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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not teach or clearly convey the concept of selecting a distance between the facing sheets to contact the elastic when the tension is released. Rather it teaches selecting a distance between the BONDS so the facing sheets contact the elastic when the tension is released.[0048]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-25, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yano et al.(WO 2008/041639A1).
Yano et al. disclose a method of making a diaper comprising positioning an elastic thread(12C) between two sheets(12H, 12S), bonding the two sheets together via a pair of adjacent bonds which define a passage containing the elastic thread, and releasing the tension on the elastic. The elastic fills up only a portion of the space between the sheets after release of the tension as a small gap can still be seen between the elastic and the facing edges of the bonds(Figures 9 and 10). The elastic is held in place by friction with the sheets on either side.[0020] while the text of Yano et al. teaches the friction is applied by the bonds, the disclosure also includes the drawings and what one in the art would consider the drawings to teach. The drawings explicitly show the friction being applied by the sides of the sheets, not the bonded portions and a space between the edges of the bonds and the elastic. Yano et al. also explicitly states the friction occurs “between the inner and outer layers 12H and 12S”[0095] and those are the sheets. Since Yano et al. explicitly states the friction with the layers keeps the elastic in place, one in the art would understand the distance between them would be selected so the elastic contacts them.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Yano et al. shows a gap between the elastic and the edges of both of the bonds during bonding.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 24, Yano et al. shows forming the bonds by positioning the elastic in a notch in an anvil(Figure 8) and using ultrasonic energy to form the bond.([0018]-[0019])
Regarding claim 25, Yano et al. shows the shape of the notch provides a gap between the thread and the sheets.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 27, Yano et al. shows a U-shaped notch.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 29, Yano et al. shows the distance between the adjacent bonds is greater than the diameter of the elastic.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 31, Yano et al. discloses the two sheets are two separate layers.(Figure 5)
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. as applied to claim 21 above and further in view of Koshijima et al.(US Publication 2020/0179180).
Yano et al. discloses a trapezoidal notch rather than a V-shaped notch. Koshijima et al. discloses it is known to use a V-shaped notch to hold elastic when forming ultrasonic bonds on either side of the elastic.(Figure 10) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a V-shaped notch like that of Koshijima et al. instead of the trapezoidal notch of Yano et al. since this is an obvious alternative shape for the notch as shown for example by Koshijima et al.(Figure 10)
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ehlert et al.
Yano et al. does not disclose a U-shaped notch, but rather a trapezoidal notch. Ehlert et al. shows a U-shaped notch.(Figure 14) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use a U-shaped notch like that of Koshijima et al. instead of the trapezoidal notch of Yano et al. since this is an obvious alternative shape for the notch as shown for example by Koshijima et al.(Figure 10)
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Csida et al.(US Publication 2020/0238660)
Yano et al. does not disclose whether the two webs are formed by folding a unitary web. Csida et al. discloses that it is well-known and conventional in the diaper arts to form the two webs from either two separate webs or a single web folded on itself.[0056] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to form the two webs from a single web which is folded on itself since Csida et al. discloses this is a well-known and conventional alternative to using two separate and it would have been obvious for this reason.
Claim(s) 21- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidori et al.(US Publication 2016/0331600).
Polidori et al. discloses a method of making an absorbent article by positioning an elastic thread between first and second sheets, bonding the two sheets together while the elastic is under tension and releasing the tension. Polidori et al. discloses the bonds have surfaces which are spaced apart by a distance equal to or greater than the diameter of the untensioned elastic.[0029]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a stepped shape for the notch in which the elastic is held.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the gap in the drawings must be read in view of the specification, the drawings also teach in and of themselves. That teaching suggests the space between the bonds and the elastic.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Yano states the weld portions exert a pressing force, the following sentence states that the elastic is fixed “only by the frictional forces between the inner and outer layers 12H and 12S”.[0095] This states the friction is applied not by the bond edges but by the layers. The welded portions exerting a pressing force to sandwich the elastic from both sides is more likely to refer to the welded portions forming the sandwich which causes the pressure when one reads it in view of the following sentence and the drawings. Again Yano et al. explicitly states the friction is caused only by the layers.[0095] One in the art would also understand that the width of the weld would be negligible relative to the surface area of the sheets in contact with the elastic and that the much larger surface of the sheet would exert far more friction than the welds. If the entire surface surrounding the elastic was the size of a sheet of paper, the weld lines would be maybe 5% of that so which is more likely to cause the friction. Because the layers are welded together, the bond does not even have the argument of the thickness of the adhesive resulting in a bond width. Because they are welded, there is no open side of the bond that would be able to contact the elastic. Finally, if you bond two flat surfaces together and then open them up, there is naturally a small area between the opened sheets and the surface they are facing simply due to the thickness of the sheets and the bend. Even in airplane composites where you want as much of the surfaces to be in contact as possible, there is a small gap between the bond area and the surface facing the bond area.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Yano et al. does not select the distance between the sheets so that at least one of the sheets contacts the elastic, the intent of Yano et al. is for the sheets to provide friction, so clearly the distance between them was chosen so that at least one of them would contact the elastic as otherwise how could it provide friction. Additionally, the bonds are relatively close together and the bonds have virtually no width so the sheets naturally contact the elastic. A better statement would be choosing the distance between the bonds, not the distance between the sheets since the sheets contact each other at the bond locations and thus naturally sandwich and contact the elastic. The reference does not need to explicitly state that it does something that is implicit in the method and effectively occurs based on the language of the disclosure, i.e. the sheets contact the elastic to provide friction so the distance between them must have been chosen to allow this to occur. Finally, the distance between the sheets is effectively the bond thickness, and since the sheets are welded together there is no bond spacing them apart, so the sheets are pressed together. See applicant’s drawings Figure 11B. There is no distance between the sheets at the bonds 240, and there is nothing except the presence of the elastic separating them at 252. What exactly is creating this “selected distance”? Applicant has misread the specification. The distance between the bonds is chosen so that the elastic contacts the facing sheets, not the distance between the sheets, because the only thing creating a distance between the sheets is the presence of the elastic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights