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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Odorzynski does not meet presently amended claim 1 because “the coextrusion of two materials is only described in the embodiment of Fig. 6 (see [0088]). Here, however, the materials are arranged side-by-side, so that the essential feature of a continuous layer is not realized. According to Odorzynski, the measures in the embodiments are deliberately described as alternatives” but this is not found persuasive. As stated in MPEP 2123 (II), nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Although a single embodiment of Odorzynski does not anticipate every element of the claim, it is found obvious in view of alterative embodiments of Odorzynski. As stated in the previous and current rejection of claim 1, the embodiments of Fig. 5 and 6 can be combined to meet the claim.
Applicant argues that “the embodiment described in amended claims 1 and 17 achieves greater strength in areas of lower film thickness (due to the increased thickness of the first polymer material present there). At least this objective is fundamentally in contradiction with Odorzynski” but this is not found persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that “Hanschen is therefore not suitable for combination with Odorzynski from a purely technical point of view. With regard to the coextrusion described by Hanschen, the person skilled in the art cannot change the thickness of regions 308 and 310 separately at all, but only the uniform overall thickness of the film” but this is not found persuasive. Odorzynski teaches an extrusion apparatus capable of extruding two different materials in different thicknesses for a disposable absorbent garment, see [0008], [0088], Fig. 6. Hanschen is relied upon for teaching varying the thickness at certain locations in a disposable absorbent garment. Thus, the combination would be operable when combined because one could change the thickness of regions 308 and 310 using the apparatus of Odorzynski.
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(s) 1 and 3-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorzynski (US 2003/0114824 A1) in view of Hanschen (US 2014/0093703 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Odorzynski meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film comprising a first polymer material and a second polymer material, (different Z axis dimensions may result from coextrusion of two different compositions with similar overall properties but having different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see [0008]) wherein the first polymer material extends over a full area of the laminate film, (Fig. 7, EBA film 72, [0089], Fig. 14, EBA film 50, where EBA includes elastomeric polymers [0063]) wherein a ratio of a maximum film thickness (dmax) determined in the first functional section to a minimum film thickness (dmin) determined in the second functional section is at least 1.4:1. (Odorzynski teaches Fig. 14, [0085], the first layer to be uniform thickness of 10 mils and a second layer also 10 mils [0085]. Thus the dmax is 20 mils and the dmin is 10 mils, resulting in a ratio of 2:1)
Odorzynski does not teach in a single embodiment and wherein the second polymer material is arranged only in certain sections of the laminate film, so that the laminate film has at least a first functional section with the second polymer material and at least a second functional section without the second polymer material.
Odorzynski teaches the embodiment of Fig. 6 to include H2503 and H2504 to provide differential elasticity through a variable Z axis dimension and through the different elasticity inherent in the two different formulation, see [0088]. Odorzynski teaches the embodiment of Fig. 7 and 14 to include depositing more material to form mounds, collectively 74, in the film 72 at even intervals along the direction of manufacture in the Y-axis direction 83 by varying the pressure of the hot melt feed pump, [0089]. Thus the combination meets the claimed wherein the second polymer material is arranged only in certain sections of the laminate film, so that the laminate film has at least a first functional section with the second polymer material and at least a second functional section without the second polymer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the after before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the embodiment of Fig. 5 with the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Odorzynski to achieve two different compositions with similar overall properties but having different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see Odorzynski [0008].
Odorzynski does not meet the claimed wherein a ratio of a maximum total thickness (a2) of the first polymer material, determined in the second functional section, to a minimum total thickness (a1) of the first polymer material determined in the first functional section, is at least 2:1.
Odorzynski teaches the embodiment of Fig. 7 and 14 to include depositing more material to form mounds, collectively 74, in the film 72 at even intervals along the direction of manufacture in the Y-axis direction 83 by varying the pressure of the hot melt feed pump, [0089].
Hanschen teaches matrix includes skin regions 308 and first regions 310 that are continuous and made from the first polymeric composition, Fig. 1C, [0039], and size of the first and second regions can be adjusted, for example, by pressure in the cavities, flow rate of the polymer stream, and/or the dimensions of the passageways, see [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the size of the region 308 and 310 of Hanschen in the product of Odorzynski to achieve the claimed a2:a1 ratio of at least 2:1 to maximize the elastic potential (that is, extension and recovery) of the elastic second regions of the film, see [0003].
Regarding claim 3, Odorzynski meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the second polymer material is elastic, and wherein the first functional section forms an elastic film section and the second functional section forms a non-elastic film section. (different Z axis dimensions may result from coextrusion of two different compositions with similar overall properties but having different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, further comprising a third polymer material, which is arranged in the at least one first functional section, between the first polymer material and the second polymer material.
Hanschen teaches a laminate of a fibrous web and a film having alternating first and second regions, where the second regions are more elastic than the first regions, [0003], and film constructions including, for example, three or more different polymeric compositions, see [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application combine the third different polymeric composition of Hanschen with the two different polymeric materials of Odorzynski because it allows the second polymeric composition to serve as an effective tie layer between the stripes and the strand cores without the use of other compatibilizers, see Hanschen [0081].
Regarding claim 5, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 4, wherein the third polymer material extends over the full area or extends at least beyond the second polymer material.
Hanschen meets the claimed wherein the third polymer material extends over the full area or extends at least beyond the second polymer material. (Hanschen teaches ribbon regions 112 and/or 114 are present, Fig. 1B, [0037] and film constructions including, for example, three or more different polymeric compositions, see [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application arrange the third different polymeric composition of Hanschen as a ribbon around the second polymer material of Odorzynski because it allows the second polymeric composition to serve as an effective tie layer between the stripes and the strand cores without the use of other compatibilizers, see Hanschen [0081].
Regarding claim 6, Odorzynski meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first functional section runs is in form of a strip, running in a production direction (P). (see Fig. 14, [0085])
Regarding claim 7, Odorzynski does not explicitly teach the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 6, wherein the strip has a width between 1 cm and 12 cm perpendicular to the production direction (P).
Odorzynski teaches second 10 mil layer, about three-eighths inch wide (0.95 cm) was added to the base layer to create the differential profile.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to vary the strip width of Odorzynski to achieve the claimed width between 1 cm and 12 cm in order to optimize differential elasticity to the film, see [0008], [0089].
Regarding claim 8, Odorzynski does not explicitly teach the co-extruded laminate film according to claim 6, wherein at least two said first functional sections in the form of strips run in the production direction (P), wherein the distance between the strips is between 3 cm and 24 cm.
Odorzynski teaches two crenellations separated by a distance in the X axis direction 60, Fig. 5, [0087]. Various shapes and spacings of mounds 74 may be utilized to achieve the purposes of the present invention, [0089].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the distance between two strips taught in Fig. 5 of Odorzynski with the embodiment of Fig. 14 of Odorzynski to achieve the claimed distance between the strips is between 3 cm and 24 cm in order to optimize differential elasticity to the film, see [0008], [0089].
Regarding claim 9, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein in the at least one first functional section, the second polymer material is covered on both sides by the first polymer material.
Hanschen teaches a laminate of a fibrous web and a film having alternating first and second regions, where the second regions are more elastic than the first regions, [0003], where second regions 104 are strands comprising a core 106 and a sheath 108, Fig. 1B, [0037]. Examiner notes the sheath 108 meets the claimed covered on both sides by the first polymer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application arrange the different polymeric composition of Hanschen as a sheath around the polymer material of Odorzynski because it allows the second polymeric composition to serve as an effective tie layer between the stripes and the strand cores without the use of other compatibilizers, see Hanschen [0081].
Regarding claim 10, Odorzynski meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 9, wherein the laminate film has a layer structure that is symmetrical with reference to a center plane. (Odorzynski teaches two crenellations separated by a distance in the X axis direction 60, Fig. 5, [0087].)
Regarding claim 11, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 4, wherein the at least one second functional section is formed, by at least 70 wt.-%, by the first polymer material and/or the third polymer material.
Hanschen meets the claimed wherein the at least one second functional section is formed, by at least 70 wt.%, by the first polymer material and/or the third polymer material. Hanschen teaches the first regions make up a range of about 51% to 85% of the volume of the film, [0047], where matrix includes skin regions 308 and first regions 310 that are continuous and made from the first polymeric composition, Fig. 1C, [0039], and size of the first and second regions can be adjusted, for example, by pressure in the cavities, flow rate of the polymer stream, and/or the dimensions of the passageways, see [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the size of the region 308 and 310 of Hanschen in the product of Odorzynski to achieve the claimed at least 70 wt.%, by the first polymer material to maximize the elastic potential (that is, extension and recovery) of the elastic second regions of the film, see [0003].
Regarding claim 12, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the first polymer material is formed by at least one polyolefin.
Hanschen meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the first polymer material is formed by at least one polyolefin ( a film comprising alternating first and second regions are thermoplastic polymeric compositions e.g., polyolefins, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to select a polyolefin of Hanschen as the generic polymer of Odorzynski because the polymeric composition can be relatively less elastic than the elastic polymeric composition in the second regions, see [0087].
Regarding claim 13, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 12, wherein the first polymer material has an admixture of 3 wt.-% to 30 wt.-% polyolefin elastomer (TPO).
Hanschen teaches polyolefin elastomers [0088] elastomeric polymers can make a relatively low contribution to the basis weight and yet useful elastic properties are achieved in the film [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the amount of polyolefin elastomer as taught by Hanschen in the film of Odorzynski in meet the claimed 3 wt% to 30 wt% because typically low amount of elastomeric polymer in the films provides a cost advantage over elastic films in which elastomeric polymers make a higher contribution to the basis weight of the films, see Hanschen [0048].
Regarding claim 14, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the second polymer material contains at least one styrene block copolymer and/or at least one polyolefin elastomer.
Hanschen teaches second regions comprise an elastic polymeric composition that is more elastic than the first polymeric composition described above, useful elastic polymeric compositions include thermoplastic elastomers such as polyolefin elastomers [0088]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the polyolefin elastomer as taught by Hanschen in the film of Odorzynski to increase the elastic properties of the second region, see [0088].
Regarding claim 15, Odorzynski does not meet the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein the maximum total thickness (dmax) is between 25 μm and 75 μm and/or the minimum total thickness (dmin) is between 15 μm and 40 μm.
Odorzynski teaches Fig. 14, [0085], the first layer to be uniform thickness of 10 mils and a second layer also 10 mils [0085]. Thus the dmax is 20 mils (508 um) and the dmin is 10 mils (254 um). Also Example 3 uniform thickness of approximately 3 mils (76 um), [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the thickness of the film to meet the claimed dmax and dmin to optimize the different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see Odorzynski [0008].
Regarding claim 16, Odorzynski meets the claimed co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of melt mass flow rates (MFR) at 200° C. and 5 kg of the first polymer material and of the second polymer material is 1:1 to 2:1. Odorzynski teaches different Z axis dimensions may result from coextrusion of two different compositions with similar overall properties but having different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see [0008]. Examiner notes that similar overall properties meets the claimed MFR ratio of 1:1.
Regarding claim 17, Odorzynski meets the claimed method for production of a co-extruded laminate film according to claim 1, comprising the steps of: guiding a melt of the first polymer material over the full area,( Odorzynski teaches Fig. 14, [0085], the first layer to be uniform thickness of 10 mils [0085]) and guiding a melt of the second polymer material only in certain regions, (and a second layer also 10 mils, to create the differential profile, [0085], Examiner notes Fig. 14 depicts the second layer to be only in some region) in the form of at least one strip, in an extrusion die, wherein the first polymer material and the second polymer material are extruded together, (Odorzynski teaches coextrusion of two different compositions [0008]) using the extrusion die, (passed through a slot die [0085]) along a production direction (P), so that the co-extruded laminate film is formed with a thickness profile that varies along a transverse direction. (Examiner notes Fig. 14 depicts the thickness profile to vary in the transverse direction).
Odorzynski does not teach in a single embodiment and wherein the second polymer material is arranged only in certain sections of the laminate film, so that the laminate film has at least a first functional section with the second polymer material and at least a second functional section without the second polymer material.
Odorzynski teaches the embodiment of Fig. 6 to include H2503 and H2504 to provide differential elasticity through a variable Z axis dimension and through the different elasticity inherent in the two different formulation, see [0088]. Odorzynski teaches the embodiment of Fig. 7 and 14 to include depositing more material to form mounds, collectively 74, in the film 72 at even intervals along the direction of manufacture in the Y-axis direction 83 by varying the pressure of the hot melt feed pump. Thus the combination meets the claimed wherein the second polymer material is arranged only in certain sections of the laminate film, so that the laminate film has at least a first functional section with the second polymer material and at least a second functional section without the second polymer material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the after before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the embodiment of Fig. 5 with the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Odorzynski to achieve two different compositions with similar overall properties but having different elasticity to impart further differential elasticity to the film, see Odorzynski [0008].
Odorzynski does not meet the claimed wherein a ratio of a maximum total thickness (a2) of the first polymer material, determined in the second functional section, to a minimum total thickness (a1) of the first polymer material determined in the first functional section, is at least 2:1.
Hanschen teaches matrix includes skin regions 308 and first regions 310 that are continuous and made from the first polymeric composition, Fig. 1C, [0039], and size of the first and second regions can be adjusted, for example, by pressure in the cavities, flow rate of the polymer stream, and/or the dimensions of the passageways, see [0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the size of the region 308 and 310 of Hanschen in the product of Odorzynski to achieve the claimed a2:a1 ratio of at least 2:1 to maximize the elastic potential (that is, extension and recovery) of the elastic second regions of the film, see [0003].
Regarding claim 18, Odorzynski meets the claimed method according to claim 17, wherein the extrusion die is configured as a cast die having an adjustable die lip, (Odorzynski teaches the die to product a thickness of 8 miles [0081] or 3 miles [0083], which indirectly teaches an adjustable die lip) and the co-extruded laminate film is extruded as a flat film. (a film of uniform thickness [0085]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi (JP 2011-079255 A), teaches an elastic film in which a non-elastic film and a number of elastic filaments are bonded while the non-elastic film is in a molten state, [0007], it is preferable that the stretchable film 10 is non-permeable, and its water pressure resistance [0056]. The area ratio can be increased by enlarging the areas (between P2 and P1) and (between P4 and P3) as well as the areas (between P3 and P2) and (between P1 and P4), see [0055].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights