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 amended claim 1. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09/09/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,432,975 and 11,833,020 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/09/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the support panel of Stevens does not comprise a front belt and a back belt like the claimed ring-like elastic belt. However, in the Non-Final Rejection and below, Kuwano teaches an article comprising a ring-like elastic belt with a front belt and a back belt, while Stevens teaches methods of achieving size variations in an elastic support belt.
Applicant further argues that the size variations detailed in Table 1 of Stevens are not applicable to the cited embodiment of Stevens including an inelastic central section. However, Steven teaches that the support panels which may be used for the size variations detailed in Table 1 may include panels which have areas with different stretch characteristics (¶0084), which includes the embodiment comprising a central inelastic portion (¶0085).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, with respect to the rejections of claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable in further view of Mori, of claims 11-12 in further view of Tai, and of claims 14 and 17-20 in further view of Wu have been fully considered and are not persuasive because the rejections of the independent claims have been maintained as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 09/09/25.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 2003/0135186 A1) in view of Kuwano et al. (US 2011/0071488 A1) and in further view of Stevens (US 2004/0127876 A).
Regarding claim 1, Olson discloses an array of wearable articles (¶0008, lines 1-7; ¶0011, lines 1-3) comprising a first article and a second article (¶ 0008, lines 1-7; ¶0075, lines 1-6; Fig. 1b). Olson additionally discloses that the first and second articles are size variations (Fig. 1a; ¶0013, lines 1-12; ¶0072). As discussed on Page 11, line 6 – Page 14, line 27 of the present specification, the Initial Gauge Circumference and Full Stretch Circumference according to the Whole Article Force Measurement test correspond to the circumference of the waist opening of the wearable article at minimal stretching force and a stretching force of 19.6N, respectively. Therefore, the first and second wearable articles in the array disclosed by Olson each have initial gauge circumferences and full stretch circumferences according to the Whole Article Force Measurement test. Olson does not disclose that each article comprises a main body and a ring-like elastic belt comprising a front belt and a back belt wherein at least the front belt or the back belt is an elastic member, or any of the other structural limitations on each article in the array recited by claim 1.
Kuwano teaches a wearable article comprising the claimed structure: a disposable absorbent wearing article (¶0061, lines 1-7; Fig. 2, feat. 10) that is continuous in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2, feat. L1) and a transverse direction (Fig. 2, feat. L2), comprising a main body (Fig. 2, feat. 11) and a ring-like elastic belt (Figs. 2 and 12) comprising a front belt (Fig. 2, 12A) and a back belt (Fig. 2, 12B) wherein at least the front belt or the back belt is an elastic member (¶0087, lines 1-15), the center of the front belt (¶0102, lines 1-5) is joined to a front waist panel (Fig. 2, feat. 15) of the main body, the center of the back belt (¶0102, lines 1-5) is joined to a back waist panel (Fig. 2, feat. 16) of the main body, the front and back belt each having a left side panel (Fig. 2, 12A and 12B) and a right side panel (Fig. 2, 12A and 12B) where the main body does not overlap (Fig. 2, 11, 12A, 12B), and the transverse edges of the front belt and the back belt are joined by a seam (¶0102, lines 6-9; Fig. 1, feat. 12) to form a waist opening (Fig. 1, feat. 18) and two leg openings (Fig. 1, feat. 19), the elastic member formed by at least one elastic body (Fig. 3, feat. 43, 44, 49, and 50) running in the transverse direction sandwiched between an inner sheet (¶0086, lines 1-6; Fig. 7, feat. 38a; Fig. 8, feat. 38b) and an outer sheet (Fig. 7, feat. 39a; Fig. 8, feat. 39b); each front belt and back belt having transversely continuous proximal and distal edges (Fig. 3, feats. 12a, 12b, 12c, 12d, 12e, and 12f; ¶0085, lines 1-13), the proximal edge being located closer than the distal edge relative to the longitudinal center of the article (Fig. 3; ¶0085, lines 1-13; ¶0086; ¶0093), the elastic member further comprising a non-elastic region (¶0089, lines 1-22; ¶0094, lines 1-16; Fig. 3, feats. 41 and 48). Kuwano teaches that such a disposable wearing article advantageously presents a neat or sporty aesthetic appearance and prevents the leakage of body waste (¶0029). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array of wearable articles so that the first and second articles in the array have the claimed structure taught by Kuwano so that each article in the array presents a neat or sporty aesthetic appearance and prevents the leakage of body waste as taught by Kuwano. By modifying the articles in the array of Olson to have the structure taught by Kuwano, the first elastic member of the first article would comprise a first non-elastic region and the second elastic member of the second article would comprise a second non-elastic region.
Olson in view of Kuwano does not disclose that the first initial gauge circumference and the second initial gauge circumference are different, that the first full stretch circumference and the second full stretch circumference are the same, that the first non-elastic region is larger than the second non-elastic region, or that a first article size is larger than a second article size.
Stevens teaches a wearable article (Figs. 1-2, feat. 10; ¶0056) comprising a waist support panel (100; ¶0078-0085), which is analogous to the claimed ring-like elastic belt, which has a central, inelastic portion (Fig. 2, feat. 120; ¶0085) with a central width (Fig. 2, feat. L1) and side, elastic portions (Fig. 2, feats. 122; ¶0085) with side widths (Fig. 2, feats. L2) such that the central and side widths add up to an overall, unstretched width (Fig. 2, feat. L). Stevens teaches that the width of the central, inelastic portion may be varied to achieve different sizes, with larger central widths correlating with larger sizes (Table 1). This further results in different unstretched widths (Table 1, L) and overlapping and similar stretched widths (Table 1, Fit Range). Stevens teaches that such a support panel can advantageously be tailored to meet the desired performance criteria during manufacture and reduces the time needed to change manufacturing equipment to make different sizes of article (¶0103). As discussed in the present specification, the initial gauge circumference is the circumference of an unstretched wearable article, and therefore the unstretched width of Stevens corresponds to the initial gauge circumference. As discussed in the present specification, the full stretch circumference is the circumference of a wearable article stretched at maximum load, and therefore the stretched width of Stevens corresponds to the full stretch circumference. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano so that the first initial gauge circumference and the second initial gauge circumference are different, that the first full stretch circumference and the second full stretch circumference are the same, that the first non-elastic region is larger than the second non-elastic region, and so that a first article size is larger than a second article size in order to tailor the elastic member to the desired performance during manufacture and reduce the time needed to change manufacturing equipment to make each differently sized article in the array as taught by Stevens.
Regarding claim 2, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1. Kuwano further teaches that the elastic body includes a plurality of elastic bodies (Fig. 3, feats. 43, 44, 49, and 50) and that the non-elastic region (Fig. 3, feats. 41 and 48; ¶0087-0094) is made by adhering the elastic bodies between an inner sheet and outer sheet such that the elastic bodies in the non-elastic region are not adhered, and cutting the elastic bodies at the non-elastic region (¶0089), forming elastic cut windows. Because the articles in the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens comprise differently sized non-elastic regions as discussed above, they would comprise different sets of elastic cut windows. Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the at least one elastic body comprises a plurality of elastic bodies, and wherein the non-elastic region is made by the steps of a) adhering the elastic bodies between the inner sheet and outer sheet wherein at least a certain portion of some of the elastic bodies are left unadhered, the unadhered portion being an elastic cut window and b) cutting the elastic bodies at the elastic cut windows, wherein the first elastic member of the first article comprises a first set of elastic cut windows, there second elastic member of the second article comprises a second set of elastic cut windows, wherein the first and second sets of elastic cut windows are different from each other.
Regarding claim 3, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 2. Kuwano further teaches that the front belt (12A) and the back belt (12B) of each article are elastic members (¶0087, lines 1-15). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the front belt and the back belt of each article are elastic members, the first article comprising a first front elastic member which is the first front belt and a first back elastic member which is the first back belt and the second article comprising a second front elastic member which is the second front belt and a second back elastic member which is the second back belt.
Regarding claim 5, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 3. Kuwano further teaches that the set of elastic cut windows of the front belt and the back belt of each article is the same (¶0094, lines 1-16). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the set of elastic cut windows of the front belt and back belt of each article is the same.
Regarding claim 6, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens teaches the array of claim 1. Olson further discloses that the length of the articles along the longitudinal axis are in the range of 350 mm to 570 mm (¶0128, lines 7-15; ¶0077, lines 1-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
96
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens teaches the array of claim 2. Olson further teaches similar test methods to the instant application for evaluating the mechanical properties of the wearable articles in the array (¶0185-0215). Instead of evaluating the percentage of the initial Gauge Circumference to the Full Stretch Circumference, Olson evaluates the stretch-to-stop ratio, which is defined as a ratio determined from the difference between the unexpended dimension of the material and the maximum extended dimension upon the application of 2000 grams force (roughly 19.6 N) and dividing that difference by the unextended dimension of the material (¶0185, lines 1-14). This ratio can then be converted to a percentage by multiplying by 100, in which case it is called the stretch-to-stop value. Based on the way that the initial Gauge Circumference and Full Stretch Circumference, the stretch-to-stop ratio percentage is related to the percentage of the initial Gauge Circumference to the Full Stretch Circumference by the following equation:
Olson teaches that the stretchable side panels at the waist of later stage garments should have stretch-to-stop values of at least 240%, and that these later stage garments should have stretchable side panels at the waist with stretch-to-stop values that are at least 60% higher than those of earlier stage garments (¶0131, lines 1-15). This corresponds to a range of stretch-to-stop values of 180% to 240%, and this range corresponds to a range of percentages of initial Gauge Circumference to Full Stretch Circumference of 29.41% to 35.7%. Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that each article has an Initial Gauge Circumference and a Full Stretch Circumference according to the Whole Article Force Measurement herein, wherein each article of the array is configured such that the percentage of the Initial Gauge Circumference to the Full Stretch Circumference of the ring-like elastic belt is from 28% to 40%.
Regarding claim 9, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 8. Kuwano further teaches that the set of elastic windows of each article overlaps the absorbent core (Figs. 2 and 3, feats. 20, 41, and 48; ¶0066 and 0089). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the set of elastic cut windows of each article overlaps the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 10, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view Stevens discloses the array of claim 9. Kuwano further teaches that at least one elastic member of at least one article has a set of elastic windows having a transverse width which is shorter than the transverse width of the absorbent core (Figs. 2 and 3, feats. 20, 41, and 48; ¶0066 and 0089). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that at least one elastic member of at least one article has a set of elastic windows having a transverse width which is shorter than the transverse width of the absorbent core.
Regarding claim 13, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view Stevens discloses the array of claim 3. Kuwano further teaches that the elongation of the elastic bodies disposed on the front belt and the back belt of the same distance from the distal edge are substantially matched (¶0095, lines 12-20; Figure 3, feats. 40, 42, 45, and 47). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the at least one elastic body comprise a plurality of elastic bodies, and wherein the elongation of the elastic bodies disposed on the front belt and the back belt of the same distance from the distal edge are substantially matched.
Regarding claim 16, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1. Kuwano further teaches that, for any article, each of the proximal edges and the distal edges of the front belt and the back belt are substantially parallel (¶0085, lines 1-13; Figure 3), the longitudinal length of the back belt being longer than that of the front belt (¶0085, lines 7-10; Figure 3), wherein the distal edge of the front belt is aligned with the distal edge of the back belt (¶0085, lines 1-13; Figure 3), and the proximal edge of the front belt is not aligned with the proximal edge of the back belt (¶0085, lines 1-13; Figure 3). Kuwano teaches a back belt with a trapezoidal shape that causes the proximal edge of the back belt to not be aligned with the proximal edge of the front belt (Figure 3). Kuwano teaches that this shape in conjunction with the elasticization of the back belt enables the back belt to form a soft contact surface covering areas of a wearer's buttock (¶0098, lines 7-15). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that for any article, each of the proximal edges and the distal edges of the front belt and the back belt are substantially parallel, the longitudinal length of the back belt being longer than that of the front belt, wherein the distal edge of the front belt is aligned with the distal edge of the back belt, and the proximal edge of the front belt is not aligned with the proximal edge of the back belt.
Regarding claim 21, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1. Stevens further teaches that wearable articles with larger sizes may have a larger unstretched widths (Table 1, L), which corresponds to the initial gauge circumference as discussed above. Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens further discloses that the first initial gauge circumference is greater than the second initial gauge circumference.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 2003/0135186 A1) in view of Kuwano et al. (US 2011/0071488 A1), in further view of Stevens (US 2004/0127876 A), and in further view of Mori et al. (US 2004/0133180 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 3, but does not disclose that the set of elastic cut windows of the front belt and the back belt of each article is different.
Mori teaches a similar absorbent article comprising elastic and inelastic portions in the front and back waist regions of the article (¶0018, lines 1-10; Figure 6). Mori further teaches that by reducing the size of or eliminating the non-elastic region in the back waist region of the article and making the elastic cut windows in the front belt and back belt regions different, elasticity and other properties can be selectively imparted to the garment in different areas (¶0164, lines 1-13; ¶0165, lines 1-10). For example, by creating an elastic cut window in the front belt elastic member, undesirable deformations can be eliminated from the underbelly portion of the article and the contraction force in the groin region can be reduced (¶0164, lines 7-13). Likewise, by reducing or removing the elastic cut window in the back belt elastic member, the slip-off prevention and skin adhesion of the article can be enhanced (¶0165, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens so that the set of elastic cut windows of the front belt and the back belt of each article is different in order to create an array of wearable articles that have reduced deformation in the underbelly portion of each article, reduced contraction force in the groin region, and enhanced slip-off prevention and skin adhesion as taught by Mori.
Regarding claim 15, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1, but does not disclose that the Waist Circumference Force according to the Whole Force Measurement herein of any article is no more than 10N.
As discussed above, Mori teaches a similar absorbent article comprising elastic and inelastic portions in the front and back waist regions of the article (¶0018, lines 1-10; Figure 6). Mori further teaches that it is desirable for wearable articles to be configured so that the force at maximum stretch in the waistband region of the article to be less than 600 grams force (approximately 5.88 N) so that the article has a good fit (¶0156, lines 1-16). The Waist Circumference Force defined by the instant specification is the force at 70% of the Full Stretch Circumference. Since the article taught by Mori has a force at maximum stretch less than 5.88 N (which is less than 10 N), then the article taught by Mori must have a force at 70% the full stretch of less than 10 N. Because Mori teaches that the force at maximum stretch in the waistband region of a wearable article should be less than 5.88 N to ensure a good fit, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens so that the Waist Circumference Force according to the Whole Force Measurement herein of any article is no more than 10N in order to ensure that each article has a good fit as taught by Mori.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 2003/0135186 A1) in view of Kuwano et al. (US 2011/0071488 A1), in further view of Stevens (US 2004/0127876 A), and in further view of Tai et al. (US 2012/0283683 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 9, but does not disclose that at least one article has an elastic cut window formed at regions where the absorbent core does not overlap.
Tai teaches an absorbent article with elasticized (Fig. 2, feat. 4) front (Fig. 2, feat. 1) and back belts (Fig. 2, feat. 2) and non-elastic portions (Fig. 2, feats. 18, 28,172, and 271) longitudinally distal and non-overlapping with the absorbent core (Fig. 2, feat. 51). Tai teaches that the lack of elasticity in these regions of the front and back belts provides good ventilation (¶0021, lines 14-16). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tai into the array of absorbent articles taught by Olson in view of Kuwano, and in further view of Stevens so that at least one article in the array has an elastic cut window formed in regions where the absorbent core does not overlap so that a wearable article that advantageously has good ventilation in those regions can be created as taught by Tai.
Regarding claim 12, Olson in view of Kuwano, in further view of Stevens, and in further view of Tai discloses the array of claim 11. Tai further teaches non-elastic portions (Fig. 2, feats. 18 and 28) formed on the front belt longitudinally distal from the absorbent core (Fig. 2, feat. 51). Therefore, Olson in view of Kuwano, in further view of Stevens, and in further view of Tai further discloses that the elastic cut window is formed on the front belt longitudinal distal from the absorbent core.
Claims 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 2003/0135186 A1) in view of Kuwano et al. (US 2011/0071488 A1), in further view of Stevens (US 2004/0127876 A), and in further view of Wu et al. (US 7,118,558 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1. Kuwano further teaches that the at least one elastic body comprises a plurality of elastic bodies (Fig. 3, feats. 43, 44, 49, and 50). Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens does not disclose that no article in the array is disposed of a total of no more than 60 elastic bodies.
Wu teaches an absorbent article with an elastic belt that has non-elastic regions (Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 3; Col. 3, lines 48-65). Wu teaches elastic members with non-elastic regions formed by securing elastic bodies between carrier layers using an adhesive in certain regions and severing the bodies in other regions in order to form the non-elastic region (Col. 17, lines 55-63). Wu further teaches that the total number of elastic bodies in the elastic members can vary based on the size of the elastic member, preferably in the range of 8 to 300 elastic bodies (Column 22, lines 30-34). As an example embodiment, Wu teaches a 12 cm wide elastic member with 49 elastic bodies (Column 22, lines 34-35). Wu additionally teaches that the total contracting force is a function of, among other things, the density of the elastic bodies in the elastic members (Column 21, lines 10-13). Wu teaches that it is desirable for the total contracting force to be between 3500 grams force and 4100 grams force for a wearable article for babies, though a larger force may be desirable for a wearable article for adults (Column 21, lines 14-19; Column 21, lines 61-66). Therefore, the density (and thus number) of the elastic bodies in the elastic member is a result-effective variable that can be modified to create an elastic member with an optimal total contracting force. While optimizing the density of the elastic bodies in the elastic member for each article in the array, one of ordinary skill in the art would experiment with articles that have no more than 60 elastic bodies. Additionally, articles with no more than 60 elastic bodies would be consistent with the elastic member embodiment with 49 elastic bodies taught by Wu. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens optimize the number of elastic bodies to be no more than 60 in order to create a wearable article with optimal contracting force as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 17, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1, but does not disclose that the elastic members of at least two of the first and second absorbent articles comprises a same number of elastic strands.
As discussed above, Wu teaches an absorbent article with an elastic belt that has non-elastic regions (Col. 2, line 60 – Col. 3, line 3; Col. 3, lines 48-65). Wu teaches elastic members with non-elastic regions formed by securing elastic bodies between carrier layers using an adhesive in certain regions and severing the bodies in other regions in order to form the non-elastic region (Col. 17, lines 55-63). Wu further teaches that the total number of elastic bodies in the elastic members can vary based on the size of the elastic member, preferably in the range of 8 to 300 elastic bodies (Column 22, lines 30-34). As an example embodiment, Wu teaches a 12 cm wide elastic member with 49 elastic bodies (Column 22, lines 34-35). Wu additionally teaches that the total contracting force is a function of, among other things, the density of the elastic bodies in the elastic members (Column 21, lines 10-13). Wu teaches that it is desirable for the total contracting force to be between 3500 grams force and 4100 grams force for a wearable article for babies, though a larger force may be desirable for a wearable article for adults (Column 21, lines 14-19; Column 21, lines 61-66). Therefore, the density (and thus number) of the elastic bodies in the elastic member is a result-effective variable that can be modified to create an elastic member with an optimal total contracting force. While optimizing the density of the elastic bodies in the elastic member for each article in the array, one of ordinary skill in the art would experiment with an array in which each article in the array has the same number of elastic bodies. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens so that the elastic members of at least two of the first and second absorbent articles comprises a same number of elastic strands in order to create wearable articles in the array with optimal contracting force as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 18, Olson in view of Kuwano, in further view of Stevens, and in further view of Wu discloses the array of claim 17. Wu further teaches that the contracting force may be controlled by the cross-sectional area of the elastic bodies, which may be represented by decitex (dtex) (Col. 20, line 59 – Col. 21, line 13). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens so that the elastic strands comprise an identical dtex in order to create wearable articles in the array with optimal contracting force as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 19, Olson in view of Kuwano, in further view of Stevens, and in further view of Wu discloses the array of claim 18. Wu further teaches that the elastic members are constructed by securing elastic bodies between the carrier layers using an adhesive in certain regions, and severing the bodies in regions without adhesive in order to form a non-elastic region (Col. 17, lines 55-63). Wu further teaches that when the elastic bodies are installed in the elastic member, they are installed in a pre-stretched state that corresponds to the contracting force of the desired size range (Col. 22, lines 10-29). Because the elastic bodies are attached to the carrier layers in a pre-stretched state, the elastic bodies that are in the adhesive regions stay in their pre-stretched state when the bodies in the regions without adhesive are cut. Because cutting the elastic bodies changes their lengths, the contracting force of the elastic member is changed, without changing the prestretch of the elastic bodies that are adhered to the carrier layers. Therefore, Wu teaches that the contracting force, and therefore desired size, of the absorbent article can be changed without changing the prestretch of the elastic strands. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano, in further view of Stevens, and in further view of Wu so that the elastic strand comprise an identical prestretch in order to control the contracting force and desired size as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 20, Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens discloses the array of claim 1, but does not disclose that the elastic members of all of the first and second absorbent articles comprise elastic strands comprising an identical dtex.
As discussed above, Wu teaches a set of parameters by which the contracting force can be controlled, which includes the cross-sectional area of the elastic bodies, which may be represented by decitex (dtex) (Col. 20, line 59 - Col. 21, line 13). As discussed above, Wu teaches that the size of the non-elastic region controls the contracting force of the elastic member by changing the length of the elastic members (Please see paragraph 15 above). Wu further teaches that parameters, such as elastic strength, which is in part a function of length, may be changed without changing any of the other parameters in order to change the contracting force and desired size (Col. 21, line 44 – Col. 22, line 9). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array disclosed by Olson in view of Kuwano and in further view of Stevens so that the elastic members of all of the first and second absorbent articles comprises elastic strands comprising an identical dtex in order to control the contracting force and desired size as taught by Wu.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781