DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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 Claims
1. Claims 12-31 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 1-11 are cancelled as of the June 24, 2024 preliminary amendment.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 24, 2024, January 31,2025 and June 22, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has 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.
4. Claims 12-31 are 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 s 12 and 15 recite the limitation "the fabric" in lines 4 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 13-14 and 16-31 are rejected for depending from claims 12 and 15.
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.
5. Claim(s) 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albis (WO 2008/101643 A1) in view of Larson et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0049889 A1).
6. With regard to claims 12, 15, 23 and 27, Albis discloses a nonwoven web (A/B/C; Fig. 1; abstract) comprising a pattern of fusion-embossed bonding points (bonding dots, 210a; “micro-bonding pattern”; page 11, lines 24-28; “locally fused at their surface”; page 13, lines 10-14), wherein the nonwoven web is thermally bonded on the surface showing the pattern of bonding points (210a; via thermal bonding unit, 2), wherein the pattern of bonding points (210a) is homogenous over the entire surface of the fabric (Figs. 5-11) and fulfills the following conditions:(a) the number of bonding points on the surface is greater than 75/cm2 (greater than or equal to 90 dots/cm2; page 4, line 23 – page 5, line 3); (b) the average area size of the individual bonding points is smaller than 1.35 mm2 (less than 0.5 mm2; page 12, lines 16-18); and (c) the average distance between bonding points, from centre to centre, is smaller than 1.3 mm (1.1 mm; page 12, line 29).
With further regard to claim 15, Albis discloses a method for making a nonwoven web (A/B/C; Figs. 1-2; abstract; claim 1), said method comprising a nonwoven web that is bonded by calender embossing (via the two heated pressure rolls, 20 of thermal bonding unit, 2) to form a nonwoven web (A/B/C) comprising a pattern of fusion-embossed bonding points (210a; Figs. 5-11; page 11, lines 24-28; page 13, lines 10-14).
However, while Albis focuses on the web’s barrier properties, Albis is silent in regard to the nonwoven web being ink-printed on the surface showing the pattern of bonding points.
Within the same field of endeavor, namely nonwoven bond point formation, Larson discloses printed absorbent articles (abstract; claim 7; [0009]; [0036]), wherein the nonwoven web is ink-printed on the surface showing a pattern of bonding points ([0026]; [0047-0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonwoven web disclosed by Albis to be an ink-printed nonwoven showing the pattern of bonding points, similar to that disclosed by Larson, in order to improve the quality of printed graphics on bonded substrates of absorbent articles, as suggested by Larson in paragraph [0004], with a reasonable expectation of success.
7. With regard to claims 14 and 20, Albis discloses that the web is a spunbonded nonwoven web (see abstract, objectives of invention and numerous other portions of the description..
8. With regard to claims 17-19, Albis in view of Larson discloses the ink-printed nonwoven disclosed in claim 12. Further, Larson discloses that the ink printing can be flexographic ink printing or ink jet printing; wherein a line screen is between 15 L/cm and 50 L/cm ([0003]; [0026]; [0047]).
9. With regard to claim 21, while the bonding pattern disclosed by Albis is fully capable of being applied using ultrasonic energy, Aldis fails to explicitly disclose that the calender embossing comprises ultrasonic embossing.
However, ultrasonic embossing is a technique well-known and widely utilized in the art, as disclosed by Larson ([0027]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the calender embossing disclosed by Albis in view of Larson to comprise ultrasonic embossing, similar to that disclosed by Larson, in order to employ well-known alternative means of bonding which result in stronger bonds at faster speeds, with a reasonable expectation of success.
10. With regard to claims 22 and 31, Albis discloses a method to manufacture hygiene articles (Figs. 1-2; abstract; claim 36; col. 6, lines 16-21), said method comprising utilizing the printed nonwoven web of claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above) in said hygiene articles; wherein said hygiene articles are diapers (claim 36; col. 6, lines 16-21).
11. Claim(s) 13, 16, 24-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albis in view of Larson, as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 9,993,369 B2).
12. With regard to claims 13, 16, 24-26 and 28-30, while Larson discloses a percent bonding area varying from around 10% to around 30% of the area of nonwoven web ([0026]; [0053]; claim 3) overlapping within the claimed range of smaller than 11%, Albis and Larson fail to explicitly disclose a bond area, defined as fraction of the total area of the surface that is occupied by the bonding points, is smaller than 11%.
However, within the same field of endeavor of nonwoven bond point patterns, Xu discloses an article with a soft nonwoven layer (abstract; Figs. 1, 5A), wherein a bond area, defined as fraction of the total area of the surface that is occupied by the bonding points, is smaller than 13% (col. 5, lines 53-56; Fig. 5A; col. 31, line 59 – col. 32, line 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bond area percent disclosed by Albis in view of Larson to be smaller than 11%, similar to that disclosed by Xu, in order to balance airflow and structural integrity of the nonwoven, as suggested by Xu in column 24, lines 31-53 and column 14, line 43 – column 15, line 3. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the optimal range of bond area of the nonwoven web for the desired purpose, through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sayovitz et al. (US 6,093,665) discloses pattern bonded nonwoven fabrics.
Coslett et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0189814) discloses a nonwoven having improved softness signals and methods for manufacturing.
Takagi (US PGPUB 2023/0108153) discloses a disposable absorbent article.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights