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
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Findley et al. (US Patent 9,737,442) in view of Schneider et al.(US Publication 2021/0128366).
Findley et al. discloses a method of making a diaper by advancing a continuous carrier(302) at a first speed in a machine direction, advancing a continuous elastic substrate in the machine direction while it is stretched, cutting the elastic into parts, rotating the elastic part so the ends are in the cross direction from being in the machine direction while changing the speed of the elastic to the speed of the carrier,(Col. 12, ll. 25-30), advancing the elastic to a second drum(100) which reorients the elastic to rotating it about a second axis such that the ends are separated in the cross- direction, and adhesively bonding the elastic part to the continuous carrier.(Figure 8, Col. 2, ll. 50-60, Col. 6, ll. 30-Col. 12, ll. 35) Findley et al. discloses applying the adhesive to the elastic part(Col. 11, ll. 15-17) While it does not disclose when it is applied to the elastic part, the only choices are at the first roll and the third roll and thus they are obvious alternatives, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to apply it before separating the elastic parts on the first roller so as to not get adhesive on the bare areas of the first roller which would result in the adhesive being applied to the elastic to the side with the arrow 134(Figure 8), which would also result in the adhesive facing inward during the rotation of the elastic part.(Figure 8) It would also result in the adhesive facing outward on the first roll 212 and on the last roll 202. The reference does not disclose mechanically bonding the ends of the elastic part to the continuous carrier. Schneider et al. discloses a method of making a similar diaper(Figure 2A) wherein the ends of the elastic part was mechanically fastened to the carrier to help reduce the amount of the ends that remains unbonded and loose.[0070] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to mechanically fasten the ends of the elastic part to the carrier in Findley et al. since this would reduce the portion of the ends of the elastic part that remain unbonded and loose.[0070]
Regarding claim 18, Findley et al. shows a plurality of axles with plates on them which rotate about a first axis with the plates rotating about a second axis.(Figure 8)
Regarding claim 2, Schneider et al. shows cutting the elastic part into two by cutting across the carrier along the cross direction.(Figure 12C)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Schneider et al. discloses applying adhesive to the center of the elastic without applying it to the ends.(Claim 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to not apply adhesive to the ends of the elastic since they were being mechanically joined and thus didn’t also need elastic.
Regarding claim 5, Findley et al. teaches the carrier can be a topsheet.(Col.11, l.. 10-12)
Regarding claim 6, Findley et al. shows placing the elastic part in a facing relationship with the carrier.(Figure 6)
Regarding claim 7, Findley et al .shows the finished diaper has an absorbent core and a backsheet, so they must be attached at some point to the topsheet.(Col. 13, ll. 26-35, Figure 9A)
Regarding claim 8, Findley et al. discloses having leg gaskets(side flaps).(Figure 9A and 9B) While the reference does not disclose which sheet the leg gaskets are attached to, Schneider et al. discloses bonding the leg gaskets to the topsheet.(Claim 9) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to bond the leg gaskets to the topsheet since Findley et al .shows them on the topsheet. And they have to be held there in some way.(Figure 9B)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Schneider et al. shows the elastic part is on top of the leg gaskets so it must be applied after the leg gaskets.(Figure 1B) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to apply the leg gaskets before the elastic as taught by Schneider et al. since Findley et al. is silent leading one in the art to look to similar diapers and Schneider et al. is directed to the same type of diaper so it would be obvious to use a similar construction process since they are both making the same article.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Findley et al .discloses the elastic part can be made of elastic strands with nonwoven on either side.(Col. 1, ll. 44-50)
Regarding claim 14, while Findley et al. does not disclose the mechanism of the stretching of the elastic sheet, one in the art would appreciate such stretching occurs by increasing the speed of the center of the part relative to an end, and it would have been obvious to increase the speed of the elastic from its original speed to a higher speed in order to stretch the elastic as is well-known and conventional in the diaper arts.
Regarding claim 15, Findley et al .shows the continuous elastic contacting the anvil and rotating with it before being cut(Figure 6) There is no suggestion the already stretched elastic is stretched more, and thus one in the art would appreciate that the speed of the rotating anvil(100) would be the same speed as the continuous elastic.(Figure 6)
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Findley et al. shows a plurality of axles with plates on them which rotate about a first axis with the plates rotating about a second axis.(Figure 6)
Regarding claim 19, Schneider et al. disclose the final roll can be patterned to form a pattern during the mechanical bonding.[0150] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have the final roll be a patterned roll since Schneider et al. discoes the final roll can be a patterned roll to impart a pattern during the mechanical bonding.[0150]
Regarding claim 20, while Findley et al. does not explicitly state the carrier and elastic are moving at different speeds, the only way they would be moving at the same speed(before the elastic is cut) is if the length of the diaper is exactly half the length of the stretched elastic as there are two elastics per diaper. Since diapers are made in a variety of sizes, one in the art would appreciate this is not necessarily so, and thus the two could be moving at different speeds to different size diapers.
Regarding claim 21, Schneider et al. shows cutting through the carrier to form two elastic waistbands.(Figure 12C)
Regarding claim 22, while Findley et al. does not disclose the mechanism of the stretching of the elastic sheet, one in the art would appreciate such stretching occurs by increasing the speed of the center of the part relative to an end, and it would have been obvious to increase the speed of the elastic from its original speed to a higher speed in order to stretch the elastic as is well-known and conventional in the diaper arts.
Regarding claim 23, Findley et al .shows the continuous elastic contacting the anvil and rotating with it before being cut(Figure 6) There is no suggestion the already stretched elastic is stretched more, and thus one in the art would appreciate that the speed of the rotating anvil(100) would be the same speed as the continuous elastic.(Figure 6)
Regarding claim 26, Schneider et al. discloses the two waistbands can have different lengths in the machine direction.(Figure 12C, [0012])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Findley et al. does not show a rotation mechanism separate from the roll that changes the speed which rotates the elastic to the ends are separated in the cross-direction and while the adhesive faces inward, Findley et al. shows the claimed structure but does not explicitly state when the adhesive applied to it does to explicitly teach applying it before it is rotated. However, it is clearly applied either at the first roll or the third roll, and both are obvious alternatives, since Findley et al. does teach adhesive can be applied to the elastic(Col. 11, ll. 15-17), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to apply it before separating the elastic parts on the first roller so as to not get adhesive on the bare areas of the first roller.
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 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