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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/3/25 has been entered.
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]
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 9/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ehlert et al. does not teach friction holding the elastic in place when the bonds are spaced apart, while examiner disagrees, Yano et al. teaches the bonds being spaced apart and explicitly states the elastic is held in place by friction. Examiner notes that when something is held in place by friction, it can still slip- i.e. friction can be overcome by force allowing it to slip.
Examiner notes applicant refers to claim 1, but claim 1 has been cancelled so examiner assumes applicant is referring to claim 21.
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