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 Claim election, Species I, Unclaimed election, Species I (Claims 1 and 4-20) in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 2003/0188819).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Campbell et al. teaches a method for bonding a plurality of substrates [100],[102] in a nip [150] provided between an anvil [170] and an ultrasonic bonding device [160] (See page 8, paragraph [0096] and Fig. 4), the method comprising:
preheating a portion of a first substrate of the plurality of substrates for a preheating duration to impart a preheated temperature to the portion (See page 1, paragraph [0007]);
conveying the plurality of substrates to the nip [150], wherein the portion of the first substrate reaches the nip at a final temperature that is within 0 °C to 40 °C of the preheated temperature (See page 9, paragraph [0100] and page 14, paragraph [0156], teaching the pre-heating temperature may be about the temperature of bonding by having a very short delay between preheating and the bonding nip that would certainly not allow for a drop of more than a few degrees, if any); and
conveying the plurality of substrates through the nip to form a bond in at least some of the plurality of substrates, wherein a time-in-nip to create the bond is less than 10 milliseconds (See pages 8-9, paragraphs [0098]-[0100], teaching dwell times, i.e. bonding times, of as little as 1-5 ms).
Campbell et al. doesn’t explicitly discuss pre-heat duration. However, Campbell et al. states “[a]t higher initial preheating temperatures, the ultrasonic bond strength may approach the ultimate bond strength of the material,” the evidence “clearly shows that bond strength increases as the preheating temperature increases, even as the production line speed increases and/or dwell time or bond time decrease.” See page 9, paragraph [0102]. Thus, Campbell et al. abundantly clear higher preheating temperatures improve bond strength allowing for increased production speed and a lower dwell time at the ultrasonic nip.
There are only two ways to get higher pre-heating temperatures: increasing heating duration or increasing heat temperature. It is noted longer preheating durations clearly enable higher preheating temperatures and thus preheating duration is a result effective variable. Campbell et al. already teaches using multiple heaters wherein the addition of multiple hot air heaters to heated brass blocks shows superior bonding results to only hot air or brass blocks alone, thus clearly teaching increased duration as a known and viable method of increasing temperature by using multiple heaters stretched along the pre-heating path in Campbell et al. (See page 12, paragraph [0138] and Table 8, showing D1 with hot air and brass heating blocks shows higher bond strength than hot air (B1) or brass block (C1) alone). Further, at increasingly high speeds, it would have been apparent the heating temperatures required to get suitable pre-heating at a single point heater would necessarily become increasingly high and difficult to manage without some extended duration heating. This makes preheating for a longer duration (relative to the dwell time at the nip that essentially occurs at a single point) a natural choice to achieve required pre-heating temperature as higher speeds, said higher temperatures explicitly taught to improve bond strength as such high speeds.
For all of the above reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize extend duration preheating, i.e. by providing a number of pre-heaters along the path, of more than 200% of the dwell time in the nip. Campbell et al. teaches high production speeds and dwell times of as little of 1-5 ms, and thus much longer pre-heating times, such of 50 ms or more (i.e. and notte 200% is only 3 ms for 1 ms dwell times) would have predictably enabled suitable and more controlled pre-heating to higher temperatures without requiring excessive heat from the pre-heaters. As has been established in Campbell et al., these higher temperatures create higher bond strength at the nip at higher speeds and lower dwell times. Examiner notes a series of heaters, such as three hot air heaters (See page 12, paragraph [0136]) and brass block heaters likely applies heating over multiple inches, which is significantly more than the fraction of an inch of bonding in a nip, suggesting significantly more preheating times such as 50 to 200 ms is at least obvious to control pre-heating into desired ranges to achieve a desired bond strength.
Regarding Claim 4, Campbell et al. teaches ultrasonic bonding is an alternative to adhesive bonding (See page 7, paragraph [0082]), indicating adhesives are not, or at least need not be, used when using ultrasonic bonding.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Campbell et al. teaches the anvil [170] is a patterned anvil having a plurality of pins, i.e. protrusions, on the outer surface, and also teaching a rotary ultrasonic horn, i.e. rotary sonotrode (See page 8, paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 8, Campbell et al. teaches the bonded layers may be nonwovens (See page 1, paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Campbell et al. teach hot air, i.e. heat fluid, as a method of preheating include a hot air gun at 350 F, i.e. 176 C (See page 8, paragraph [0089] and page 10, paragraph [0110]).
Regarding Claim 12, Campbell et al. teaches preheating different regions to different temperatures (See page 8, paragraph [0093]). Although Campbell et al. doesn’t specifically teach different stages for each heating, this is implied or at least obvious to provide the distinct temperatures, especially since Campbell et al. explicitly teaches using multiple heating devices to heat as described above. Note any duration for heating each region, which must occur when heating them, is a first and second duration as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Campbell et al. teaches the preheater is located at “any suitable distance” from the nip and “may vary depending upon the method conditions and desired bond strength.” See page 8, paragraph [0095]. Examiner submits placing the pre-heater closer to the nip would predictably allow less heat loss, thus allowing for higher preheating temperature at the nip that increase bond strength.
Regarding Claim 15, Campbell et al. clearly teaches preheating both substrates (See page 8, paragraph [0090] and Fig. 4, clearly showing and indicates both substrates heated; and note any preheating of the second substrate is a second preheating temperature).
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, Examiner submits since it is clear the preheating is meant to facilitate bonding, it is implicit the bonding surfaces are heated to some extent, even it through the thickness of the webs being joined. Note Campbell et al. teach the webs are heated as distinguished from a portion of the webs (See page 8, paragraph [0090]), thus indicating the webs are heated all the way through in some embodiments, i.e. a substantial portion as in Claim 20, all other elements of which are discussed above.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Campbell et al. teaches speeds “at least about 800 ft/min,” which is about 244 m/min and dwell times as low as 1 ms (See page 9, paragraph [0099]). This suggests speeds over 244 m/min are suitable, which is evidenced by the extremely low dwell times of 1 ms discussed therein. Examiner notes high production speeds predictably lead to higher, more efficient production. Examiner submits ultrasonic nip dwell/bond distances could easily be over 5 mm in standard rotary ultrasonic devices. Since over 5 mm in 1 ms requires a speed over 5 m/s, or over 300 m/min, Examiner submits such speeds are suitable within Campbell et al. and in line with the low dwell times to achieve high production wherein pre-heating predictably significantly improves bonding at such high speeds. Note all other aspects of Claim 19 are taught above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Henry et al. (US 2004/0079466).
Regarding Claim 7, Campbell et al. teaches the method of Claim 4, as described above. Campbell et al. is silent as to whether the ultrasonic heating device is cooled. However, cooling ultrasonic heating devices is well-known so as to ensure the ultrasonic welders do not overheat during use, thus causing equipment or product damage (See, for example, Henry et al., page 3, paragraph [0033], teaching air cooling to prevent ultrasonic welders from overheating during use). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement cooling on the ultrasonic bonding device in Campbell et al. Doing so would have predictably helped ensure the bonding device therein does not overheat and cause undesirable equipment or product damage.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Sallee et al. (US 4,640,726)
Regarding Claim 10, Campbell et al. teaches the method of Claim 4, as described above. Campbell et al. is silent as to whether the hot air device uses recirculated air. However, recirculating is standard in similar industrial hot air heating devices in order to improve efficiency and reduce energy consumption (See, for example, Sallee et al., col. 5, lines 58-62, teaching a hot air heater used in similar bonding is known to recirculate hot air to reduce energy consumption and improve heating efficiency). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to recirculate the heated air for the hot air heating in Campbell et al. Doing so would have predictably improved heating efficiency and reduced energy consumption during preheating.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Black et al. (US 2010/0304080).
Regarding Claim 17, Campbell et al. teaches the method of Claim 1, as described above. Campbell et al. further teaches forming disposable garments (See page 1, paragraphs [0001]-[0002]) and joining elastic members between other layers during their formation (See page 5, paragraph [0071]). Campbell et al. is silent as to whether the elastic can be displaced from formed bonds. However, when forming disposable garments via bonding processes, it is well-known to form lateral bonds between nonwoven outer layers, including via ultrasonic bonding (See, for example, Black et al., Abstract and page 2, paragraph [0023], teaching ultrasonic bonding as a suitable bonding method) that are displaced, i.e. that do not involve, central elastic layers, such as to form elastic side panels in diapers (See pages 1-2, paragraph [0020], wherein top and bottom nonwovens sandwich an elastic film and are bonded together at the lateral edge, the elastic being displaced centrally from this lateral bond). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to displaces a central elastic layer from a lateral bond between two nonwoven layers sandwiching it when carrying out the method of Campbell et al. Doing so is a known method of forming element of disposable garments, which is exactly what the methods in Campbell et al. are desired to manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746