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
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-12, 15-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening, II et al., US 20230097347 A1.
Regarding the stretch laminate limitations of claims 1, 12, 15-18, 23 and 25-27, the patent issued to Greening, II et al., teach an absorbent article comprising a first waist region, a second waist region, and a crotch region disposed between the first and second waist regions. The absorbent article also includes a chassis having a top-sheet, back-sheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the top-sheet and the back-sheet. Said absorbent core may further include tissue wraps and tissue laminates; absorbent foams; absorbent sponges; superabsorbent polymers; absorbent gelling materials; or any other known absorbent material or combinations of materials (paragraph 0076). The Examiner considers a tissue wrap sufficient to meet the limitation of a “core-bag” (claim 23). An elastic laminate may be joined to the chassis in one of the first or second waist regions. The elastic laminate includes an ultrasonically bonded laminate having a bond pattern. The bond pattern includes a plurality of repeating units and each repeating unit includes a closed cell unit. The bonds in the bond pattern include a Bond Separation Distance of about 3.5 mm or less. (abstract and figures). FIG. 1, laminate 10 includes a first coverstock layer 12 and an elastomeric layer 14. In nonlimiting examples, elastomeric layer 14 includes a film 15. The film may be a single layer or multiple layers. The film may be extensible or may be elastic in the lateral direction and/or in the longitudinal direction. The film may be pre-processed, such as by pre-activating (paragraph 0043). The laminate may include a second coverstock layer 16, and the elastomeric layer 14 may be sandwiched between the first and second coverstock layers. Coverstock layer materials may be non-elastic. Additional layers may be included (e.g., additional nonwovens, inelastic materials, elastic, or extensible materials, etc.).
Regarding the limitations pertaining to “wherein the plurality of ultrasonic bonds form a bond pattern comprising a percent relative standard deviation greater than about 30% according to the Inter-Bond Measurement Test” set forth in claims 1-3, 16 and 27, according to Applicants specification figure 29B illustrates a bond pattern according to the present disclosure, a bond pattern with bonds that form the perception of a continuous line and has open areas that communicate to the consumer the perception of softness through pillow- like areas. A Voronoi Diagram is generated for this bond pattern, as illustrated in Figure 29B, according to the Inter-bond Measurement Test Method. The percent relative standard deviation (RSD) for this bond pattern is 49.7%, as illustrated in Figure 29B. The bond pattern illustrated in Figure 29B has a higher percent relative standard deviation as compared to the bond pattern illustrated in Figure 29A. This difference in percent relative standard deviation is due to the difference in the spacing of the bonds within the bond patterns. The Voronoi Diagram according to the Inter-bond Measurement Test Method may also be used to determine the standard deviation of a bond pattern. As graphically illustrated, the percent relative standard deviation is higher for each of the herringbone-shaped, heart-shaped, and hexagon-shaped bond patterns. Based on Applicants disclosure the Examiner is of the position that the prior art of Greening, II et al., renders obvious the claimed percent relative standard deviation (RSD). For example, Greening, II et al., illustrates several heart and/or hexagon shaped bond patterns. See figures 3A-12A. As such, the Examiner is of the position that these bond patterns would have the claimed relative standard deviation (RSD). Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. Regarding the claimed standard deviation of greater than 1.3 mm to 3.0mm as set forth in claims 4-5, the Examiner is of the position that since Greening, II et al., teach the heart and hexagon shaped bond patterns it is also expected that these patterns would have the claimed standard deviation.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the laminate may be extensible. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the laminate includes a first bond pattern 200. The first bond pattern 20 has a first repeating unit 202. The first bond pattern 20 includes closed cell units 204. Additionally, the bonds of the first bond pattern may include a Bond Separation Distance of from about 1 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.2 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm or less than about 3.5 mm, according to the Bond Measurement Test Method herein (paragraph 0039). As illustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, the second bond pattern may be disposed along one or more edges of the laminate. In this way, the second bond pattern may at least partially surround or frame at least a portion of the first bond pattern or the entire first bond pattern. The second bond pattern may at least partially overlap an unstretched region 34, an inelastic region 20, a fastening system 148, and/or reinforcement layers 160 (e.g., a folded substrate or additional substrate added to the laminate for enhanced integrity).
