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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/21/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4-5 are amended. Claims 11-12 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and amended dependent claims 4 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the some of the prior art references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the requirement of the second, third, and fourth joining zones in dependent claims 4, 5, and 8, the dependent claims do not require more than two temporary joining zones at once in the folded configuration, thus the temporary joining zone/overlapping breakable bonds of Figure 5 of Meyer Noren was used to teach the second, third, and fourth joining zones of the claimed invention (see rejections of claims 4, 5, and 8 below).
Though overall some of the prior art references are used herein, at least applicant’s amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 5 changed the scope of the claims and required a change in the grounds of rejection as detailed below in the prior art rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer Noren et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0365582 A1) in view of Doverbo et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0298968 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meyer Noren teaches an absorbent sanitary article (article 10; Abstract; Figure 1 and 5; Paragraph 0065), comprising:
- a central body having a shape elongated along a longitudinal axis (chassis 12 has a shape extending along the longitudinal axis; Figure 1; Paragraph 0065) and having a rear section, a front section and a crotch section extending between the rear section and the front section (first end portion 18, second end portion 14, and central portion 12 between portions 18 and 14; Figure 1; Paragraph 0065), wherein the central body comprises an absorbent core sandwiched between a topsheet and a backsheet (chassis has absorption body 40 between a first covering layer 20 and a second covering layer 30; Figure 2; Paragraph 0093),
- first and second side panels having respective proximal edges fixed to corresponding side edges of said rear section or front section of the central body (first side panel and second side panel have proximal edges fixed to side edges of portion 18 of the chassis 12; annotated Figure 5 below), and respective distal edges (distal edges of first and second panel are connected to proximal end of extension band; annotated Figure 5 below), wherein in a folded configuration said first and second side panels are folded around respective first fold lines with respect to the respective proximal edges and have respective first and second panel flaps (folded configuration – first and second side panels are folded at first fold lines at the proximal edges of the first and second side panels, first and second side panels comprises first and second panel flaps; annotated Figure 5 below), and
- at least one extension band having a proximal edge fixed to the distal edge of a respective side panel of the first and second side panels (proximal edge of extension band is connected to distal edge of side panel of first and second side panels; see annotated Figure 5 below) and a distal edge to which at least one closing element is fixed (distal edge of one extension band has fastener 51 and other distal edge of extension band has receiving fastener; annotated Figure 5 below; Figure 1; Paragraph 0074-0075),
wherein in said folded configuration said at least one extension band has a respective band flap overlapped to a respective panel flap of the first and second panel flaps (extension bands with band flaps overlap panel flaps of first and second panel flaps; see annotated Figure 5 below). The embodiment of Figure 5 of Meyer Noren does not teach wherein said band flap is connected to the respective panel flap by first temporary joining zones.
However, another embodiment, Figure 6a of Meyer Noren teaches a breakable bond 102 on the extension band/second side panel and a breakable bond 101 on the extension band/first side panel, located adjacent the distal edges of the panels to allow for gripping (Figure 6A; Paragraph 0103-0104). Additionally, Figure 6c of Meyer Noren teaches two different breakable bond zones at the distal end of the folded configuration and the central zone of the folded configuration.
Meyer Noren is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer Noren to incorporate the teaching of the embodiment of Meyer Noren of Figure 6A to have the breakable bonds/first temporary joined portions, as taught in Figure 6A, on the extension band/second side panel and extension band/first side panel of Meyer Noren. This would allow for the side panels to remain in a folded configuration until pulled open by the user (Meyer Noren; Paragraph 0103-0104).
Furthermore, while Meyer Noren does not teach the breakable bonds of Figure 6A/first temporary joining zones are located between the band flaps and the respective panel flaps, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the first temporary joining zones/breakable bonds to be between the band flap and the panel flaps of the first and second side panels and inward and spaced away of the closure elements, between the closure element and the temporary joining zone/breakable bonds of Figure 5, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether the breakable bonds are located at any location in the side panel/extension band, with the common function at the locations of maintaining the folded configuration of article, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
The modified Meyer Noren further teaches said first temporary joining zones being separate and distinct from and spaced apart from said at least one closing element in said folded configuration (see combination above).
The modified Meyer Noren does not teach the at least one extension band being separate and distinct from the first and second side panels and having different material properties than the first and second side panels.
However, Doverbo teaches the at least one extension band being separate and distinct from the first and second side panels and having different material properties than the first and second side panels (elastic section 32 is separate and distinct from the adjacent non-elastic section 30 that is made of nonwoven material – elastic section 32 and non-elastic 30 are joined together; Paragraph 0070; Figure 4).
