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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants submit that the prior art of Greening, II et al., does not teach or suggest the claimed “longest bond dimension D, the claimed Bond Separation Distance between the first and second bond of less than 2.1D and a Bond Separation Angle between the first bond and the second bond from 0° up to and including 35° from the bond longitudinal axis”. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though not expressly disclosed, Greening, II et al., renders obvious “the longest bond dimension D”. Greening, II et al., teach a bond pattern comprising closed cell “units” (paragraphs 0035-0036). The Examiner equates each closed cell unit to the claimed “bond clusters”. Greening, II et al., further discloses that the closed cell units have a perimeter of about less than 3.5mm (paragraph 0036). The Examiner is of the position that the perimeter dimension of about less than 3.5mm is equivalent to the claimed “longest bond dimension D”. In other words, based on the teachings of Greening, II et al., it appears that each unit (e.g., bond cluster) has a perimeter of less 3.5mm which would meet the limitation of a “longest bond dimension D of less than 5 mm. Regarding Applicants arguments directed to the Bond Separation Distance between the first and second bond is less than 2.1D wherein D equals .6-1.0mm (instant claim 5), Greening, II et al., appears to teach that the distance between the individual bonds within the unit (e.g., cluster) has distances ranging from about 1 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.2 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm or less than about 3.5 mm, according to the Bond Measurement Test Method herein (paragraph 0039). Such bond separation distances overlap the claimed bond separation distances. Regarding Applicants’ arguments directed to the Bond Separation Angle between the first bond and the second bond is from 0° up to and including 35° from the bond longitudinal axis, the Examiner maintains arguments previously set forth. Specifically, the drawings of Greening, II et al., illustrate several units (e.g., clusters) wherein individual bonds are adjacent to each other having separation angle from 0° up to and including 35° from the bond longitudinal axis. For clarity, the Examiner’s interpretation of Greening, II et al., disclosure is represented in the drawing (12a) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
483
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the cited prior art of Greening, II et al., renders the rejected claims obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening, II et al., US 20230097347 A1.
With regard to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 13-19 and 20, the patent issued to Greening, II et al., teach an absorbent article comprising a first waist region, a second waist region, and a crotch region disposed between the first and second waist regions. The absorbent article also includes a chassis having a top-sheet, back-sheet, and an absorbent core disposed between the top-sheet and the back-sheet. An elastic laminate may be joined to the chassis in one of the first or second waist regions. As such, the Examiner is of the position that the limitations of claims 13-19 also met. The elastic laminate includes an ultrasonically bonded laminate having a bond pattern. The bond pattern includes a plurality of repeating units and, each repeating unit includes a closed cell unit. The bonds in the bond pattern include a Bond Separation Distance of about 3.5 mm or less. (abstract and figures). FIG. 1, a laminate 10 includes a first coverstock layer 12 and an elastomeric layer 14. The laminate may include a second coverstock layer 16, and the elastomeric layer 14 may be sandwiched between the first and second coverstock layers. Coverstock layer materials may be non-elastic. Additional layers may be included (e.g., additional nonwovens, inelastic materials, elastic, or extensible materials, etc.).
The laminate may be extensible. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the laminate includes a first bond pattern 200. The first bond pattern 20 has a first repeating unit 202. The first bond pattern 20 includes closed cell units 204. Additionally, the bonds of the first bond pattern may include a Bond Separation Distance of from about 1 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.2 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm or less than about 3.5 mm, according to the Bond Measurement Test Method herein (paragraph 0039). With regard to claims 9 and 12, as illustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, the second bond pattern may be disposed along one or more edges of the laminate. In this way, the second bond pattern may at least partially surround or frame at least a portion of the first bond pattern or the entire first bond pattern. The second bond pattern may at least partially overlap an unstretched region 34, an inelastic region 20, a fastening system 148, and/or reinforcement layers 160 (e.g., a folded substrate or additional substrate added to the laminate for enhanced integrity).
With specific regard to the claimed “wherein the plurality of ultrasonic bonds form a bond pattern, wherein the plurality of ultrasonic bonds comprise a plurality of individual bonds each having a longest bond dimension, D, in the range of less than about 1.0 mm” (claims 20) (.6mm to 1.5mm)(claim 10), the Examiner is of the position that bond patterns of Greening, II et al., comprising the individual point bonds (circular) could be made to have a length dimension of less than 1.0mm to 1.5mm. Though, not expressly disclosed it appears from the figures that the bond patterns are comprised of individual point bonds having at least a circular shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that depending on desired properties, such bond points can be varied to have desired length and size. 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)
With regard to the limitation of “wherein the first bond has a first outermost point and the second bond has a second outermost point, wherein a longitudinal cluster length measured in a direction substantially perpendicular to the stretch direction from the first outermost point to the second outermost point is less than 5 mm” (claim 1), Greening, II et al., teach that the first bond pattern and the second bond pattern may overlap in a transition zone. The overlap of the first bond pattern and the second bond pattern in the transition zone may be less than about 5 mm or less than about 3 mm or less than about 1 mm (paragraph 0061).
As illustrated in FIG. 2, for example, the laminate layers are joined by one or more bonds 30. Bonds may be any suitable shape and multiple shapes may be utilized within the laminate. In various embodiments, the bonds may be ultrasonic bonds 31. The bonds may be disposed in one or more patterns 200. Each pattern may include one or more closed cell units 204. Repeating closed cell units form one or more repeating units 202. Repeating units are the same or substantially the same closed cell units that repeat in a bond pattern. Thus, a first repeating unit includes first closed cell units having substantially the same shape and a second repeating unit includes second closed cell units having substantially the same shape; however, the first closed cell units and the second closed cell units are different shapes. It is to be appreciated that a closed cell unit of different repeating units may differ in at least one of shape and size. The bond pattern may include closed cell units where each closed cell unit is the same or substantially the same shape and/or size. The bond pattern may include closed cell units where the closed cell units are different, such as different shape and/or size. Certain closed cell units may be the same or substantially the same as certain other closed cell units in the bond pattern and certain other closed cell units may be different. For example, the bond pattern may include closed cell units having only a hexagonal shape, or the bond pattern may include a number of closed cell units having a hexagonal shape and a number of closed cell units having a triangular shape. The laminate may include a first bond pattern 200a, having one or more closed cell units 204 that may repeat. Additionally, or alternatively, the first bond pattern 200 may have a Percent Bond Area of at least about 3%, or from about 3% to about 7%, according to the Bond Measurement Test Method herein. The first bond pattern may at least partially overlap the primary region 18 (paragraph 0047). The elastomeric layer may have a basis weight of from about 5 to about 150 gsm, or from about 10 to about 100 gsm, or less than about 150 gsm (paragraph 0044).
With regard to the claimed second bond pattern, as illustrated in FIGS. 4A-6B, a bond pattern may include a first closed cell unit 204a and a second closed cell unit 204b. he laminate may include a first bond pattern 200a and a second bond pattern 200b. In FIGS. 15 and 16, the second bond pattern differs from the first bond pattern in at least one of shape of bonds, number of bonds, number of closed cell units (or absence of closed cell units), shape of repeat unit, enclosed area of closed cell units, bond density, bond area, and combinations thereof. The second bond pattern may be positioned outside of the first bond pattern, such that the two patterns may be in non-overlapping relationship. As illustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, the second bond pattern may be disposed along one or more edges of the laminate. In this way, the second bond pattern may at least partially surround or frame at least a portion of the first bond pattern or the entire first bond pattern. The second bond pattern may at least partially overlap an unstretched region 34, an inelastic region 20, a fastening system 148, and/or reinforcement layers 160 (e.g., a folded substrate or additional substrate added to the laminate for enhanced integrity) (paragraph 0060-0061. The first bond pattern and the second bond pattern may overlap in a transition zone. The overlap of the first bond pattern and the second bond pattern in the transition zone may be less than about 5 mm or less than about 3 mm or less than about 1 mm. The closed cell units may be various shapes including polygons, hearts, circles, ellipses, and combinations thereof.
With regard to the limitation of “wherein each of the bond site clusters comprise: a first bond having a longest bond dimension, D; and a second bond adjacent to the first bond; wherein a Bond Separation Distance between the first and second bond is less than 2.1D and a Bond Separation Angle between the first bond and the second bond is from 0° up to and including 35° from the bond longitudinal axis”, the claimed bond separation distance between the first and second bond is considered met. As set forth above, Greening, II et al., teach that the bonds of the first bond pattern may include a Bond Separation Distance of from about 1 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.2 mm to about 3.5 mm or from about 1.5 mm to about 2 mm or less than about 3.5 mm, according to the Bond Measurement Test Method herein (paragraph 0039). With regard to the claimed angle of bond separation, as illustrated in at least figures 11a and 11b, this limitation is met. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to the limitation of “wherein each of the bond site clusters are configured to form a break in the elastomeric film when the stretch laminate is stretched greater than 15 mm in a stretch direction”, the Examiner is of the position that based on the teachings of Greening, II et al., the bond site clusters would form the claimed “break” in the elastomeric film when stretched greater than 15mm in a stretch direction. Support for this supposition is based on the fact that ultrasonic bonds would inherently weaken the elastomeric film and thus the film would “break” or rupture when stretched. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
For reasons above, the Examiner is of the position that the teachings of Greening, II et al., render claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12-19 and 20 obvious.
With regard to claims 3-4, 11 FIGS. 11A and 11B, for example illustrate a bond pattern that can include a first closed cell unit 204a, a second closed cell unit 204b, and a third closed cell unit 204c. Similar to the above cited figures, the individual, adjacent bonds of the bond pattern may form one or more perimeters. The first closed cell unit 204a may have a first perimeter, the second closed cell unit 204b may have a second perimeter, and the third closed cell unit 204c may have a third perimeter. Each of the first perimeter, the second perimeter, and the third perimeter may share portions of their perimeters with one another, or each of the first perimeter, the second perimeter, and the third perimeter may be separate. A portion of the perimeter of one closed cell unit 204a may form a portion of the perimeter of another closed cell unit 204b or multiple other closed cell units 204b, 204c.
With specific regard to the claimed fourth bond pattern, the Examiner is of the position that figure 7 renders this limitation obvious. Applicants have not limited the first, second, third and/or 4th bond patterns to different patterns. As such, the Examiner considers the patterns in figure 7 sufficient to teach the claimed 1st, 2nd 3rd and 4th bond patterns.
PNG
media_image2.png
499
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, the area of the laminate including the first bond pattern may have an Unload Force at 50% of about 0.2 N/in or greater, or about 0.3 N/in or greater, or from about 0.35 to about 1 N/in, reciting for said range every 0.05 N/in increment therein, according to the Hysteresis Test Method herein (paragraph 0059).
With regard to claim 8, the prior art of Greening, II et al., teach that “Extensible” means the ability to stretch or elongate, without rupture or breakage, by at least 30% as per step 5(a) in the Hysteresis Test herein. As used herein, a laminate is extensible if at least 20% of the area of the laminate meets the extensible definition herein (paragraph 0034). Absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed Smax, of 50 % or greater, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
4. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 at 571-272-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights