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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to claims 12 and 17 obviate the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 6 and 7 are now cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are pending.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-10, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are partially persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “at least one engagement portion of the one or more engagement portions comprises one or more hooks integrally formed from the base substrate”. According to the present disclosure “integrally formed” means an element is created from an underlying material or portion thereof, by for example molding, shaping, and/or reconstituting the material (published application US 2023/0240915 para. 0027). Mitsui does not teach the hooks 19 are integrally formed. Therefore, the examiner has used a new reference to address the new limitations. Applicant argues the Office Action fails to address the limitation of the fold line being at least partially within the first engagement region. The examiner respectfully disagrees The element in question is a fastener, thus, by name and function, the fastener itself comprises an engagement region as broadly as claimed. Applicant further argues that by contrast, Mitsui teaches folding both the first and second zones of the fastener inward to bring the hooks in engagement with the outer surface of the proximal portion 22 of the inner tape and the inner tape is formed from a fibrous nonwoven fabric (Mitsui paragraph 0006). Thus, Mitsui teaches a fold line outside of the area of the hooks. Applicant argues the Office Action has not provided articulated reasoning with some ration underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. For at least these reasons, the Applicant respectfully holds that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established, and that claim 1, as amended and all claims dependent therefrom are allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since Mitsui teaches folding the first and second zones 28, 29 of the tape fastener 10 inward, to be in engagement with the outer surface of the proximal portion 22, the fold line would be at least lie at the edge of 28, in order for the hooks 19 to engage with the surface 22. The edge of 28 is at least partially disposed within the first engagement portion 28, as broadly as claimed. Furthermore, the articulated reasoning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness is found in Mitsui in that it would be obvious to have a fold line, to facilitate the folding which is actually taught in Mitsui.
With respect to claims 11-17, independent claim 11 has been amended to recite “wherein the first outboard longitudinal edge and the first inboard longitudinal edge are separated by a first lateral edge; and wherein the second outboard longitudinal edge and the second inboard longitudinal edge are separated by a second lateral edge.” Applicant argues Mitsui is not understood to teach or suggest at least these elements of claim 11. The examiner discusses below how Mitsui reads on the new limitations of claim 11.
With respect to the rejection of claims 18-20, Applicant argues the cited portions of Mitsui are not understood to teach or suggest at least these elements. Applicant argues that by contrast, as illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2 of Mitsui, the alleged back ear 3a of Mitsui is located completely outside of the alleged engagement portion 28, 29 of Mitsui. Therefore, Mitsui is silent as to the aforementioned elements of claim 18. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 2 of Mitsui clearly shows a fastener attachment bond region at tape strips 15 and 16, which overlap the side flaps 8 in the proximal portions 20 and 22. Tape strips 15 and 16 are in the engagement portions 28.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsui et al. US Patent Application Publication 2004/0243091 in view of Tanzer et al. USPN 5782819.
As to claims 1 and 4, Mitsui teaches a fastening member 10 comprising:
a base substrate 16;
one or more engagement portions 28,29 disposed on the base substrate 15,16, 18 and comprising a first engagement portion 28 (Fig. 2; para 0032);
wherein: the engagement portions 28, 29 each comprise one or more hooks 19 (Fig. 2; para 0032);
Mitsui does not specifically teach the fastening member 10 comprises a fold line. However Mitsui does teach it is possible to fold the first and second zones 28, 29 of the tape fastener 10 inward in the transverse direction of the diaper to bring the hooks 19 in engagement with the outer surface of the proximal portion 22 of the inner tape strip 16 to temporarily anchor these zones 28,29 (para. 0066). Tanzer teaches a disposable wearing article having side panel members 90 with a fastener tab 44 (Tanzer Fig. 6A). Tanzer teaches the outboard edge of the side panel member 90 can be spaced from the relatively inboard edge of the hook member 46 by the carrier spacing distance. In addition, the inwardly facing, bodyside surface of the carrier layer 56 is constructed to have a limited mechanical interengageability with the hook elements 52. As a result, the fastener tab 44 can be folded along a longitudinally extending fold line to selectively locate and configure the fastening region in a storage position with the hook elements placed and held against the bodyside surface of the carrier layer. In which case, the fold line is at least partially disposed within the engagement portion, at least on an inboard edge to allow the hook portions to be located on the carrier layer 56 in a storage position. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the fastener of Mitsui with a fold line for ease of folding the fastener and to ensure the fastener is folded back for storage as taught in Tanzer (col. 14, lines 45-61).
Mitsui/Tanzer teach the at least one engagement portion of the one or more engagement portions comprises hooks integrally formed from the base substrate – Tanzer teaches the fastening elements may be integrally formed, such as by molding, co-extrusion or the like, along with the associated base layer, and there need not be a discrete step of attaching the fastening elements to an initially separate hook base layer (Tanzer col. 17 , lines 26-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify the hook elements 17 and base layer 18 of Mitsui to be integrally formed as taught in Tanzer, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
As to claim 2, Mitsui teaches the one or more engagement portions 28, 29 (distal portions 23, 24 have a longitudinal dimension L5 (width dimension) in a range of 25 to 45 mm (Mitsui para. 0055), which meets the claimed range of a width that is at least 18 mm.
As to claim 3, the base substrate 15, 16 comprises a base maximum width, L4, L5, respectively, and wherein the one or more engagement portions 28, 29 comprise an aggregate maximum width, that is at least 70% of the base width – where Mitsui teaches hook members 17 are provided on the inner tape strip 16 so as to cover a generally entire area of the first distal portion 23 as well as the partial area of the distal portion 24, except a tab 24a thereof (para. 0035).
As to claim 5, the base substrate 15,16 having a first outboard longitudinal edge 23 and a first inboard longitudinal edge 22 and the first engagement portion 28 comprises a second outboard longitudinal edge 21 and a second inboard longitudinal edge 20. Mitsui teaches the maximum width of the base substrates 15, 16 is in a range 25 to 45 mm and a length dimension (L1, L2) both in a range of 8 to 15 mm for each, which a total length would be in a range of 16 to 30 mm (para. 0053). Using these values, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine through routine experimentation, the length and width needed to sufficiently engage with the target zone.
As to claim 6, the one or more hooks 17,19 are integral with the hook backing 18, which is integral with the base substrate 15, 16 (Figure 2; para.0032; Tanzer col. 17 , lines 26-43).
As to claim 7, the one or more hooks 17,19 comprise the same constituent material as the base substrate – where Mitsui teaches the hook member 17 is made of plastic and the base substrate 15 is made of plastic (Mitsui para.0032; Tanzer col. 17 , lines 26-43).
As to claim 8, Mitsui does not teach the first engagement portion comprises a CD Stiffness of 600 N/m or less. Mitsui does teach the tape fasteners are flexible and have a stiffness lower in the second zone (29) than in the first zone (28) and correspondingly the second zone can smoothly follow a flexion and/or a distortion of the target zone. With an advantageous consequence, there is not anxiety that the hooks distributed in the second zone of the second tape strip might be unintentionally disengaged from the loops distributed in the second zone (Mitsui para. 0012, 0017, 0046-0048). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed stiffness since Mitsui teaches flexible fasteners and both are from the same field of endeavor and provide the same function for disposable absorbent articles.
As to claim 9, the one or more engagement portions 28, 29 comprise fastening elements that differ by one of the group consisting of: size, shape, directionality, whether the element is discrete or integral, constituent material, the number and/or type of layers from which integral fastening elements are formed, diameter, height and combinations thereof – where Mitsui teaches the number of layers of the engagement portions varies where a first portion 28 has more layers with combined tape strips 15 and 16 and the second portion 29 comprises a single tape strip 16 (Mitsui Figure 2; para. 0036).
As to claim 10, Mitsui teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet 2, backsheet 3, and absorbent core 4 disposed between the topsheet 2 and backsheet 3, an ear 3a, and the fastening member 10 of claim 1 (Figure 1; paragraph 0030), wherein the base substrate 15,16 is joined to a wearer-facing surface of the backsheet, topsheet or ear 3a (Figure 2).
As to claim 11, Mitsui teaches a fastening member 10 comprising:
a base substrate 15, 16 having a first outboard longitudinal edge 23 and a first inboard longitudinal edge 22 (Figure 2); and
an engagement portion 28, 29 disposed on the base substrate 15, 16, the engagement portion 28, 29 comprising a second outboard longitudinal edge 21 and a second inboard longitudinal edge 20 (Figure 2);
wherein the first outboard longitudinal edge 23 is at least partially coincident with the second outboard longitudinal edge 21 and the first inboard longitudinal edge 22 is at least partially coincident with the second inboard longitudinal edge 20 (Figure 2; paragraph 0034);
wherein the first outboard longitudinal edge and the first inboard longitudinal edge are separated by a first lateral edge; and wherein the second outboard longitudinal edge and the second inboard longitudinal edge are separated by a second lateral edge – see annotated Fig 2 of Mitsui below.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 12, the base substrate 15, 16 comprises a first area (proximal portions 20, 22) and the engagement portion 23, 24 comprises an engagement area 28, 29 (Mitsui Figure 2), and wherein the second area is at least 50% of the first area – where Mitsui teaches the proximal portion and distal portions generally have the same width (Mitsui para.0034).
As to claim 13, Mitsui does not teach the first engagement portion comprises a Stiffness of 600 N/m or less. Mitsui does teach the tape fasteners are flexible and has a stiffness lower in the second zone (29) than in the first zone (28) and correspondingly the second zone can smoothly follow a flexion and/or a distortion of the target zone. With an advantageous consequence, there is not anxiety that the hooks distributed in the second zone of the second tape strip might be unintentionally disengaged from the loops distributed in the second zone (Mitsui para. 0012, 0017, 0046-0048). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed stiffness since Mitsui teaches flexible fasteners and both are from the same field of endeavor and provide the same function for disposable absorbent articles.
As to claim 14, the engagement portion comprises one or more fastening elements 17, 19 integrally formed from the base substrate – where the hooks 17 are integral with the hook backing 18, which is integral with the base substrate 15, 16 (Mitsui Figure 2; paragraph 0032).
As to claim 15, the engagement portion 28, 29 comprises one or more fastening elements 17,19, wherein the fastening elements and the base substrate comprise the same constituent material– where Mitsui teaches the hook member 17 is made of plastic and the base substrate 15 is made of plastic (Mitsui paragraph 0032;Tanzer col. 17 , lines 26-43).
As to claim 16, the engagement portion 28,29 comprises a length, and wherein first and second longitudinal outboard edges coincide throughout the entire length and/or the first and second longitudinal inboard edges coincide throughout the entire length – where ‘a length’ can include any portion of the engagement portion 28, 29 as broadly as claimed. Figure 2 shows the first and second longitudinal outboard edges (distal portions 23 and 21 coinciding for a length of the engagement portion 28.
As to claim 17, the base substrate 15, 16 comprises a length, and wherein the first and second longitudinal outboard edges coincide through the entire length, L and/or the first and second longitudinal inboard edges coincide through the entire length, L - where ‘a length’ can include any portion of the base substrate as broadly as claimed. Figure 2 shows the first and second longitudinal inboard edges (proximal portions 22 and 20 coinciding for a length of the base substrates 15, 16.
As to claim 18, Mitsui teaches an absorbent article comprising:
a topsheet 2, backsheet 3, and absorbent core 4 disposed between the topsheet 2 and backsheet 3, and further comprising a back ear 3a and a fastening member 10 (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 0030-0032);
wherein: the fastening member 10 comprises a base substrate 15,16 having an engagement portion 28, 29 disposed thereon,
wherein: the fastening member 10 is joined to the back ear 3a at a fastener attachment bond by means of adhesives (Figure 2; paragraph 0040); and
wherein the fastener attachment bond is at least partially disposed in the engagement portion – Mitsui teaches permanent bonding of the components, backsheets, cuff, elastics, tape strips, and hook members are carried out selectively using adhesives or welding techniques (paragraph 0064), thus, the fastener attachment bond is also used in the engagement portion as broadly as claimed. Additionally, Fig. 2 of Mitsui shows a fastener attachment bond region at tape strips 15 and 16, which overlap the side flaps 8 in the proximal portions 20 and 22. Tape strips 15 and 16 form a fastener attachment bond and are in the engagement portions 28.
As to claim 19, the fastening member 10 is joined to a wearer facing surface of the back ear 3a (Figure 2).
As to claim 20, the fastening member 10 overlaps the back ear 3a in an overlap zone at proximal portion 22 (Figure 2) and comprises a free zone L2, L3, at distal portion 23 that does not overlap the back ear (Figure 2). Mitsui does not teach an Overlap to Free Area Ratio is 0.1 to 1. However, Mitsui does teach the proximal portion 22 has the same longitudinal dimension (i.e., a width) as the distal portion 23 (paragraph 0034). Thus, the Overlap to Free Area Ratio would be 1.
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 JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781