Meyer Noren and Doverbo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer Noren to incorporate the teaching of Doverbo to have the extension band of Meyer Noren to be made of an elastic material, as taught by Doverbo, and the side panels of Meyer Noren to be made of a non-elastic material, as taught by Doverbo, with the extension band and side panels as separate pieces that are joined together, as taught by Doverbo. This would allow for different zones of elastic and non-elastic portions of the side panel along its length (Doverbo; Paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding claim 2, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo further teaches wherein said at least one extension band comprises first and second extension bands having respective proximal edges fixed to respective distal edges of respective first and second side panels (Meyer Noren; first and second extension bands have proximal edges that are fixed to distal edge of first and second side panels; see rejection of claim 1 above; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 2. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo further teaches wherein in said folded configuration said first and second extension bands have respective first and second band flaps overlapped to respective first and second panel flaps (folded configuration – first and second extension bands have band flaps that overlap the respective first and second panel flaps; annotated Figure 5 above), wherein the first panel flap is overlapped to the topsheet and the second panel flap is overlapped to the first band flap (first panel flap overlap topsheet and second panel flap is on top of first band flap; annotated Figure 5 above)), and wherein each of said first and second band flaps is connected to the respective panel flap by respective first temporary joining zones (annotated Figure 5 above; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 3. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo further teaches comprising at least one second temporary joining zone (Meyer Noren; second temporary joining zone is location of overlapping breakable bonds 101 and 102; Figure 5), said at least one second temporary joining zone being separate and distinct from and spaced apart from both said at least one closing element and said first temporary joining zones in said folded configuration (in folded configuration - second temporary zone of Meyer Noren is at the center of the z-folded configuration and spaced apart from first temporary zone and closing element of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo; see combination of claim 1 above). The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach the at least one second temporary joining zone between the second band flap and the first panel flap extending through the second panel flap and through the first band flap.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having temporary joining zones extending through flap sections does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. adhere the flap sections to each other), the mere duplication of the breakable bonds 101 of Figure 5 of Meyer Noren is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to include an additional breakable bond between the flap sections, in order to predictably adhere each band flap section and panel flaps to each other. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Furthermore, while the modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach the breakable bonds of Figure 5/second temporary joining zone are located between the second band flap and the first panel flap extending through the second panel flap and through the first band flap, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the second temporary joining zone/breakable bonds to be between the second band flap and the first panel flap extending through the second panel flap and through the first band flap, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether the breakable bonds are located at any location in the side panel/extension band, with the common function at the locations of maintaining the folded configuration of article, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
Regarding claim 5, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 2. comprising at least one third temporary joining zone (Meyer Noren; third temporary joining zone is location of overlapping breakable bonds 101 and 102; Figure 5), said at least one third temporary joining zone being separate and distinct from and spaced apart from both said at least one closing element and said first temporary joining zones in said folded configuration (in folded configuration - second temporary zone of Meyer Noren is at the center of the z-folded configuration and spaced apart from first temporary zone and closing element of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo; see combination of claim 1 above). The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach between the second band flap and the topsheet, extending through the second panel flap, through the first band flap and through the first panel flap.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having temporary joining zones extending through flap sections does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. adhere the flap sections to each other), the mere duplication of the third temporary joining zones/breakable bonds 101 and 102 of Figure 5 of Meyer Noren is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to include additional breakable bonds between the flap sections, in order to predictably adhere each band flap section and panel flaps to each other. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Furthermore, while the modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach the breakable bonds of Figure 5/third temporary joining zone are located between the second band flap and the topsheet, extending through the second panel flap, through the first band flap and through the first panel flap, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the third temporary joining zone/breakable bonds to be between the second band flap and the topsheet, extending through the second panel flap, through the first band flap and through the first panel flap, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether the breakable bonds are located at any location in the side panel/extension band, with the common function at the locations of maintaining the folded configuration of article, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 2. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo further teaches wherein in said folded configuration said first and second extension bands are folded around respective second fold lines with respect to the respective proximal edges (folded configuration – second fold lines at the proximal edges of the first and second extension bands; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 1. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo further teaches wherein the first and second side panels comprise a non-elastic material and the at least one extension band comprises an elastic material (side panels 16 and 17 of Meyer Noren is made of non-woven material, as taught by Doverbo, and the extension bands of Meyer Noren is made of an elastic material, as taught by Doverbo; see rejection of claim 1 above; annotated Figure 5 above).
