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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, 14-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best et al. (US 2007/0260016) in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0152377) and further in view of Pelletier et al. (US 2014/0363105).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, Best discloses diaper, i.e. absorbent article, (paragraphs 0009, 0091) comprising backsheets film (paragraph 0091) wherein the film comprises a first LLDPE, i.e. a first thermoplastic polymer, and a second LLDPE, i.e. a second thermoplastic polymer, (paragraph 0074), wherein the second LLDPE is metallocene catalyzed LLDPE (paragraphs 0074, 0077), wherein the first and second thermoplastic polymers have a melt index of 0.1 to 15 g/10 min (paragraphs 0088-0089), wherein the first LLDPE is present in an amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% (paragraph 0075).
Best discloses filler but fails to disclose calcium carbonate.
Wang discloses breathable films for diaper comprising at least 20% by weight or more or up to 70% by weight filler such as calcium carbonate, i.e. breathability agent, to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability (paragraphs 0105-0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific filler such as calcium carbonate of Wang in the film of Best to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability.
Best in view of Wang fails to disclose the first LLDPE is super hexene LLDPE.
Pelletier discloses multilayer film (paragraph 0030) having a layer comprising super hexene LLDPE to obtain high performance properties (paragraphs 0034, 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific super hexene LLDPE of Pelletier instead of first LLDPE o Best in view of Wang to obtain high performance properties.
Regarding claims 4-5, Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the absorbent article of claim 1, wherein the first LLDPE is present in an amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% and second LLDPE is present in amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% (paragraph 0075). Therefore, when the first LLDPE is present in amount of about 75 wt% and the second LLDPE is present in amount of about 25 wt%, it meets the present claims.
Regarding claims 6-7, Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the absorbent article of claim 1, given that Best in view of Wang and Pelletier discloses the same composition as claimed in presently claim and disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the film of Best in view of Wang and Pelletier would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Best discloses diaper, i.e. absorbent article, (paragraphs 0009, 0091) comprising backsheets film (paragraph 0091) wherein the film comprises a first LLDPE and a second metallocene catalyzed LLDPE (paragraphs 0074, 0077) wherein the first and second LLDPE polymers have a melt index of 0.1 to 15 g/10 min (paragraphs 0088-0089), wherein the first LLDPE is present in an amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% and second LLDPE is present in amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% (paragraph 0075), therefore, when the first LLDPE is present in amount of about 75 wt% and the second LLDPE is present in amount of about 25 wt%, it meets the present claims.
Best discloses filler but fails to disclose calcium carbonate.
Wang discloses breathable films for diaper comprising at least 20% by weight or more or up to 70% by weight filler such as calcium carbonate, i.e. breathability agent, to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability (paragraphs 0105-0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific filler such as calcium carbonate of Wang in the film of Best to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability.
Best in view of Wang fails to disclose the first LLDPE is super hexene LLDPE.
Pelletier discloses multilayer film (paragraph 0030) having a layer comprising super hexene LLDPE to obtain high performance properties (paragraphs 0034, 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific super hexene LLDPE of Pelletier instead of first LLDPE o Best in view of Wang to obtain high performance properties.
Given that Best in view of Wang and Pelletier discloses the same composition as claimed in presently claim and disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the film of Best in view of Wang and Pelletier would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Regarding claim 15, Best discloses diaper, i.e. absorbent article, (paragraphs 0009, 0091) comprising backsheets film (paragraph 0091) comprising first layer, a second layer and third layer (paragraphs 0096-0097) wherein one of the layers comprises a first LLDPE and a second metallocene catalyzed LLDPE (paragraphs 0074, 0077) wherein the first and second LLDPE polymers have a melt index of 0.1 to 15 g/10 min (paragraphs 0088-0089), wherein the first LLDPE is present in an amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% and the second LLDPE is present in amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% (paragraph 0075), therefore, when the first LLDPE is present in amount of about 75 wt% and the second LLDPE is present in amount of about 25 wt%, it meets the present claims.
Best discloses filler but fails to disclose calcium carbonate.
Wang discloses breathable films for diaper comprising at least 20% by weight or more or up to 70% by weight filler such as calcium carbonate, i.e. breathability agent, to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability (paragraphs 0105-0106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use specific filler such as calcium carbonate of Wang in the film of Best to obtain increased WVTR and other properties related to breathability.
Best in view of Wang fails to disclose the first LLDPE is super hexene LLDPE.
Pelletier discloses multilayer film (paragraph 0030) having a layer comprising super hexene LLDPE to obtain high performance properties (paragraphs 0034, 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific super hexene LLDPE of Pelletier instead of first LLDPE o Best in view of Wang to obtain high performance properties.
Given that Best in view of Wang and Pelletier discloses the same composition as claimed in presently claim and disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the film of Best in view of Wang would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Regarding claim 16, Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the absorbent article of claim 15, wherein the blend of the lldpe and metallocene based lldpe is present in each of the first layer, the second layer and the third layer (paragraphs 0096-0097).
Regarding claim 18, Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the absorbent article of claim 15, wherein the first LLDPE is present in an amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% and second LLDPE is present in amount of 0.1 to 99.9 wt% (paragraph 0075), therefore, when first LLDPE is present in amount of about 75 wt% and second LLDPE is present in amount of about 25 wt%, it meets the present claim.
Regarding claim 20, Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the absorbent article of claim 15, given that Best in view of Wang and Pelletier disclose the same composition as claimed in presently claim and disclosed in the present specification, it is clear that the film of Best in view of Wang would intrinsically possess the same properties as claimed in present claims.
Claims 3, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Best et al. (US 2007/0260016) in view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0152377), Pelletier et al. (US 2014/0363105) and further in view of Fantinel et al. (US 2011/0212315).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17, Best in view of Wang discloses the absorbent article of claims 1, 10 and 15, wherein Best fails to disclose bimodal metallocene LLDPE.
Fantinel discloses LLDPE based films comprising bimodal metallocened derived LLDPE to obtain excellent dart drop properties and enhanced processability (paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bimodal metallocened derived LLDPE of Fantinel in the blend instead of metallocened based LLDPE of Best in view of Wang to obtain excellent dart drop properties and enhanced processability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of applicant’s filing of a proper terminal disclaimer on 06/20/2025, the double patenting rejection of record is overcome.
Applicant argues that Pelletier discloses super hexene LLDPE is used in an amount of about 10% to about 40% while present claims recite amount greater than 40%. However, it is noted that the examiner is not relying on Pelletier to meet the claimed amount of super hexene LLDPE. Best already teaches the first polymer amount of 0.1 to 99.9% as explained above. Further, even Pelletier discloses the amount about 40% which means “about” includes values slightly above and slightly below those claimed, therefore, it is clear that rejection is proper.
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 SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787