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 .
Claims 1-32 are pending in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/131361 filed 11/11/2022 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. no. 63/281,113 filed on 11/19/2021.
Claims 1-32 receive priority to the prior-filed application, filed on 11/19/2021.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract comprises less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The backsheet is referred to by an incorrect reference number (pg. 15 ln. 6).
The trade name “Quik-Freeze” is spelled incorrectly (pg. 38 ln. 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms Quik-Freeze (pg. 38) and MTS Insight (pg. 39), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner recognizes claim 12 as a "product-by-process" claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
As a product claim, Examiner has determined that claim 12 requires the cut lines to comprise the following structural elements in addition to those in the claims from which they depend: cut lines in the disposal tape bond region aligned in the same direction as the cut lines in the low stretch zone.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the wherein the cut lines” in ln. 1. This should read “wherein the cut lines”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “8mm” in ln. 2. This should read “8 mm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-17 are 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 11 recites the limitation “wherein the low stretch zone comprises a disposal tape bond region, wherein the low stretch zone has a first cut-line concentration and the disposal tape bond region has a second cut-line concentration, wherein the second cut-line concentration is from about 30% to about 60% of the first cut-line concentration” in ln. 1-4. This limitation is indefinite in that it is unclear whether the first cut-line concentration comprises the second cut-line concentration and another area’s cut-line concentration or if the first cut-line concentration only comprises another area’s cut-line concentration. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner is treating the claim as though the first cut-line concentration refers to only a cut-line concentration in a first portion of the low stretch zone that is separate from the disposal tape bond region.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the blades for providing the low stretch zone" in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-17 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base 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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 1 of Mori Fig. 10
PNG
media_image2.png
841
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ex. Fig. 2 of Mori Fig. 3
Claims 1-6, 20-24, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP/5140703 B2 to Mori.
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses an absorbent article (Fig. 1, absorbent article 1) comprising:
a body facing surface (Fig. 2 showing body facing surface) and a garment facing surface (Fig. 3 showing garment facing surface);
a front waist region and a back waist region, the back waist region separated from the front waist region by a crotch region, the front waist region comprising a front waist edge, and the back waist region comprising a back waist edge, wherein a longitudinal axis extends perpendicularly through the front waist edge and the back waist edge, and wherein a lateral axis extends perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis (Ex. Fig. 2, front waist region comprising front belt 30 and back waist region comprising rear belt 20);
an absorbent assembly extending longitudinally through the crotch region between the front waist region and the back waist region, the absorbent assembly positioned between the body facing surface and the garment facing surface (Fig. 2 showing 13 absorbent assembly extending longitudinally and positioned between body and garment facing surfaces);
wherein at least one of the front waist region and the back waist region comprises:
an elastic material positioned between and connected with a first substrate and a second substrate (para. 0024, front belt 30 comprising 25/27 elastic members between 31A and 31B first and second substrates, rear belt 20 comprising 26/28 elastic members between 21A and 21B first and second substrates);
a first high-stretch zone and a second high-stretch zone separated laterally by a low-stretch zone, wherein the first and second high-stretch zones are elasticated by the elastic material (Ex. Fig. 2);
wherein the low-stretch zone comprises cut lines separating the elastic material into first discrete pieces and second discrete pieces (Ex. Fig. 2 comprising C cut lines; Ex. Fig. 1 comprising C cut lines separating elastic members 27/28 into first and second discrete pieces);
wherein the first discrete pieces of elastic material comprise a first length and wherein the second discrete pieces of elastic material comprise a second length (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0066), and
wherein each cut line is oriented to define an offset angle relative to the lateral axis that is between 30 to 60 degrees (Ex. Fig. 1; Ex. Fig. 2; para. 0063).
The cited prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the second length is greater than the first length.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discrete pieces of elastic material of Mori such that the second length is greater than the first length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori would not operate differently with the claimed proportion and since cutting the elastic at all in this region creates an inelastic region the device would function appropriately having the claimed proportion. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the proportion claimed, indicating simply that this may occur in some configurations (specification pg. 21 ln. 14-15).
Further, the cited prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein each cut line is oriented to define an offset angle relative to the lateral axis that is greater than 0 degrees and less than 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the cut lines of Mori from between 30-60 degrees to between 0-45 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pg. 20 ln. 12-15 indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1. Mori further discloses wherein the cut lines penetrate through the elastic material, the first substrate, and the second substrate (para. 0059).
Regarding claim 3, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1. Mori further discloses wherein the cut lines are arranged in rows comprising at least a first row and a second row neighboring the first row (Ex. Fig. 1, first and second rows comprised of C cut lines).
Regarding claim 4, Mori suggests the invention of claim 3. Mori further discloses wherein the first length of the first discrete pieces of elastic material is defined by a distance extending laterally between neighboring cut lines in the first row (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0066).
Regarding claim 5, Mori suggests the invention of claim 4. Mori further discloses wherein the second length of the second discrete pieces of elastic material is defined by a distance extending laterally between cut lines in the first row and cut lines in the second row (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Mori suggests the invention of claim 5; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein a ratio of the second length to the first length is about 2:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discrete pieces of elastic material of Mori such that the ratio of the second length to the first length is about 2:1 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori would not operate differently with the claimed proportion and since cutting the elastic at all in this region creates an inelastic region the device would function appropriately having the claimed proportion. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the proportion claimed, indicating simply that this may occur in some configurations (specification pg. 21 ln. 19-20).
Regarding claim 20, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1. Mori further discloses wherein the elastic material comprises elastic strands (para. 0054) and wherein the first discrete pieces of elastic material comprise first discrete pieces of elastic strands (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0054; para. 0066) and wherein the second discrete pieces of elastic material comprise second discrete pieces of elastic strands (Ex. Fig. 1; para. 0054; para. 0066).
Regarding claim 21, Mori suggests the invention of claim 20; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the elastic strands, the first discrete pieces of elastic strands, and the second discrete pieces of elastic strands are continuously bonded with at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bonding of the elastic strands to the substrates since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e. intermittent or continuous). Mori discloses the use of hot melt adhesive to bond the substrates with the elastic members and discrete pieces of the elastic members, but cautions that if adhesive strength is too strong, the elastics may cause the exterior sheet to shrink and impair the appearance of the exterior sheet (para. 0039); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either of intermittent or continuous bonding. Thus, utilizing continuous bonding 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 that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 22, Mori suggests the invention of claim 20; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the elastic strands, the first discrete pieces of elastic strands, and the second discrete pieces of elastic strands are intermittently bonded with at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate.
It would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bonding of the elastic strands to the substrates since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e. intermittent or continuous). Mori discloses the use of hot melt adhesive to bond the substrates with the elastic members and discrete pieces of the elastic members, but cautions that if adhesive strength is too strong, the elastics may cause the exterior sheet to shrink and impair the appearance of the exterior sheet (para. 0039); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either of intermittent or continuous bonding. Thus, utilizing continuous bonding 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 that the product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instant the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 23, Mori suggests the invention of claim 20. Mori further discloses wherein the elastic strands, the first discrete pieces of elastic strands, and the second discrete pieces of elastic strands are bonded with adhesive applied to at least one of the first substrate, the second substrate, and the elastic strands (para. 0039).
Regarding claim 24, Mori suggests the invention of claim 20. Mori further discloses wherein the elastic strands are parallel with the lateral axis (Ex. Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1. Mori further discloses a chassis comprising a topsheet and a backsheet with the absorbent assembly positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (Fig. 2, chassis 10 comprising topsheet 11 and backsheet 12; Fig. 5; para. 0027).
Regarding claim 28, Mori suggests the invention of claim 27. Mori further discloses the chassis further comprising a first end region and a second end region longitudinally separated from the first end region by the crotch region; and wherein the first end region of the chassis is connected to at least one of the front waist region and the back waist region in the low-stretch zone (Ex. Fig. 2; para. 0050).
Regarding claim 29, Mori suggests the invention of claim 28. Mori further discloses wherein the front waist region comprises a first belt and the back waist region comprises a second belt, wherein the first belt is separated longitudinally from the second belt (Ex. Fig. 2, front belt 30 and rear belt 20).
Regarding claim 31, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1. Mori further discloses wherein laterally opposing end portions of the front waist region are connected with laterally opposing end portions of the back waist region to form a waist opening (Fig. 1, front belt 30 and rear belt 20 connected at joining portions 40 on both sides to form waist opening; para. 0023).
Claims 7-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied above, and further in view of US/2012/0086145 A1 to Nakamura.
Regarding claim 7, Mori suggests the invention of claim 5. Mori further discloses wherein cut lines in the first row and the second row extend for a length from a first end to a second end; and wherein cut lines in the first row and cut lines in the second row are parallel to each other and wherein the first ends of cut lines in the first row and the first ends of cut lines in the second row are aligned along first reference lines (Ex. Fig. 1); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the first reference lines are oriented to define a row angle relative to the lateral axis that is less than 90 degrees and greater than 45 degrees.
Nakamura teaches an absorbent article comprising cut lines in rows aligned along reference lines directly in the middle of the cut lines which are oriented to define a row angle relative to the lateral axis that is greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees to create a cut region that generally matches the absorbent chassis and a cutting roll oriented with blades to create said cut region that suppresses cutting roll rising during manufacturing (Fig. 4, cut portions 10 disposed in rows; Fig. 5 showing absorbent article moved on an assembly line in a transporting direction; Fig. 11 showing roller configuration wherein blades C41 are arranged along an angle theta sub a relative to a longitudinal direction [CD direction] that excludes 0 and 90 degrees; therefore, cut portions reference lines would be between greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees relative to the lateral axis; para. 0041; para. 0112).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the reference lines of the cut lines of Mori to be angled as taught by Nakamura, because Nakamura teaches that this maintains a substantially rectangular shape of a cut portion which generally matches the end regions of the absorbent chassis and that this disperses sandwiching timing of the cutting roll during manufacturing to suppress rising of the roll (para. 0041; para. 0112).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference line angle of Mori, as modified by Nakamura, from between 0-90 degrees to 45-90 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pg. 20 ln. 26-28 indicating the angle “may” be within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 7. Mori further discloses wherein the second ends of cut lines in the first row and the second ends of cut lines in the second row are aligned along second reference lines (Ex. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 8; however the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the second reference lines are parallel to the first reference lines.
Nakamura teaches an absorbent article comprising cut lines in rows aligned along reference lines directly in the middle of the cut lines which are oriented to define a row angle relative to the lateral axis that is greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees to create a cut region that generally matches the absorbent chassis and suppress cutting roll rising during manufacturing (Fig. 4, cut portions 10 disposed in rows; Fig. 5 showing absorbent article moved on an assembly line in a transporting direction; Fig. 11 showing roller configuration wherein blades C41 are arranged along an angle theta sub a relative to a longitudinal direction [CD direction] that excludes 0 and 90 degrees; therefore, cut portions reference lines would be between greater than 0 and less than 90 degrees relative to the lateral axis; para. 0041; para. 0112).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the reference lines of the cut lines of Mori to be angled as taught by Nakamura, because Nakamura teaches that this maintains a substantially rectangular shape of a cut portion which generally matches the end regions of the absorbent chassis and that this disperses sandwiching timing of the cutting roll during manufacturing to suppress rising of the roll (para. 0041; para. 0112)
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 9. Mori further discloses wherein the second reference line of the first row is separated from the first reference line of the second row by a row gap distance (Ex. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 8. Mori further discloses wherein the cut lines in the first row are separated from each other by a cut line gap distance (Ex. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 18; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the cut line gap distance is about 1.9 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori to have a cut line gap distance of about 1.9 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori would not operate differently with the claimed gap distance and since the cuts are shown to be close to each other, but are not meant to overlap each other (para. 0064) the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the gap distance “may” be within the claimed range (specification pg. 20 ln. 23-24).
