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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited by applicants in the information disclosure statements filed on 7/9/2024 have been made of record. Examiner has considered the voluminous references to the best of her ability.
While the statements filed do not comply with the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2004 regarding both the number of references cited and the elimination of clearly irrelevant art and marginally cumulative information, compliance with these guidelines is not mandatory. Furthermore, 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 does not require that the information be material; rather, they allow for submission of information regardless of its pertinence to the claimed invention. Also, there is no requirement to explain the materiality of the submitted references. However, the cloaking of a clearly relevant reference by inclusion in a long list of citations may not comply with Applicant’s duty of disclosure. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark boats Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, aff’d 479 F. 2d. 1338.
Applicant is advised that the MPEP states the following with respect to large information disclosure statements:
Although a concise explanation of the relevance of information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted. Concise explanations (especially those that point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more is highly relevant to patentability. MPEP § 609.04(a)(III).
This statement is in accord with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), states that forcing the Examiner to find “a needle in a haystack” is “probative of bad faith.” Id. at 1888. This case presented a situation where the disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than fifty references. Id. 1888.
The MPEP provides more support for this position. In a subsection entitled “Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure,” item thirteen states:
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant information and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of the most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F.Supp 948 (S.D. Fla. 1972) aff’d 479 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir 1974). See also MPEP § 2004.
Therefore, it is recommended that if any information that has been cited by Applicants in the previous disclosure statement is known to be material for patentability as defined by 37 CFR 1.56, Applicant should present a concise statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited.
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 1-9 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.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites “a combination belt structure” but it is not clear what constitutes a combination belt structure. For examination, “a combination belt structure” is interpreted to simply mean “a belt structure.”
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent from Claim 1 and thus requiring said indefinite limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allison-Rogers (US 2010/0036340).
Re Claim 1, Allison-Rogers discloses a pant-type diaper (Fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (Fig. 3) comprising a topsheet (inner lining 23), a backsheet (waterproof film 13 and outer coverstock 7), and an absorbent core (fluff pulp layer 15) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet;
a first waist region (back of the article) comprising a belt structure (belt 5) and having:
an anchoring zone (where belt 5 is attached to the back of the article), wherein a portion of the belt is joined to the chassis within the anchoring zone, and
a decoupled zone (portions of the belt that is not attached to the back of the article), wherein a portion of the combination belt structure is not joined to the chassis within the decoupled zone, and wherein a portion of the decoupled zone is disposed laterally outboard of the anchoring zone (clearly shown in Fig. 4);
a second waist region (the front of the article);
a crotch region (outlined by the leg cuffs of the article) disposed between the first waist region and the second waist region; and
a fastening system comprising a fastening component (hook fasteners 11) and a receiving component (coverstock 7, [0054]), wherein the fastening component is disposed outside of the anchoring zone, and wherein the receiving component is disposed on the chassis (Fig. 1 and [0054]).
Re Claim 2, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the receiving component is integral with the chassis ([0054]).
Re Claim 3, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the fastening component is a discrete patch of fastening material (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 4, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the fastening component is disposed on a wearer-facing surface (Fig. 1, where hook fasteners 11 are on the wearer-facing surface of the belt 5).
Re Claim 5, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the fastening component is disposed laterally outboard of the anchoring zone (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the fastening component is disposed completely within the decoupled zone (the hook fasteners that do not overlap with the back of the article are completely within the above-defined decoupled zone).
Re Claim 8, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1, and Allison-Rogers also discloses wherein the pant-type diaper is refastenable (via hook fasteners 11 and coverstock 7).
Re Claim 10, Allison-Rogers discloses a pant-type diaper comprising:
a chassis (Fig. 3) comprising a topsheet (inner lining 23), a backsheet (waterproof film 13 and outer coverstock 7), and an absorbent core (fluff pulp layer 15) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet;
a first waist region comprising a lateral extension element (belt 5) comprising a web of material, wherein a portion of the lateral extension element is joined to the chassis at an anchoring zone (where belt 5 is attached to the back of the article), wherein a portion of the lateral extension element is not joined to the chassis at a decoupled zone (see Fig. 1 where belt 5 has two ends not overlapping the back region of the article), and wherein the decoupled zone is laterally outboard of the anchoring zone (Fig. 1);
a second waist region (the front of the article);
a crotch region (outlined by the leg cuffs of the article) disposed between the first waist region and the second waist region; and
a fastening system comprising a fastening component (hook fasteners 11), wherein the fastening component is disposed outside of the anchoring zone (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 11, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 10, and further disclosing a receiving component (outer coverstock 7, [0054]), wherein the receiving component is configured to be releasably engageable with the fastening component.
Re Claims 12-16 & 18, the limitations are taught by Allison-Rogers as explained supra for Claims 2-6 & 8, respectively.
Re Claim 19, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 10 and further discloses wherein the fastening component is configured to engage with any portion of the chassis (since the coverstock 7 provides the receiving surface, therefore any portion of it can receive the hook fastener 11).
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.
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 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison-Rogers in view of Honcoop et al. (US 2019/0021915).
Re Claims 7 & 17, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1 or 10, but does not disclose wherein the combination belt structure comprises an elasticized waist feature. Honcoop discloses a belt usable for a diaper, wherein the belt is elastic (e.g., [0017]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Honcoop as this gives a slightly improved fitting of the diaper around a user’s torso.
Claims 9 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison-Rogers in view of Karlsson et al. (US 2001/0024512).
Re Claims 9 & 20, Allison-Rogers discloses claim 1 or 10, but does not disclose wherein the decoupled zone comprises a zone of weakness. Karlsson discloses a diaper having belts with lines of weakness (13) in the portions of the belts that do not overlap with a back region of the article (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify with Karlsson as this gives user the option to shorten the belt such that in the case of a long belt, the user does not need to have the belt double up on itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN S SU whose telephone number is (408)918-7575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 Pacific.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/SUSAN S SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781 30 May 2026
Prosecution Insights