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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the Tensile Test” in line 3. Claim 20 also recites “the Laminate Extension Test” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0042786.
As to claim 1, Mueller teaches an array of absorbent articles (Mueller Abstract), the array comprising:
a first absorbent article 10a comprising a first elastic side member 30a (Fig. 8 para. 0088); and
a second absorbent article 10b comprising a second elastic side member 30b (Fig. 8; para. 0088);
wherein each of the first and second elastic side members comprises:
a first nonwoven material 300 (para. 0056, 0059);
an elastic film 304 in a face-to-face relationship with the first nonwoven material (para. 0056, 0059, 0068-0069); and a plurality of ultrasonic bonds joining the first nonwoven material and the elastic film to form an ultrasonically bonded laminate 44 ( Fig. 4,7; para. 0072-0073);
wherein the ultrasonically bonded laminate 30,44 in the first absorbent article 10a is different than the ultrasonically bonded laminate 30,44 in the second absorbent article by two or more features selected from:
ultrasonic bond shape, ultrasonic bond pattern (Fig. 9; para. 0082), presence of frangible bonds, elastic film basis weight, first nonwoven primary bond pattern, and first nonwoven basis weight (para. 0090);
wherein at least one dimension of the first absorbent article is different than at least one dimension of the second absorbent article (para. 0090, 0123); and
wherein the first and second absorbent articles are produced by the same manufacturer and/or sold under the same brand name (Fig. 11; para. 0102, 0125).
As to claim 2, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein each of the first and second elastic side members comprises a second nonwoven material 302 in a face-to-face relationship with the elastic film 304 (Fig. 3, 5, 6), wherein the elastic film 304 is positioned intermediate the first nonwoven materials 300 and the second nonwoven materials 302 (Fig. 6), and wherein the plurality of ultrasonic bonds join the first nonwoven material, the elastic film, and the second nonwoven material to form the ultrasonically bonded laminate 30,44 (para. 0073, 0088-0089).
As to claim 3, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein the ultrasonically bonded laminate in the first absorbent article is different than the ultrasonically bonded laminate in the second absorbent article by ultrasonic bond density per unit area (para. 0082, 0090, 0096).
As to claim 5, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein the elastic film in the first and second elastic side members is preactivated (para. 0069) prior to being ultrasonically bonded to the first nonwoven material, and wherein the elastic film is joined to the first nonwoven material when the elastic film is in a stretched state – where Mueller teaches in the gathered laminate 30,44, one of the layers is strained to a greater degree than a remaining layer during lamination. Mueller further teaches in some embodiments, at least a portion of the elastomeric layer is strained while the nonwovens are in a relaxed state during lamination (para. 0072)
As to claim 6, Mueller incorporates by reference (Mueller para. 0069, 0176), Schonbeck et al. USPN 9533067 who teaches with pre-activation, the top view of the skin (see the rejection of claim 7 below) includes a plurality of stripes in varying thicknesses. The stripes, referred to as activation stripes, indicate zones in the pre-activated elastomeric film in which there was a particular range of stretching during the pre-activation process (Schonbeck Fig.7, col. 10, lines 40-48).
As to claim 7, Mueller incorporates by reference (Mueller para.0069, 0176), Schonbeck et al. USPN 9533067 who teaches stretch laminates comprising elastomeric film 22. Schonbeck teaches the elastomeric film 22 includes both an elastically extensible material and at least one skin disposed on the elastically extensible material. Schonbeck further teaches after stretching, the skin and the elastically extensible material will retract and recover differently. In comparison with the elastically extensible material, the skin is less elastic and thinner. Therefore when the thicker elastically extensible material retracts and recovers after pre-activation stretching, it will force the attached skin to retract with it. But because the skin cannot recover as much as the elastically extensible material, the skin buckles and wrinkles, creating hills and/or furrows. (Schonbeck Fig. 5; col. 9, lines 18-36; col. 10, lines 3-23).
As to claim 8, the first absorbent article 10A or the second absorbent article 10B comprises an elastic waist feature in a front waist region or back waist region thereof – see Fig. 8, 10a, element 80; para.100).
As to claims 9 and 10, Mueller teaches the first absorbent article or the second absorbent article comprises a core bag, which the examiner interprets as a core wrap or tissue wraps (Mueller para. 0052) between a topsheet and a backsheet (Mueller para. 0048). Mueller incorporates by reference (Mueller para. 0075, 0176), Buell et al. USPN 5221274 who teaches absorbent articles having a unique elastic waist feature. Buell teaches the elastic waist feature comprises an interconnecting panel zone 130 connecting with the containment assembly (Buell col. 2, lines 63-68). The containment assembly 22 of the diaper 20 comprises an absorbent core 28, topsheet 24, and backsheet 26 (Buell col. 8, lines 34-51). Buell teaches a tissue wrapped core (Buell col. 8, line 69), thus providing a core bag as broadly as claimed. Buell teaches the interconnecting panel zone 130 preferably comprises a portion of the topsheet 24, a portion of the backsheet 26, a portion of the elastomeric material comprising the elastomeric member 76 and the resilient member 77, and a portion of the landing members 644 (Buell col. 49, lines 62-66). Buell further teaches the landing member 644 also extends beyond the waist edge 83 of the absorbent core 28 to form a portion of the containment assembly 22. Since the landing member 644 is part of the waist feature 130, this meets the limitation that a portion of the core bag (tissue wrapped core) overlaps a portion of the elastic waist feature.