Regarding claim 12, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 11. Meyer Noren further teaches wherein the at least one closing element comprises a hook and loop fastening system (fastener can be a mechanical connector such as hook and loop; Paragraph 0075; Figure 1).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer Noren et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0365582 A1) in view of Doverbo et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0298968 A1), and further in view of Koenig et al. (Patent No. US 8,864,733 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the article of claim 2. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach wherein said first and second band flaps are further Z-folded and each of said first and second band flaps has three flap sections overlapped to each other.
However, Koenig teaches wherein said first and second band flaps are further Z-folded and each of said first and second band flaps has three flap sections overlapped to each other (sub-portions 60a-60c are the three flap sections of the first and second band flaps that overlap each other; Figure 2c; Column 5, lines 4-16 and Column 6, lines 48-54).
Koenig and Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to incorporate the teachings of Koenig and have band flaps that is Z-folded, as taught by Koenig. This allows for the diaper to be compact and easy to handle (Koenig; Column 5, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 8, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo and Koenig teaches the article of claim 7. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo and Koenig further teach comprising a fourth temporary joining zone (Meyer Noren; breakable bonds 101 and 102 of Figure 5; see rejection of claim 1 above). The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo and Koenig does not teach the fourth temporary joining zones between said first and second band flaps and the respective first and second panel flaps, extending through respective mutually overlapped flap sections.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having temporary joining zones extending through flap sections does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. adhere the flap sections to each other), the mere duplication of the fourth temporary joining zone/breakable bonds 101 and 102 of Figure 5 of Meyer Noren is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to include additional breakable bonds between the flap sections, in order to predictably adhere each band flap section and panel flaps to each other. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Furthermore, while the modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo and Koenig does not teach the breakable bonds of Figure 5/fourth temporary joining zones are located between said first and second band flaps and the respective first and second panel flaps, extending through respective mutually overlapped flap sections, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the fourth temporary joining zone/breakable bonds of Figure 5 to be between said first and second band flaps and the respective first and second panel flaps, extending through respective mutually overlapped flap sections, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art since the device would not perform differently than the prior art device, whether the breakable bonds are located at any location in the side panel/extension band, with the common function at the locations of maintaining the folded configuration of article, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer Noren et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0365582 A1) in view of Doverbo et al. (Publication No. US 2021/0298968 A1), and further in view of Sablone et al. (Publication No. US 2012/0184937 A1), hereby referred to as “Sablone ‘937”.
Regarding claim 9, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach wherein said central body comprises two leg cuffs extending longitudinally on the topsheet and wherein the proximal edges of said first and second side panels are fixed between corresponding side edges of the backsheet and of the leg cuffs.
However, Sablone ‘937 does not teach wherein said central body comprises two leg cuffs extending longitudinally on the topsheet (barrier leg cuffs 21 extends longitudinally on the topsheet 16; Paragraph 0059; Figure 1 and 2) and wherein the proximal edges of said first and second side panels are fixed between corresponding side edges of the backsheet and of the leg cuffs (proximal edges of back side panels 26 are fixed between leg cuffs 21 on topsheet 18 and back sheet 20 at attachment line 66; Figure 1 and 2; Paragraph 0059 and 0067).
Sablone ‘937 and Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to incorporate the teachings of Sablone ‘937 and have the leg cuffs of Sablone ‘937 on the topsheet of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo and have the side panels be fixed between the leg cuffs and the backsheet as taught by Sablone ‘937. This allows for the leg cuffs to provide a barrier for the transverse flow of body exudates (Sablone ‘937; Paragraph 0059) and allows for the side panels to be permanently bonded to the chassis (Sablone ‘937; Paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 10, Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo teaches the absorbent article of claim 1. The combination of Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo does not teach wherein the proximal edges of said first and second side panels are fixed between corresponding side edges of the backsheet and of the topsheet.
However, Sablone ‘937 teaches wherein the proximal edges of said first and second side panels are fixed between corresponding side edges of the backsheet and of the topsheet (back side panels 26 are fixed between side edges of backsheet 20 and topsheet 16; Paragraph 0071 and 0076; Figure 1 and 2).
Sablone ‘937 and Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of absorbent articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Meyer Noren in view of Doverbo to incorporate the teachings of Sablone ‘937 and have the side panels be fixed between the topsheet and the backsheet as taught by Sablone ‘937. This allows for the side panels to be permanently bonded to the chassis (Sablone ‘937; Paragraph 0071).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM ET.
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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781