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori and Nakamura as applied above, and further in view of JP/2013/138795 A to Ochi.
Regarding claims 11-15, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 10; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose
(Claim 11) wherein the low stretch zone comprises a disposal tape bond region, wherein the low stretch zone has a first cut-line concentration and the disposal tape bond region has a second cut-line concentration, wherein the second cut-line concentration is from about 30% to about 60% of the first cut-line concentration;
(Claim 12) wherein the cut-line concentration of the disposal tape bond region is adjusted by thinning blades, wherein the blades for providing the disposal tape bond region are aligned in the direction of the blades for providing the low stretch zone;
(Claim 13) wherein the distance between any cut line in the disposal tape bond region in the direction of the reference line is no more than about 8mm;
(Claim 14) a disposal tape joined to the front waist region or the back waist region, wherein at least a portion of the disposal tape overlaps the disposal tape bond region; and
(Claim 15) wherein the disposal tape comprises a distal end, wherein the distal end overlaps the high stretch zone.
Ochi teaches an absorbent article (Fig. 1, diaper 100) comprising a low stretch zone comprising a disposal tape bond region, wherein a first portion of the low stretch zone has a first cut-line concentration and the disposal tape bond region has a second cut-line concentration, wherein the second cut-line concentration is approximately 33% of the first cut-line concentration (Fig. 2, low stretch zones 61/62 comprising disposal tape bond region 61 comprising cuts C2 and first portion of the low stretch zone comprising cuts C4; Fig. 2, C2 comprising 5 cut lines; Fig. 2, C4 comprising 15 cut lines),
wherein the cut lines in the disposal tape bond region are aligned in the same direction as the cut lines in the first portion of the low stretch zone (Fig. 2),
a disposal tape joined to the back waist region, wherein at least a portion of the disposal tape overlaps the disposal tape bond region (Fig. 1, disposal tape 40 joined to back waist region 20 overlapping disposal tape bond region 61 comprising cuts C2; para. 0021),
wherein the disposal tape comprises a distal end, wherein the distal end overlaps the high stretch zone (Fig. 1, disposal tape 40 comprises free end that may overlap any high stretch zones [areas outside of low stretch zones 61/62] upon rolling of diaper 100; para. 0021), and
wherein the disposal tape secures a disposable diaper in a rolled configuration after use and the disposal tape bond region ensures that the disposal tape does not peel off before use or during manufacturing (para. 0009-0010; para. 0014).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the low stretch zone of Mori to comprise a disposal tape bond region comprising a disposal tape as taught by Ochi, because Ochi teaches that a disposal tape may be used to secure a disposable diaper in a rolled configuration after use (para. 0009-0010; para. 0014). Ochi further teaches that placing a disposal tape on a waist elastic region makes it easier for the disposal tape to peel off, which would render it useless for its intended purpose or allow it to adhere to other diapers during manufacturing, and that conventionally, disposal tape has had to be attached at a position away from the waist opening, which requires the disposal tape to be longer than necessary (para. 0009-0010; para. 0014), issues which may be alleviated with the provision of a disposal tape bond region.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori, as modified by Ochi, to have a distance between any cut line in the disposal tape bond region in the direction of the reference line be no more than 8 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori, as modified by Ochi, would not operate differently with the cut line distance and since the cuts are shown to be close to each other, but are not meant to overlap each other (para. 0064) the device would function appropriately having the claimed cut line distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the cut line distance “may” be within the claimed range (specification pg. 37 ln. 2-5).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 15; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the row gap distance is about 1.9 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori to have a row gap distance of about 1.9 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori would not operate differently with the claimed gap distance and since the cuts are shown to be close to each other, but are not meant to overlap each other (para. 0064) the device would function appropriately having the claimed gap distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the gap distance “may” be within the claimed range (specification pg. 21 ln. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art suggests the invention of claim 12. Mori further discloses that the length of each cut line is longer than the separation width of the elastic members in the longitudinal direction, but shorter than twice the separation width (para. 0063); however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the length of each cut line in the first row and the second row is about 4 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori to have a length of the cut lines of about 4 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Mori would not operate differently with the claimed cut length and since the cuts are defined by the separation width of the elastic members and there is no limitation on the amount of elastics or the separation width of the elastics the device would function appropriately having the claimed cut length. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the cut length “may” be within the claimed range (specification pg. 20 ln. 19-20).
Claims 25-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied above, and further in view of US/2019/0070042 A1 to LaVon.
Regarding claims 25-26, Mori suggests the invention of claim 20; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose
(Claim 25) wherein elastic strands comprise an Average-Strand-Spacing from about 0.25 mm to about 4 mm and an Average-Dtex from about 10 to about 500, and
(Claim 26) wherein the elastic strands comprise an Average-Pre-Strain from about 75% to about 300%.
LaVon teaches an absorbent article comprising an elastomeric laminate comprising a plurality of elastic strands, wherein the plurality of elastic strands has an Average-Strand-Spacing from about 0.25 mm to about 4 mm and an Average-Dtex from about 10 to about 400, and an Average-Pre-Strain from about 50% to about 300% (para. 0009).
LaVon further teaches that the ratio of the Average-Strand-Spacing and the Average-Dtex needs to be optimized to form an elastic with the right balance of Application-Force, Sustained-Fit-Load-Force, and Sustained-Fit-Unload-Force for proper positioning and gasketing of the article (para. 0207), and that the Average-Strand-Spacing, Average-Dtex, and Average-Pre-Strain can be optimized to create a laminate with desired softness and tactile properties (para. 0236); therefore, these may all be considered result-effective variables which effect the positioning and gasketing of the article and the tactile properties of the laminate. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Mori elastic to have properties within the claimed ranges, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Mori by making the plurality of elastic strands have an Average-Strand-Spacing from about 0.25 mm to about 4 mm and an Average-Dtex from about 10 to about 500, and an Average-Pre-Strain from about 75% to about 300% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 30, Mori suggests the invention of claim 1; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the second substrate extends longitudinally from the front waist edge to the back waist edge.
LaVon teaches an absorbent article wherein the second substrate extends longitudinally from a front waist edge to a back waist edge (Fig. 16F, absorbent article 2 comprising 434 second substrate extending from front waist edge 438f to back waist edge 438b). LaVon further indicates that this is an alternative configuration to discrete waist belts (para. 0355).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the separate second substrates of Mori that provide an outermost surface of the front and back belts, for the continuous second substrate of LaVon since these mechanisms perform the same function of providing an outermost surface of the belts of the diaper. Simply substituting one substrate for another would yield the predicable result of acting as an outermost layer of an absorbent article. See MPEP 2143.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied above, and further in view of US/2013/0255865 A1 to Brown.
Regarding claim 32, Mori suggests the invention of claim 31; however, the prior art differs from the instantly claimed invention in that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the laterally opposing end portions of the front waist region are refastenably connected with the laterally opposing end portions of the back waist region.
Brown teaches an absorbent article comprising a fastening system wherein laterally opposing end regions of a front waist region may be refastenably connected with laterally opposing end portions of a back waist region to improve fit of the absorbent article (para. 0062; Fig. 1, fastening system 50 on laterally opposing end portions rear waist region 38 for interconnection with laterally opposing end portions of first waist region 36).
It would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the connection of the front and back waist regions of Mori to comprise refastenable connections as taught by Brown, because Brown teaches that providing a fastening system can improve fit of the absorbent article (para. 0062).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO/2016/129128 A1 to Akano JP/2012/115358 A to Tashiro each disclose an absorbent article comprising an elastic belt comprising cut portions. WO/2021/126150 A1 to Borkovetz discloses an absorbent article comprising an elastic belt comprising an inelastic region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linnae Raymond whose telephone number is (571)272-6894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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.
/Linnae E. Raymond/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/LESLIE R DEAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799 19 February 2026