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 4 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 5 recites the limitation "the ratio of Wd to X" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal et al. (US 2018/0042785).
With reference to claim 1, Dalal et al. (hereinafter “Dalal”) discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and backsheet [0007]; and
an ear joined to the chassis [0047] and comprising:
a laminate comprising a first nonwoven, a second nonwoven, and an elastomeric material sandwiched between the first nonwoven and the second nonwoven [0050], wherein the laminate further comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds [0010]; and wherein:
the elastomeric material comprises a maximum dimension, Y, in a stretch direction [0054];
the elastomeric material defines a primary region comprising an elastic region (Y) and one or more unstretched zones(37,39);
the elastic region comprises a maximum dimension, X, in the stretch direction [0054] and the one or more unstretched zones (37,39) that comprise an aggregate lateral width as shown in figure 2.
The difference between Dalal and claim 1 is the explicit recitation that a ratio of the unstretched zones to the maximum dimension of the elastomeric material is 0.3 or less.
Initially, it is noted that the ratio may be equal to zero and is therefore not necessarily required to be present.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ratio between the unstretched zones to the maximum dimension of the elastomeric material as desired because Dalal discloses that the width of the unstretched regions may vary as set forth in [0058].
As to claim 2, Dalal discloses an absorbent article wherein the stretch direction comprises a lateral direction of the absorbent article as set forth in [0054].
As to claims 3-4, see the rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that the ratio may be equal to zero and is therefore not necessarily required to be present.
As to claim 5, Dalal discloses an absorbent article wherein the one or more unstretched zones comprise:
a first unstretched zone (37) disposed laterally inboard of the elastic region and comprising a width Wd1 (figure 2), and
a second unstretched zone (39) disposed laterally outboard of the elastic region comprising a lateral width Wd2 (figure 2), wherein the Wd1 is different than Wd2 as set forth in [0058].
With respect to claim 6, Dalal teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
The difference between Dalal and claim 6 is the explicit recitation that Wd2 is greater than Wd1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wd2 and Wd1 as desired because Dalal teaches that the length and/or width of the unstretched regions may vary as set forth in [0058].
Regarding claims 7-10 and 17-20, Dalal discloses an absorbent article wherein the laminate further comprises a discrete (cl. 8,18) reinforcement feature (48) disposed between the elastomeric material and the first or second nonwovens [0060] wherein the
discrete material is a fastening tape (50) joined to a portion of one of the one or more unstretched zones (cl. 10, 20) as set forth in [0061].
With reference claim 11, Dalal teaches a reinforcement feature as set forth in the rejection of claims 7-10 and 17-20.
The manner by which the reinforcement feature is formed is considered as a product by process limitation that does not patentably distinguish the recited element from the cited prior art.
With reference to claims 12-13, see the rejection of claims 7-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the reinforcement feature between the first nonwoven and the elastomeric material of the ear (cl. 12) and/or between the second nonwoven and the elastomeric material of the ear (cl. 13) because Dalal discloses that the system may be joined between the various layers as set forth in [0060].
As to claim 14, Dalal discloses an absorbent article (abstract) comprising:
a chassis comprising a topsheet, a backsheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the topsheet and backsheet [0007]; and
an ear joined to the chassis [0047] and comprising:
a laminate comprising a first nonwoven, a second nonwoven, and an elastomeric material sandwiched between the first nonwoven and the second nonwoven [0050], wherein the laminate further comprises a plurality of ultrasonic bonds [0010]; and wherein:
the elastomeric material comprises a maximum dimension, Y, in a stretch direction [0054];
the elastomeric material defines a primary region comprising an elastic region (Y) and first and second unstretched zones(37,39).
The difference between Dalal and claim 14 is the explicit recitation that a ratio the first unstretched zone to the second unstretched zone is at least 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ratio between the unstretched zones as desired because Dalal discloses that the length and/or width of the unstretched regions may vary as set forth in [0058].
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lenser et al. (US 2019/0046363) discloses a method of assembling elastic laminates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELE M KIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4935. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MICHELE KIDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights