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 .
Status of the Claims
Claim filed 02/28/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20 and 28-33 are pending and under consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 14, 15, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 recites “the direction CD” and “the direction MD”, which should read “a direction CD” and “a direction MD”
Claim 1 line 3 recites “said nonwoven layer or layers” which should read “a nonwoven layer or layers”
Claim 1 line 8 recites “the elastic film or films” which should read “an elastic film or films”
Claim 1 line 13 recites “the SET” which should read “a SET”
Claim 1 line 13 recites “the SET” is objected to because of informalities in the terminology used. Examiner notes that although the specification illustrate “SET” test, e.g., in figure 11 and the accompanying description at paragraph [01117] and figure 11, “SET” is an abbreviation that never explicitly spelled out or defined in the text. For the sake of clarity and a complete record, applicant is request to amend the claim or the specification to define what the acronym “SET” stands for.
Claim 3 line 3 recites “the elastic” which should read “a elastic”
Claim 3 lines 3-4 recites “the entire length” and “the entire width”, which should read “an entire length” and “an entire width”
Claim 6 lines 2 recites “the values of the ratio” which should read “values of a ratio”
Claim 6 lines 32-33 recites “a direction in CD or in MD” which should read “the direction in CD or MD”
Claim 7 lines 3-4 recites “a value” which should read “the value”
Claim 14 recites “the second upper face” which should read “an upper face”
Claim 14 line 3 recites “the second upper face” which should read “the upper face”
Claim 15 line 2 recites “the values of the ratio” which should read values of a ratio”
Claim 15 lines 32-33 recites “a direction in CD or in MD” which should read “the direction CD or in MD”
Claim 20 line 14 recites “a direction in CD or in MD” which should read “the direction CD or in MD”
Claim 29 line 14 recites “a direction in CD or in MD” which should read “the direction in CD or in MD”
Claim 30 line 2 recites “the at least one film” which should read “the at least one elastic film”
Claim 31 line 2 recites “hooks” which should read “the hooks”
Claims 31 and 32 lines 2 and 4 recites “the rear waist” and “the front face of the waist” which should read “a rear waist” and “a front face of a waist”
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s note: The above noted informalities should not be taken as an exhaustive list of all such instances. Therefore, it is requested that Applicant review the claims in their entirety for compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112
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 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 19, 20, 29 and 32 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 16, 19, 20 recite “, in particular…, which renders the claims indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, for example, claim 1, among other claims, recites the broad recitation “greater than 6%”, and the claim also recites “in particular between 6% and 30%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In an effort to compact prosecution, the claims are being interpreted as encompassing the broader range.
Claim 29 recites “for example” which renders the claim indefinite. For instance, the claim recites “a nonwoven based on short fibres, in particular a carded nonwoven, for example a spunlace, or a thermobonded carded nonwoven”, and it is not clear the limitation following “for example” modifies the scope of the claimed nonwoven or merely optional examples. In an effort to compact prosecution, the limitation following “for example” is interpreted as non-limiting optional examples
Claim 32 recites “for example”, renders the claim indefinite, which renders the claim indefinite. For instance, the claim recites “by interposition of an adhesive, for example glue, along strips or lines of glue” and it is not clear the limitation following these phrases modify the scope of the claimed adhesive or merely optional examples. In an effort to compact prosecution, the limitation following “for example” is treated as non-limiting optional examples
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation in claim 33 is identical to claim 32, and therefore does not further limit the claim 32. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 1, 14, 15 19, 20 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams et al (US 20210401638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a laminate (figures 1 and 2, laminate 10) extending widthwise (figure 2, W), in particular in a direction CD, and lengthwise (figure 2, length of the laminate perpendicular to W), particularly in a direction MD, comprising:
- at least one nonwoven layer (figure 1, nonwoven 12), a nonwoven layer or layers forming the at least one nonwoven layer extending over a total nonwoven width (figure 2, W), in particular in the direction CD, and
- at least one elastic film (figure 1 and [0061 and 0054] elastomeric film layer 14) made of elastomer material fixed by an upper face or lower face, respectively, to a lower face or upper face, respectively, of the at least one nonwoven layer (figure 1 [0051] upper face of elastomeric film fixed to a lower face of the nonwoven 12), an elastic film or films made of elastomer material forming the at least one elastic film made of elastomer material extending over a total elastic width (figure 2 and [0065-0066] elastomeric layer 14 made of elastomeric material and extending over Y), characterised in that
- the ratio equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9 ([0075] table 1, Laminate width W is 75 and elastomeric layer width Y is 45, and its ratio is 0.6); and
- a SET at 100% elongation of the laminate and/or of the at least one elastic film made of elastomer material, measured, in the width direction, with a sample having a length and a width and wherein the elastomer material extends along the entire length and across the entire width of the sample, is greater than 6%, in particular between 6% and 30% (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property measured by SET).
Regarding claim 2, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the ratio equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.4 and 0.8 ([0075] ratio of 0.6)
Regarding claim 3, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the SET at 100% elongation of the laminate, measured with a sample having a length and a width and wherein the elastic extends along the entire length and across the entire width of the sample, is greater than 15%, in particular between 15% and 30% (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property measured by SET).
Regarding claim 4, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the material of the elastic film or films made of an elastomer material has a Shore A hardness of between 50 and 90 ([0065] the elastomeric layer 14 comprises elastomeric material including VISTAMAXX. As disclosed in the application [0079] VISTAMAXX possess shores A hardness between 50 and 90).
Regarding claim 6, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that at least one of the values of the ratio [SET (as a %)/elongation (as a %/100)] of the laminate,
- if breaking of the laminate occurs beyond the elongation to 120%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 120%, a return to 0%, a sixth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth elongation to 40%, or
- if breaking of the laminate occurs at an elongation of between 100% and 120%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third, fourth and fifth elongation to 40%, or
- if breaking of the laminate occurs at an elongation of between 80% and 100%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60% and 80%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60% and 80% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third and fourth elongation to 40%,
is between 6 and 30, in particular between 8 and 25, in particular between 8 and 20, the elongation being carried out according to a direction in CD (cross direction) or in MD (machine direction) (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed values).
Regarding claim 7, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 6.
Williams further teaches characterised in that, for at least two of the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120%, in particular for at least the elongations to 100% and 120%, the ratio of the laminate has a value which is between 6 and 30, in particular between 8 and 25, in particular between 8 and 20 (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property).
Regarding claim 11, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the SETs of the laminate for the elongations to 80%, 100% and 120%, measured during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 120%, a return to 0%, a sixth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, are between a lower limit value, for the elongation to 80%, of between 5 and 15, and an upper value, for the elongation to 120%, of between 8 and 30, in particular between 15 and 25, the SET of the elongations to 80%, 100% and 120% being calculated, respectively, at the fourth, fifth and sixth elongation to 40% (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property).
Regarding claim 14, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the laminate comprises a second nonwoven (figure 1, 16 arranged on a lower face of 15) that is arranged on an upper face or lower face, respectively, of the elastic film made of elastomer material.
Regarding claim 15, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 1.
Williams further teaches characterised in that one of the values of the ratio [SET (as a %)/elongation (as a %/100)] of the at least one elastic film made of elastomer material, if breaking of the film occurs beyond the elongation to 120%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 120%, a return to 0%, a sixth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth elongation to 40%, or if breaking of the film occurs at an elongation of between 100% and 120%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third, fourth and fifth elongation to 40%, or if breaking of the film occurs at an elongation of between 80% and 100%, measured for the elongations to 40%, 60% and 80%, during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 40%, 60% and 80% being calculated, respectively, at the second, third and fourth elongation to 40%, is between 6 and 30, in particular between 8 and 25, in particular between 8 and 20, the elongation being carried out according to a direction in CD (cross direction) or in MD (machine direction) (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, the ration equal to the total elastic width to the total nonwoven width is between 0.3 and 0.9, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property).
Regarding claim 19, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 15.
Williams further teaches characterised in that, for the five elongations to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% and 120%, the ratio of the at least one elastic film made of elastomer material has a value which is between 6 and 30, in particular between 8 and 25, in particular between 8 and 20 (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property measured by SET).
Regarding claim 20, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 15.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the SETs of the elastic film made of elastomer material, for the elongations to 80%, 100% and 120%, measured during a measuring operation in which, in succession, the following are carried out: a first elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, a second elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 60%, a return to 0%, a third elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 80%, a return to 0%, a fourth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 100%, a return to 0%, a fifth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, an elongation to 120%, a return to 0%, a sixth elongation to 40%, a return to 0%, and an elongation to break, the SET of the elongations to 80%, 100% and 120% being calculated, respectively, at the fourth, fifth and sixth elongation to 40%, are between a lower limit value, for the elongation to 80%, of between 5 and 15, and an upper value, for the elongation to 120%, of between 8 and 30, in particular between 15 and 25, the elongation being carried out according to a direction in CD (cross direction) or in MD (machine direction) (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property).
Regarding claim 28, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 15.
Williams further teaches the force at elongation of the laminate in CD at 100% is greater than 7 N. (Williams inherently teaches the claimed feature above. As set forth in MPEP 2114, If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness. Furthermore, a measurement method or test protocol does not carry patentable weight for a product claim if the claim itself is not structurally different from the prior art. For instance, Williams teaches the claimed structure, i.e., laminate comprising at least one nonwoven layer, at least one elastic film, and therefore Williams inherently possess the claimed property).
Regarding claim 29, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 15.
Williams further teaches characterised in that the nonwoven is a nonwoven based on short fibres, in particular a carded nonwoven, for example a spunlace, or a thermobonded carded nonwoven ([0055] ““Nonwoven” means a porous, fibrous material made from continuous (long) filaments (fibers) and/or discontinuous (short) filaments (fibers) by processes such as, for example, spunbonding, meltblowing, airlaying, carding, coforming, hydroentangling, and the like. Nonwovens do not have a woven or knitted filament pattern. Nonwovens may be liquid permeable or impermeable”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al (US 20210401638 A1) in view of Shah et al (US 5536563 A)
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 4.
Williams does not expressly teach characterised in that the material of the elastic film or films made of elastomer material has a Shore A hardness of between 60 and 80.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a nonwoven elastomeric material, Shah teaches characterised in that the material of the elastic film or films made of elastomer material has a Shore A hardness of between 60 and 80 (col 5 line 25-50, nonwoven elastomeric material having shore A hardness of 65).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate the teachings of Shah and provide the elastomer material as claimed for the purpose of forming elastomeric materials that can be easily manufactured and that have desirable elastic properties as taught by Shah (col 1 line 35-57)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al (US 20210401638 A1) in view of Uchida et al (US 20170157901 A1)
Regarding claim 30, Williams teaches the laminate according to claim 15.
Williams does not teach characterised in that fixing of the at least one elastic film to the at least one nonwoven layer is performed by interposition of an adhesive, for example glue, along strips or lines of glue extending lengthwise in the direction MD, and at a distance from one another in the direction CD.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an elastic laminate, Uchida teaches fixing of the at least one film to the at least one nonwoven layer is performed by interposition of an adhesive, for example glue, along strips or lines of glue extending lengthwise in the direction MD, and at a distance from one another in the direction CD (figures 1 and 2 and [0067], nonwoven fabric layers 20 are fixed to elastomer layer 10 by interposition of adhesive strips extending along the machine direction and each strips are distance from one another in perpendicular cross direction).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate the teachings of Uchida and provide the laminate as claimed for the purpose of providing excellent feeling of touch while preventing deforming or peeling of the laminate as taught by Uchida ([0003-0004]).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al (US 20210401638 A1) in view of Uchida (US 20220031527 A1)
Regarding claim 31, Williams teaches a laminate with hooks (figure 9 and [0119-0122 and 0125]), ears 130/10 comprise a fastening system 148 such as hook and loop fastening components), comprising a laminate according to claim 1 (figure 9, laminate 10), and the hook and loop fastening components fixed to the laminate (figure 11, 150 fixed to 10).
Williams does not expressly teach at least one lap with hooks fixed on the upper nonwoven layer
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Bianchi teaches at least one lap with hooks fixed on the upper nonwoven layer (figure 1 and [0043] hook element 42 disposed on the back ear 40).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate the teachings of Uchida and provides the laminate as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of reducing exposure of the hook element on the outer, garment-facing surface of the diaper, thereby reducing the likelihood of the hook element interfering with the wearer’s outer garments.
Regarding claim 32, Williams teaches a Nappy for a baby or adult incontinence pants (figure 9, 100) comprising at least one laminate according to claim 1 (figure 9 and [0119-0122 and 0125] ear 130) comprising hook and look fastening component originating laterally from the rear waist (figure 9 rear waist region 118) of the nappy or incontinence pants
Williams does not expressly teach the laminate comprises hook tabs and hooks engage with loops originating from the front face of the waist of the nappy, in order to achieve closure of the nappy or incontinence pants.
In the same field of endeavor, namely an absorbent article, Bianchi teaches the laminate comprises hook tabs and hooks engage with loops originating from the front face of the waist of the nappy, in order to achieve closure of the nappy or incontinence pants (figure 1 and [0043] back ear 40 arranged in back waist region 38 comprising hook elements 42that can be releasably fastened to a landing zone 44 disposed in front region 36 providing loop).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Williams to incorporate the teachings of Uchida and provides the laminate as claimed, and one of skill in the art motivated to do so, for the purpose of reducing exposure of the hook element on the outer, garment-facing surface of the diaper, thereby reducing the likelihood of the hook element interfering with the wearer’s outer garments.
Regarding claim 33, Williams, as modified by Bianchi teaches a Nappy for a baby or adult incontinence pants comprising at least one laminate according to claim 31, for forming hook tabs originating laterally from the rear waist of the nappy or incontinence pants, such that hooks engage with loops originating from the front face of the waist of the nappy, in order to achieve closure of the nappy or incontinence pants. (see claim 31 rejection above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukuda et al (EP 2647360 A1), Mueller (US 20180042786 A1), Curro et al (US 5700255 A), Greening et al (US 20210378885 A1) and Dalal et al (US 20210378885 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900-1700.
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.
/SETH HAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights