable and/or constructed from bio-based materials ([0017]-[0020]).
Richard does not teach the diaper has at least one adhesive fastener according to claim 1.
Tuma, as modified by Larsson and Falzoni, teaches the at least one adhesive fastener according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Richard to incorporate the teachings of Tuma, Larsson and Falzoni, and provide the adhesive fastener according to claim 1 for the purpose of providing biodegradable adhesive fastener.
The combination is still silent as to the diaper consist of at least 85% biodegradable and/or constructed from bio-based material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination above such that the diaper consist of at least 80% biodegradable and/or constructed from bio-based material as such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice involving a change in size/proportion. A change in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV. One of skill in the art motivated to do so for the purpose of providing adequate compostability for diaper product.
Regarding Claim 8, Richard, as modified by Tuma, Larsson and Falzoni, teaches the diaper according to claim 7.
The combination further teaches wherein the diaper is provided with closure tabs which have the at least one adhesive fastener (Richard; figure 1, the combination substitutes flaps 120 of Richard with connection parts 10 of Tuma has support part 18).
Regarding Claim 9, Richard, as modified by Tuma, Larsson and Falzoni, teaches the diaper according to claim 8.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one adhesive fastener is permanently bonded to the closure tabs by adhesive-free, thermal joining (Tuma; abstract, [0002] [0028], ultrasonic welding employes high-frequency vibration to fuse materials via heat generated from friction, eliminating the need for filler materials. The support part 18 is bonded to connection part 10 by ultrasonic welding, in other word thermal joining without adhesive).
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 SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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 at (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.
/S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781