Buell incorporates by reference (Buell col. 9, lines 20-38), Angstadt USPN 4888231 who teaches an absorbent core comprising two or more distinct components. Angstadt teaches the absorbent core includes an insert core component 1008 (first web component) and a shaped core component 1010 (second web component), which extends in the longitudinal direction (Angstadt Fig. 10 and 11; col. 3, lines 22-26). Angstadt teaches the shaped core component 1010 serves to quickly collect and temporarily hold and distribute discharge body fluid (col. 3, lines 33-35). Thus, the shaped core component of Angstadt functions as an acquisition layer. In the same manner that the core bag of Buell overlaps the elastic waist feature, the acquisition layer 1010 of Angstadt would also overlap the waist feature as Buell teaches a portion of the waist feature (landing zone 644) extends beyond the waist edge of the core.
As to claim 11, Mueller incorporates by reference (Mueller para. 0087, 0176) examples of elasticized waist features including Ser. No. 13/490,543, which corresponds to published application Lawson et al. US 2012/0330262. Lawson teaches waist features 1000, 2000 comprising elastic strands (Lawson para. 0049).
As to claim 12, the ultrasonically bonded laminate 30,44 comprises apertures, slits, three-dimensional protrusions, or tinting (Mueller para. 0056).
As to claim 14, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic bond pattern forms one or more closed cells (Mueller Fig. 4; para. 0039,0073).
As to claim 15, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein the ultrasonic bond pattern is free of one of more closed cells – where Mueller teaches attachment bonds 35 may comprise ultrasonic bonds (Mueller para. 0074).
As to claim 17, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein one or more of the ultrasonic bonds of the ultrasonic bond pattern are visible when viewing a garment-facing surface of the ultrasonically bonded laminate (Mueller para. 0096).
As to claim 18, the first absorbent article 10a is a taped diaper, wherein the elastic side member 30 is a front ear or a back ear (Mueller Fig. 8), wherein the second absorbent article 10b is a taped diaper, and wherein the elastic side member is a front ear or a back ear (Mueller Fig. 8).
As to claim 19, The absorbent article of Claim 1, wherein the first absorbent article or the second absorbent article comprises an absorbent core comprising an absorbent material, and wherein the absorbent material comprises at least 80% superabsorbent polymers by weight of the absorbent material (Mueller para. 0052).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0042786.
As to claim 4, Mueller does not specifically teach the first nonwoven material and the second nonwoven material of the first elastic side member each have only a single layer, and wherein the first nonwoven material or the second nonwoven material of the second elastic side member has two layers in a portion thereof. Mueller does teach the ear 30 comprises more than one nonwoven, and the nonwovens may have a layered structure (e.g. SMS or SS) (Mueller para. 0067). Mueller further teaches the first ear laminate may comprise a first garment-facing nonwoven and/or a first body-facing nonwoven, and the second ear laminate may comprise a second garment-facing nonwoven and/or a second body-facing nonwoven. One or both of the first nonwovens may comprise a primary nonwoven 360. Likewise, one or both of the second nonwovens may comprise a secondary nonwoven 370, which may differ from the primary nonwoven (Mueller para. 0093). Mueller teaches the general condition that the primary and secondary nonwovens of the first and the second ear laminate may differ by one of the group consisting of layer configuration, fiber composition, calendar bond area or calendar bond shape, basis weight, and combinations thereof (Mueller para. 0115). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide the claimed structure since Mueller teaches various layer configurations are within the scope of the invention. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is obvious to choose from among known solutions to solve a problem. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
As to claim 20, Mueller teaches the elastic side member of the first absorbent article has a 5% different extension than the elastic side member of the second absorbent article, according to the Tensile Test (Mueller para. 0091, 0112). Mueller does not teach the elastic side member of the first absorbent article has an engineering strain greater than about 8% at about or below 2N of force when measured according to the Laminate Extension Test. Mueller teaches the general condition of an Average Extension of the ultrasonically bonded ear laminate at a certain force (para. 80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed strain and force values, since 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 et al. 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0042786 in view of Collias US Patent Application Publication 2022/00117800. Mueller teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Mueller does not teach the first nonwoven material or the elastic film comprise a bio-sourced resin or a recycled resin. Collias teaches an absorbent hygiene product having stretch laminate ears 42 (Collias Fig. 1A). Collias teaches the ears 42 may comprise a first nonwoven 42a, elastomeric material 42b, and, optionally, a second nonwoven 42c. Collias further teaches the first and second nonwovens 42a, 42c may comprise a polymer (e.g. polyethylene) derived from a recycled or renewable resource (Collias para. 0084). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to modify Mueller with nonwovens from a recycled resource generally to lower carbon footprints and enable circular economy practices.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. US Patent Application Publication 2018/0042786 in view of Stevens US Patent Application Publication 2004/0127876. Mueller teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Mueller does not teach at least some of the ultrasonic bonds are frangible in an elastic region of the elastic side member. Stevens teaches an absorbent article having an elastic laminate support panel 100 (Stevens Fig. 1; para. 0078). Stevens teaches the support panel 100 can be attached to the chassis in any number of ways including ultrasonic bonding. Stevens further teaches some areas may be attached by frangible connections to permit separation from the waist region as the panel 100 is stretched to its supporting position (Stevens para. 0086). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide frangible bonds for the benefits taught in Stevens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 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 571-272-7159. 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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781