With specific regard to the claimed “a first bond having a longest bond dimension, D; and a second bond adjacent to the first bond; wherein a Bond Separation Distance between the first and second bond is at least 2.1D and less than 4.1D when a Bond Separation Angle between the first bond and the second bond is from 0° to 35°; or wherein the Bond Separation Distance between the first and second bond is at least 1.3D and less than 2.1D when the Bond Separation Angle between the first bond and the second bond is greater than 35° to 90°” the Examiner is of the position that the bond patterns of Greening, II et al., comprising the individual point bonds could be made to have a length dimension of at least 2.1D and less than 4.1D and a bond separation angle between the first bond and the second bond is greater than 35° to 90°”. As illustrated in at least figures 11a and 11b, it appears that the angle limitations are met. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. Though not expressly disclosed it appears from the figures that the bond patterns and angles are comprised of individual point bonds having a variety of shapes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that depending on desired properties, such bond points can be varied to have desired length, size, shape and angle. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA)
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the area of the laminate including the first bond pattern may have an Unload Force at 50% of about 0.2 N/in or greater, or about 0.3 N/in or greater, or from about 0.35 to about 1 N/in, reciting for said range every 0.05 N/in increment therein, according to the Hysteresis Test Method herein (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the prior art of Greening, II et al., teach that “Extensible” means the ability to stretch or elongate, without rupture or breakage, by at least 30% as per step 5(a) in the Hysteresis Test herein. As used herein, a laminate is extensible if at least 20% of the area of the laminate meets the extensible definition herein (paragraph 0034). Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed Smax, of 50 % or greater and/or a rupture of more than 5mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 19, it appears that the side panel or ear of Greening, II et al., does not include a rupture of more than 5 mm according to the Back Ear Hang Time Test.
3. Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening, II et al., US 20230097347 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schonbeck et al., US 9533067.
In nonlimiting examples, Greening, II et al., teaches that elastomeric layer 14 includes a film 15. The film may be a single layer or multiple layers. The film may be extensible or may be elastic in the lateral direction and/or in the longitudinal direction. The film may be pre-processed, such as by pre-activating (paragraph 0043).
The patent issued to Schonbeck et al., teach that “pre-activating” refer to a process of mechanically deforming a material to increase the extensibility of at least a portion of the material. A material may be activated or pre-activated by, for example, incrementally stretching the material in at least one direction (column 3, 25-30). The Examiner is of the position that based on this disclosure the elastomeric film of Greening, II et al., is stretched and that such stretching would inherently produce the claimed “stripes” as set forth in claim 14. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to stretch the elastomeric film of Greening, II et al., as taught by Schonbeck et al., for the purpose of increasing the materials extensibility.
4. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening, II et al., US 20230097347 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Buell, US 3860003.
Greening, II et al., does not teach the claimed non-rectangular absorbent core.
The patent issued to Buell teach an absorbent article such as a disposable diaper wherein the absorbent core is in the shape of an “I” or a “T” (title, abstract, figures 8 and 9 and column 10, 5-10). Buell teach that absorbent bodies that provide ears are inherently stiff have “I” or “T” shapes (column 10, 5-10 and 40-50). Therefore, motivated by the desire to provide an absorbent body that provides stiffened ears it would have been obvious to form the stretch bonded laminate of Greening, II et al., with an absorbent core in the shape of an “I” or a “T”.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-27 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/660391 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the subject matter sought overlaps and is encompassed by the subject matter of copending Application No. 18/660391.
Claims 1-27 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/423782 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the subject matter sought overlaps and is encompassed by the subject matter of copending Application No. 18/423782.
Claims 1-27 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 17/953364 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other the subject matter sought overlaps and is encompassed by the subject matter of copending Application No. 17/953364.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-272-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights