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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiwa JP 2017-205433 (translation provided in IDS filed 08/06/2024).
As to claim 1, Yoshiwa teaches a gather member for use in absorbent articles, medical articles, etc. (Overview, problem to be solved). Yoshiwa does not specifically teach a ratio of a 50% elongation stress at a 2000%/min elongation speed to a 50% elongation stress at a 200%/min elongation speed is 1.05 or more and 3.00 or less. However, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member contains elastic fibers that satisfy certain extension recovery, stress retention and stress relaxation characteristics (Overview, solution; claim 1, paras. 0008, 0009, 0013-0017). Additionally, Yoshiwa teaches a polyurethane elastic fibers comprising the same materials as the present invention (Yoshiwa paras. 0018-0025); present invention specification (paras. 0017-0022).
The combination of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers and a nonwoven fabric taught in Yoshiwa would necessarily exhibit the claimed property measured by the claimed testing method above. Furthermore, the specific testing method does not impart patentable weight to the claim, as the ratio of the elongation stress at different elongation speeds is a property of the article’s material and structure, not the method of measurement. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the prior art’s structure, being substantially identical, would predictably possess the claimed ratio and thus, render the limitation obvious.
As to claim 2, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 1, comprising at least thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers and a non-woven fabric (para. 0002).
As to claim 3, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, further comprising a hot-melt adhesive (Yoshiwa paras. 0003, 0053).
As to claim 5, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member comprises elastic filaments with a fineness per filament of 5. 0 dtex to 20 dtex or less (claim 5, para. 0046). Yoshiwa also teaches the total fineness of the elastic fibers is 150 dtx or more and 1500 dtex or less (para. 0046). Using a value of 5.0 dtex per filament and a total fineness of 150 dtex, a filament number would be at least 30, which is included in the claimed range of 10 to 150 filaments.
As to claim 6, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, wherein a single- strand fineness of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers is 5 dtex or more and 20 dtex or less (Yoshiwa paras. 5, 0046).
As to claim 7, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, wherein a total fineness of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers is 150 dtex or more and 1500 dtex or less (para. 0046).
As to claim 8, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers contain a polyurethane synthesized from polymer polyol, MDI, and 1,4-butanediol (para. 0024).
As to claim 9, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, wherein a molecular weight of hard segments of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers is 750 or more and 1500 or less (Yoshiwa claim 4, para. 0042).
As to claim 11, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 3, wherein a content of the hot-melt adhesive is 0.02 g/m or more and 0.10 g/m or less relative to a length upon elongation per thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fiber – where Yoshiwa teaches a hot melt adhesive was applied at 0.03g/m per fiber (para. 0053).
As to claim13, Yoshiwa teaches the gather member according to claim 2, wherein a basis weight of the non-woven fabric is 8 g/m² or more and 50 g/m² or less (para. 0053).
As to claim 15, Yoshiwa teaches a hygiene product comprising the gather member according to claim 1 (paras. 0008, 0051, claims 6 and 7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiwa JP 2017-205433 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Motomura et al. EP 2123441. Yoshiwa teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Yoshiwa does not teach the gather member according to claim 2, wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers have substantially no crosslinks containing an allophanate bond. Motomura teaches a mixed-fiber nonwoven laminate comprising a thermoplastic elastomer and thermoplastic resin suitable for absorbent articles (Motomura Abstract). Motomura teaches the agglomerates are components generated from the raw materials of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer and reactions of these materials, for example a component derived from aggregated hard segments of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer and a component of hard segments and/or soft segments crosslinked, for example, an allophanate bond or (in the alternative) a biuret bond (Motomura para. 0022). Thus, Motomura teaches an alternative method of crosslinking with a biuret bond, an equivalent crosslinking method known in the art. Therefore, because these two bond types were art-recognized equivalents before the invention was originally filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute biuret bond for an allophanate bond.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiwa JP 2017-205433 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, in view of Shiraki et al. USPN 4994508. Yoshiwa teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Yoshiwa does not teach the hot-melt adhesive is a styrene block copolymer selected from the group consisting of block copolymers of a vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon and a conjugated diene compound and hydrogenated products thereof. Shiraki teaches a block copolymer comprising a conjugated diene and a vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon is different from natural rubbers and conventional synthetic rubbers. Shiraki teaches the block copolymer has strength and elastic characteristics and exhibits good processability which is similar to that of thermoplastics at high temperature, and therefore it is now utilized in very wide scope of fields by utilization of these characteristics (Shiraki col. 1, lines 43-53). Shiraki further teaches a block copolymer comprising a conjugated diene and a vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon is preferably used as the base polymer for a hot melt adhesive because of having a relatively good balance between tackiness and creep resistance (Shiraki col. 2, lines 6-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to use the hot melt adhesive comprising a conjugated diene and a vinyl aromatic hydrocarbon for the benefits taught in Shiraki.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiwa JP 2017-205433 in view of Watanabe et al. WO 2020/175243.
As to claim 14, Yoshiwa teaches the present invention substantially as claimed. Yoshiwa does not teach a full elongation rate of the gather member is 50% or more and 250% or less. Watanabe WO 2020175243 teaches a gathering member for an absorbent article having an elongation rate of 150 to 200% (WO 2020/175243 para. 0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was originally filed to provide a 50-150% elongation rate for elastics as taught in Watanabe. Doing so balances comfort, fit, recovery, and durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the claimed structure of the gather member where a distance between hard domains of the thermoplastic polyurethane elastic fibers as measured with a small- angle X-ray scattering device is 10.0 nm or more and 30.0 nm or less, and a full width at half maximum of a peak of an azimuthal angle distribution is 50° or more and 130° or less.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE F STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-4937. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights