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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 18 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-17 are examined on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2024, 12/18/2024, and 09/18/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 16 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 16 recites the limitation “the taped disposable absorbent article … comprising renewable or recyclable material” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the claimed renewable/recyclable material is referred to the materials of all layers in the taped disposable absorbent article or one layer in the taped disposable absorbent article. The limitation has been examined below as if it read -- the taped disposable absorbent article … [[is configured to be recycled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greening (US PGPUB 20170079849) in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 20050095942).
Regarding claim 1, Greening discloses a taped absorbent article (a taped absorbent article 10: ¶0037 and Figs. 5-8) comprising:
a front half region (a front region 41: ¶0037 and Fig. 5) with a front waist edge (a front waist edge 28: Fig. 5);
a back half region (a rear region 43: ¶0037 and Fig. 5) with a back waist edge (a back waist edge 30: Fig. 5);
a first longitudinal edge (left longitudinal side: Fig. 5);
a second longitudinal edge (right longitudinal side: Fig. 5):
a wearer-facing side (Fig. 5);
a garment-facing side (opposite to the wearer-facing side);
a topsheet on the wearer-facing side (a topsheet 32: ¶0037 and Fig. 5);
a backsheet on the garment-facing side (a backsheet 34: ¶0037 and Fig. 5);
an absorbent core between the topsheet and the backsheet (an absorbent core 36: ¶0037-0038 and Fig. 5);
a landing zone on the garment-facing side in the front half region (¶0060);
a pair of back ears in the back half region, each back ear comprising a fastening tab that can be releasably attached to the landing zone (fasteners 66: ¶0060 and Figs. 7-8);
a front elastic waistband adjacent the front waist edge (a plurality of elastic members 20’: ¶0058 and Fig. 7) and a back elastic waistband adjacent the back waist edge (a plurality of elastic members 20: ¶0041 and Figs. 5-6).
Greening does not disclose the front elastic waistband comprising a Front Waistband Elastic Force in a range from about 0.03N to about 0.32 N, as measured by Waist Band Elastic Force Measurement Method disclosed herein; and
Examiner notes that the measurement/testing method for a material or structural property does not impart a patentable weight. The property is attributed to the material and structure, not the measurement/testing method. Thus, a reference does not need to recite a Waist Band Elastic Force Measurement Method to read on the claim language.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, Mueller discloses absorbent articles comprising this elasticated material and processes for making the elasticated material (Abstract). Mueller further discloses front and back waist band (22 and 23: ¶0112 and Fig. 1) comprising elastic material (¶0111-0112) and wherein the elastic material has an elastic load force of less than 2.0 N (¶0097: the taught elastic load force range is within the claimed elastic load force range) for the benefit of having low load force elastics so that there are no pressure marks on the wearer’s skin and the diapers are more comfortable to wear (¶0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of Mueller by having a Front Waistband Elastic Force as claimed, in order to provide low load force elastics so that there are no pressure marks on the wearer’s skin and the diapers are more comfortable to wear, as suggested in ¶0004 of Mueller. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the Front Waistband Elastic Force should be in the range from about 0.03 N to about 0.32 N (¶0070 of Applicant’s published application).
Greening/Mueller does not disclose the back elastic waistband comprising a Back Waistband Elastic Force which is higher than the Front Waistband Elastic Force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by having a Back Waistband Elastic Force which is higher than the Front Waistband Elastic Force, motivated by the desires to provide a stronger back waistband that helps create a snug seal against the lower back to prevent leakage and keep the diaper from sliding down when a user moves.
Regarding claim 2, Greening does not disclose the Back Waistband Elastic Force in a range from about 1.1 N to about 2.9 N.
Mueller further discloses front and back waist band (22 and 23: ¶0112 and Fig. 1) comprising elastic material (¶0111-0112) and wherein the elastic material has an elastic load force of less than 2.0 N (¶0097: the taught elastic load force range overlaps the claimed elastic load force range) for the benefit of having low load force elastics so that there are no pressure marks on the wearer’s skin and the diapers are more comfortable to wear (¶0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of Mueller by having the Back Waistband Elastic Force as claimed, in order to provide low load force elastics so that there are no pressure marks on the wearer’s skin and the diapers are more comfortable to wear, as suggested in ¶0004 of Mueller. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the Back Waistband Elastic Force may in particular be in the range of 1.1 N to about 2.9 N (¶0070 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 3, Greening does not disclose a ratio of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the Front Waistband Elastic Force is in a range of about 4 to about 40.
Since the Back Waistband Elastic Force is higher than the Front Waistband Elastic Force (see rejection of claim 1 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by having a ratio of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the Front Waistband Elastic Force as claimed, motivated by the desires to provide asymmetric waistband forces to provide leak protection, fit retention, and comfort. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the ratio of the value of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the value of the Front Waistband Elastic Force value (Back Waistband Elastic Force divided by Front Waistband Elastic Force) may advantageously be in the range of 4 to 40 (¶0071 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 4, Greening does not disclose a ratio of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the Front Waistband Elastic Force is in a range of about 5 to about 30.
Since the Back Waistband Elastic Force is higher than the Front Waistband Elastic Force (see rejection of claim 1 above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by having a ratio of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the Front Waistband Elastic Force as claimed, motivated by the desires to provide asymmetric waistband forces to provide leak protection, fit retention, and comfort. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the ratio of the value of the Back Waistband Elastic Force to the value of the Front Waistband Elastic Force value (Back Waistband Elastic Force divided by Front Waistband Elastic Force) may advantageously be in the range of 4 to 40, in particular in the range of 5 to 30 (¶0071 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 5, Greening further discloses the front elastic waistband and the back elastic waistband each comprise a plurality of elastic strands (¶0009, 0034, and 0042).
Regarding claim 6, Greening further discloses the elastic strands of the back waistband are more numerous and/or comprise a higher dtex value than the elastic strands of the front waistband (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Greening further discloses the elastic strands of each of the front elastic waistband and the back elastic waistband are sandwiched by a nonwoven waistband material (¶0004, 0034, 0036, and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Greening further discloses the front elastic waistband is disposed between the landing zone and the front waist edge (¶0060 and Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 10, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the back elastic waistband comprises an Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 50% to about 100% of a length of the back waist edge.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the elastic strands are bonded along most of the back waistband, the retractive force is distributed across a wide area of the back region. Thus, it can provide effective sealing, stability, and comfort.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by providing the back elastic waistband with Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 50% to about 100% of a length of the back waist edge, motivated by the desires to provide effective sealing, stability, and comfort. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the back waistband may advantageously have an Effective Glued Elastic Length in the range of from 50% to 100% of a length of the back waist edge (¶0074 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 11, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the back elastic waistband comprises an Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 70% to about 95% of a length of the back waist edge.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the elastic strands are bonded along most of the back waistband, the retractive force is distributed across a wide area of the back region. Thus, it can provide effective sealing, stability, and comfort.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by providing the back elastic waistband with Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 70% to about 95% of a length of the back waist edge, motivated by the desires to provide effective sealing, stability, and comfort. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Back Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the back waistband may advantageously have an Effective Glued Elastic Length in the range of from 50% to 100% of a length of the back waist edge, in particular from 70% to 95% (¶0074 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 12, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the front elastic waistband comprises an Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 50% to about 100% of a length of the front waist edge.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the front elastic waistband is configured to improve fit retention, reduce front gapping, and keep the diaper positioned correctly during movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by providing the front elastic waistband with Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 50% to about 100% of a length of the front waist edge, motivated by the desires to improve fit retention, reduce front gapping, and keep the diaper positioned correctly during movement. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Front Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the front waistband may advantageously have an Effective Glued Elastic Length in the range of from 50% to 100% of a length of the front waist edge (¶0074 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 13, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the front elastic waistband comprises an Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 70% to about 95% of a length of the front waist edge.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the front elastic waistband is configured to improve fit retention, reduce front gapping, and keep the diaper positioned correctly during movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening by providing the front elastic waistband with Effective Glued Elastic Length in a range of from about 70% to about 95% of a length of the front waist edge, motivated by the desires to improve fit retention, reduce front gapping, and keep the diaper positioned correctly during movement. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the Front Waistband Elastic Force claimed, indicating simply that the front waistband may advantageously have an Effective Glued Elastic Length in the range of from 50% to 100% of a length of the front waist edge, in particular from 70% to 95% (¶0074 of Applicant’s published application).
Regarding claim 17, Greening further discloses a package comprising a plurality of absorbent articles according to claim 1 (¶0008 and Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greening (US PGPUB 20170079849) in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 20050095942), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Buchalter (US PGPUB 20200197560).
Regarding claim 8, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the nonwoven waistband material is a SMS material.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, Buchalter discloses a diaper 100 comprising elastic back waistband 102, stretchable and secure fasteners 104, and/or side leakage guards (¶0072, 0088, and Fig. 2). Buchalter further discloses the side leakage guards are made of SMS non-woven material to provide water repellency (¶0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of Buchalter by selecting SMS non-woven material as the non-woven waistband material, in order to provide water repellency, as suggested in ¶0072 of Buchalter and as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greening (US PGPUB 20170079849) in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 20050095942), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bianchi (US PGPUB 20160175169).
Regarding claim 14, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the absorbent core comprises a high loft nonwoven central layer in a core wrap, wherein superabsorbent polymer particles are at least partially immobilized within pores of the high loft nonwoven central layer.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, Bianchi discloses an absorbent core 28 for use in an absorbent article comprising a fluid-permeable top layer (41), a bottom layer (42), and a central layer (43) sandwiched between the top layer and the bottom layer (Abstract and Fig. 3). Bianchi further discloses the central layer comprising a high loft nonwoven in a core wrap (¶0034 and Fig. 3) and wherein superabsorbent polymer particles are at least partially immobilized within pores of the high loft nonwoven central layer (¶0011) for the benefit of providing an improved fluid passage (¶0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of Bianchi by incorporating a high loft nonwoven central layer in the absorbent core, in order to provide an improved fluid passage, as suggested in ¶0007 of Bianchi.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greening (US PGPUB 20170079849) in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 20050095942), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sillerstrom (US PGPUB 20200323709).
Regarding claim 15, Greening/Mueller does not disclose a dual layer topsheet comprising a primary three-dimensional topsheet layer laminated to a larger secondary nonwoven topsheet layer.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, Sillerstrom discloses an absorbent article 1 comprises an absorbent core 5 sandwiched between a liquid-permeable topsheet 3 and a liquid-impermeable backsheet 4 (Abstract, ¶0050, and Figs. 1-2). Sillerstrom further discloses the topsheet 3 comprising a laminate structure of a plurality of two or more layers and wherein the topsheet formed by a fluid permeable non-woven fabric/film for the benefit of allowing discharged body fluids to penetrate through (¶0070).
Even though Sillerstrom is silent about a size of each of the topsheet layers, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood/recognized making/having a larger secondary topsheet layer provides better fluid acquisition and distribution, and therefore the larger topsheet layer helps spread liquid over a wider area before it reaches the absorbent core.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of Sillerstrom by laminating the topsheet layer to a larger nonwoven topsheet layer, in order to improve fluid acquisition and distribution and assist in spreading liquid over a wider area before it reaches the absorbent core, as suggested in ¶0070 of Sillerstrom.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Greening (US PGPUB 20170079849) in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 20050095942), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCormick (US PGPUB 20200375816).
Regarding claim 16, Greening/Mueller does not disclose the taped disposable absorbent article is configured to be recycled.
In the same field of endeavor, absorbent articles, McCormick discloses absorbent articles having a waist gasketing element, with the gasketing element having an adhesive zone and one or more adhesive-free zones (Abstract). McCormick further discloses/suggests the absorbent article is configured to be recycled or disposed of in an environmentally compatible manner (¶0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the absorbent article of Greening in view of McCormick by making the absorbent article to be recycled or disposed of in an environmentally compatible manner, motivated by the desires to reduce landfill waste and reduce use of virgin materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHU Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 (PST).
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.
/NHU Q. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights