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 .
This second non-final Office action is in response to communications filed July 23, 2026.
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claim 8 is CANCELLED and claims 17-23 are newly presented, as of the July 23, 2026 claim amendment.
Response to Amendment
2. Claim 8 has been canceled and claim 9 has been amended to overcome the previously presented claim objection; accordingly, these objections are withdrawn herein.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed July 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schoenbeck et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0290717 A1).
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenbeck et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0290717 A1).
5. With regard to claims 1 and 2, Schoenbeck discloses a cover layer of a disposable hygiene article (abstract; Figs. 1-3, 5; [0049]; [0072]), comprising a co-extruded laminate film (elastic film; Fig. 3; [0019]) having a first full-area polymer material (non-elastic cover layer, 5; [0022]) and a second, elastic polymer material (elastic film layer, 4), the second elastic polymer material (4) being arranged only in certain regions of the co-extruded laminate (Fig. 3) and being in the form of at least one strip (strips, 2; Fig. 1-3), so that the co-extruded laminate forms at least one elastic first functional section (elastic section) having the second, elastic polymer material (4), and at least one second non-elastic functional section (non-elastic section) without the second, elastic polymer material (4; see section denoted ‘distance a’ between strips 2 which are lacking the elastic film layer 4; [0061]), wherein the co-extruded laminate film has an increased thickness on the at least one strip (2; “a thickness between 30 μm and 60 μm”) as compared to the at least one second functional section (Fig. 3; [0069]; two cover layers 5, each having “a thickness between 1.5 μm and 6 μm”), wherein the at least one strip (2) has a width between 1 cm and 12 cm (width ‘b’, between 0.3 cm and 1.2 cm; [0061]; Fig. 3).
While the strip (2) width range disclosed by Schoenbeck falls within the claimed range between 1.0 cm and 1.2 cm, Schoenbeck fails to explicitly disclose the claimed strip width range up to 12 cm.
Nonetheless, 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 strip width range disclosed by Schoenbeck to be specifically between 1 cm and 12 cm, since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to expand the strip width range up to 12 cm, in order to tailor the elastic properties of the first functional section in larger absorbent articles, while maintaining uniform elastic properties as well as an advantageous pleated structure, as suggested by Shoenbeck in paragraph [0034], with a reasonable expectation of success.
6. With regard to claims 9, 17 and 23, Schoenbeck discloses a cover layer of a disposable hygiene article (abstract; Figs. 1-3, 5; [0049]; [0072]), comprising a co-extruded laminate film (elastic film; Fig. 3; [0019]) having a first full-area polymer material (non-elastic cover layer, 5; [0022]) and a second, elastic polymer material (elastic film layer, 4), the second elastic polymer material (4) being arranged only in certain regions of the co-extruded laminate (Fig. 3) and being in the form of at least one strip (strips, 2; Fig. 1-3), so that the co-extruded laminate forms at least one elastic first functional section (elastic section) having the second, elastic polymer material (4), and at least one second non-elastic functional section (non-elastic section) without the second, elastic polymer material (4; see section denoted ‘distance a’ between strips 2 which are lacking the elastic film layer 4; [0061]), wherein the co-extruded laminate film has an increased thickness on the at least one strip (2; “a thickness between 30 μm and 60 μm”) as compared to the at least one second functional section (Fig. 3; [0069]; two cover layers 5, each having “a thickness between 1.5 μm and 6 μm”), wherein at least two of said elastic first functional sections in the form of strips are provided (see the two strips 2 shown in Fig. 3), wherein the distance between the strips is between 0.3 cm and 1.2 cm (distance ‘a'; [0061]; Fig. 3).
While Schoenbeck discloses the width (b) of the strips (2) as being between 0.3 cm and 1.2 cm, and the distance (a) between strips (2) preferably being selected to be greater than the width (b; i.e. greater than 1.2 cm if 1.2 cm strip width utilized; Fig. 3; [0061]), Schoenbeck fails to explicitly disclose the distance between the strips is between 3 cm and 24 cm.
Nonetheless, 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 range of distance between strips disclosed by Schoenbeck to be specifically between 3 cm and 24 cm, since 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 look to expand the range in distance between each strip to be between 3 cm and 24 cm, in order to tailor the non-elastic properties of the second functional section in larger absorbent articles, where the distance is larger than the selected strip width, as suggested by Shoenbeck in paragraph [0061], with a reasonable expectation of success.
7. With regard to claims 3 and 18, Shoenbeck discloses that a ratio of a maximum film thickness (dmax) determined on the first functional section (elastic section with strip 2; disclosed maximum thickness of 60 μm) to a minimum film thickness (dmin) determined on the second functional section is at least 1.4:1 (non-elastic section between the strips 2; Fig. 3; disclosed minimum thickness of 3 μm; ratio of 20:1; [0069]) and/or wherein the ratio of a maximum total thickness (a2) of the first polymer material, determined on the second functional section (non-elastic cover layer 5; Fig. 3; disclosed maximum thickness of 6 μm), to a minimum total thickness (a1) of the first polymer material, determined on the first functional section, is at least 2:1 section (non-elastic cover layer 5; Fig. 3; disclosed minimum thickness of 1.5 μm or a ratio of 4:1).
8. With regard to claims 6 and 21, Schoenbeck discloses that the co-extruded laminate film (Figs. 1-3) is laminated to a nonwoven (two non-woven fabric layers, 1), at least in certain regions ([0059-0064]).
9. With regard to claims 7 and 22, Schoenbeck discloses that the co-extruded laminate film (Figs. 1-3) is pre-stretched (‘preliminary stretching’, ‘preload’), at least in certain regions ([0020-0021]; [0024]; [0027]; [0031]; [0033]; [0046-0047]; [0060]).
10. With regard to claims 10-13, Schoenbeck discloses a disposable hygiene article, in the form of a diaper (Fig. 5; [0049]) having a cover layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the cover layer is a partial region (at two sections, 8) of a water-tight outer layer (‘a fluid-tight outer layer’), and further comprising a water-permeable inner layer (‘a fluid-permeable inner layer’) and an absorbent core (core, 7) arranged between the outer layer and the inner layer (Figs. 1-3, 5; [0072]), and wherein the cover layer forms two diaper ears (sections 8 are ‘provided as lateral connections between a front part and a rear part of the basic diaper body 6’) in the at least one elastic section of the co-extruded laminate film, in a waist region (Fig. 5; [0072]), on each diaper ear (8) a closure means (closure element, 9) with a hook-and-loop closure is arranged (‘hook material and landing zone’; [0072]).
11. With regard to claim 16, Schoenbeck discloses that the at least one strip (2, of sections 8) runs along a transverse direction of a diaper body ([0072]), in a front waistband region and/or in a rear waistband region (Fig. 5).
12. Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoenbeck, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 10, and further in view of Fox et al. (EP 0646062 B1; cited by applicant in 6/26/2024 IDS).
13. With regard to claims 4, 5, 19 and 20, Schoenbeck is silent in regard to the second, elastic polymer material is arranged in the form of precisely two strips that lie adjacent to longitudinal edges of the laminate film in a longitudinal direction, wherein in a center region that runs along a longitudinal direction, the strips are removed, at least in part, by means of leg cutouts on sides of the laminate film, wherein the strips form elastic ears that are integrated into the cover layer, in at least one waist region that follows the center region in the longitudinal direction.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Fox discloses an elastic film laminate (10, 40; abstract; page 2, line 53- page 3, line 4; Figs. 3, 4, 6, 8-10), comprising a diaper (Fig. 10) wherein a second, elastic polymer material (elastic regions, 12) is arranged in the form of precisely two strips (two elastic portions, 21 and 23) that lie adjacent to longitudinal edges of the laminate film (10, 40) in a longitudinal direction (Figs. 8, 9; page 7, lines 14-35), wherein in a center region (non-elastic portion, 22) that runs along a longitudinal direction, the strips (21, 23) are removed (Figs. 8-10), at least in part, by means of leg cutouts (cutout portions, 41, 42) on sides of the laminate film (Figs. 8-10), wherein the strips (21, 22) form elastic ears (cuff or leg band) that are integrated into the cover layer (page 6, lines 38-45), in at least one waist region that follows the center region in the longitudinal direction (Figs. 13-14).
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 second, elastic polymer material disclosed by Schoenbeck to be arranged in the form of precisely two strips that lie adjacent to longitudinal edges of the laminate film in a longitudinal direction, similar to that disclosed by Fox, in order to provide the diaper with elasticized cuffs to the waistband or leg band, creating a tight fitting garment, as suggested by Fox on page 6, lines 44-45, leading to a reduction of potential leakage during use.
14. With regard to claims 14-15, Schoenbeck is silent in regard to the at least one strip running along a longitudinal direction of a diaper body, from a front waistband region over a center region to a back waistband region; wherein the at least one strip comprises two strips that run adjacent to longitudinal edges, along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the strips are removed, at least in part, in the center region.
However, Fox discloses in the form of a diaper (Figs. 10, 13, 15), wherein the cover layer (10, 40) forms an integrated elastic waistband (21, 23) or diaper ear (cuff or leg band) in the at least one elastic section of the co-extruded laminate film (40), in a waist region (Figs. 8-10); wherein the at least one strip (21, 23) runs along a longitudinal direction of a diaper body (Figs. 8-10), from a front waistband region (region with elastic, 44) over a center region to a back waistband region (region with elastic, 43); wherein the at least one strip comprises two strips (21, 23) that run adjacent to longitudinal edges, along the longitudinal direction (Figs. 8, 9), and wherein the strips are removed, at least in part, in the center region (22; page 7, lines 14-35; page 2, line 53- page 3, line 4).
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 direction of the strip in relation to the diaper body disclosed by Schoenbeck to be two elastic strips that run in a longitudinal direction and lie adjacent to longitudinal edges of the laminate film with a non-elastic center region, similar to that disclosed by Fox, in order to provide the diaper with elasticized cuffs to the waistband or leg band, creating a tight fitting garment, as suggested by Fox on page 6, lines 44-45, leading to a reduction of potential leakage during use.
Conclusion
15. 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