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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
New claim 50 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/11/2024 wherein the applicant elected Species 1 of Species Group 1 wherein the core layer consists of cellulosic fibers. Claim 50 is drawn to non-elected Species 3 of Species Group 1 wherein the core layer comprises cellulosic fibers and polymeric fibers.
Applicant’s election of Species 1 from each of Species Groups I and II in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 43-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (applicant’s response filed 1/20/2026 indicates that claims 43-45 are not readable on the elected species).
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 21, 26-28, 34-42, 46, 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2004/0038022 to Maugans in view of USPN 5,470,639 to Gessner and (when necessary) further in view of USPAP 2005/0133174 to Gorley, USPAP 2006/0121099 to Solarek, and/or USPAP 2010/0222755 to Westwood.
Claim 21, Maugans discloses a method of forming an elastomeric nonwoven fabric, the nonwoven fabric consisting of a plurality blended staple fibers formed from a melt-blend of (i) a polymer and (ii) a polyolefin, wherein the polymer and the polyolefin are different (see entire document including [0002], [0026], [0038], [0042], [0240], [0249], [0251], [0253] and [0254]). Specifically, Maugans discloses that the fibers comprise a melt-blend of at least one polypropylene polymer and at least one ethylene polymer resulting in a nonwoven fabric with high elongation ([0026], [0038] [0042] and [0251]).
Maugans discloses that the nonwoven may be used form a laminate and/or diaper ([0249] and [0253]) but Maugans does not appear to explicitly disclose the polypropylene being elastomeric or the claimed nonwoven/core/nonwoven construction. Gessner discloses a method of forming a diaper, comprising: (a) providing a first nonwoven outer layer; (b) providing a second nonwoven outer layer; (c) providing a core layer; (d) positioning the core layer between the first nonwoven layer and the second nonwoven outer layer to form a composite web; and (e) bonding the composite web to form the nonwoven fabric; wherein the first nonwoven outer layer and the second nonwoven outer layer may be the same and include a plurality of blended fibers comprising a blend of (i) a polymer and (ii) an elastomeric polyolefin (e.g. elastomeric polypropylene), wherein the polymer and the elastomeric polyolefin are different (see entire document including column 1, lines 6-19, column 5, line 28 through column 10, line 17 and the Examples). Gessner disclose that it is known in the art to vary fiber polymer chemistry and/or blend elastomeric with non-elastomeric polymers to provide elastic properties ranging from fully elastic to relatively low elasticity (column 6, lines 3-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the claimed nonwoven/core/nonwoven laminate (as taught by Gessner) using the nonwoven fabric of Maugans as the nonwoven layers and with elastomeric polypropylene to provide a diaper with excellent stretch/elongation and resilience.
Claim 26, Gessner discloses that providing a core layer comprises depositing a plurality of core layer-fibers onto the first nonwoven outer layer (column 8, line 13 to column 9, line 19).
Claim 27, Gessner discloses that the plurality of core layer-fibers comprises cellulosic fibers (column 8, line 13 to column 9, line 19).
Claim 28, Gessner discloses that the plurality of core layer-fibers may consist of cellulosic fibers (column 8, line 13 to column 9, line 19).
Claim 34, Maugans does not mention the nonwoven fabric comprising cellulosic fibers.
Claim 35, the nonwoven layer of Maugans is devoid of cellulosic fibers (column 2, line 31 through column 3, line 14).
Claim 36, Maugans discloses that the plurality of blended staple fibers comprise from about 10 wt. % to about 75 wt. % of the polypropylene [0073].
Claim 37, Maugans discloses that the polyolefin comprises copolymers of propylene and ethylene [0026].
Claim 38, Maugans does not appear to specifically mention the nonwoven fabric comprising a liquid additive but Gorley and Solarek each disclose that it is known in the art to include a liquid additive to provide improved product function (see entire documents including [0005], [0006], [0012], [0013], and [0035] of Solarek and [0024], [0043], and [0044] of Gorley). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a liquid additive to improve product function.
Claim 39, the liquid additive comprises a lotion, a skin-cleaning, composition, or an antimicrobial composition ([0005], [0006], [0012], [0013], and [0035] of Solarek and [0024], [0043], and [0044] of Gorley).
Claim 40, Gessner discloses that bonding the composite web to form the nonwoven fabric comprises thermally bonding, mechanically bonding, or ultrasonically bonding the first nonwoven outer layer, the core layer, and the second nonwoven outer layer together (column 7, lines 22-35).
Claim 41, Maugans discloses that a total fiber content of the nonwoven layers consist of the plurality of blended fibers [0026] and Gessner discloses that the plurality of core layer-fibers may consist of cellulosic fibers (column 8, line 13 to column 9, line 19).
Claim 42, Maugans discloses that the polymer of the plurality of blended staple fibers of at least one of the first nonwoven outer layer and the second nonwoven outer layer comprises at least one of a polyolefin, a polyester, a polyamide, or combinations thereof [0026].
Claims 46 and 47, Maugans discloses that the fibers may be bicomponent fibers ([0242] and [0246]) but does not appear to mention the polymer comprising a biopolymer. Westwood discloses that it is known in the art to construct a nonwoven fabric with monocomponent or bicomponent fibers comprising PLA (see entire document including [0060], [0061] and [0102]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the nonwoven layer of Maugans from any suitable polymer material, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 49, Gessner discloses that mechanically bonding the composite web includes a hydroentangling operation (column 7, lines 22-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights