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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 & 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: lack of clarity.
Claim 8 does not clearly cite what the % range of the areas are referencing, whether the bonded area is a percentage of the unbonded area, or the total area of the elastic film; or if the bonded area range refers to a percentage of the total area between respective first/second nonwoven layer and the elastic film.
However, the claim does not lead to indefiniteness, as the instant specification [0038] clearly defines the bonded area for the first (second) nonwoven layer is about 5 to about 40% of the total area between the first (second) nonwoven layer and the elastic film. Claim 8 will be examined accordingly.
Claim 13 does not clearly define what ‘film coverage’ as a percentage is comparing, and the instant specification [0045] does not elaborate.
However, because claim 13 is dependent to claim 1 which only cites a first nonwoven layer and the elastic film, it is understood as obvious by the Examiner that the film coverage % is the (area of the first nonwoven layer covering the film) over (the total area of the film). Claim 13 will be examined accordingly.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-7 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by over Muslet (US20220111616A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A point bonded extrusion laminate (PEL), comprising: (a) a first nonwoven layer; (b) an elastic film; (c) a first plurality of discrete bond sites bonding the first nonwoven layer to a first side of the elastic film, wherein the first plurality of discrete bond sites define a first bonded area and a first bond pattern between the first nonwoven layer and the first side of the elastic film; and (d) first nonbonded portions of the first nonwoven layer located between the first plurality of discrete bond sites, wherein the first nonbonded portions of the first nonwoven layer are not bonded to the first side of the elastic film.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Muslet teaches a point bonded extrusion laminate (PEL) [0042], comprising: (a) a first nonwoven layer (Fig. 8, black curving item); (b) an elastic film (Fig. 8, gray flat base) [0029-0030]; (c) a first plurality of discrete bond sites bonding the first nonwoven layer to a first side of the elastic film, wherein the first plurality of discrete bond sites define a first bonded area and a first bond pattern between the first nonwoven layer and the first side of the elastic film (Figs. 7 & 8, black oval bond sites; [0046]); and (d) first nonbonded portions of the first nonwoven layer located between the first plurality of discrete bond sites, wherein the first nonbonded portions of the first nonwoven layer are not bonded to the first side of the elastic film (Fig. 8, black curving item between the bond sites; [0027]).
2. The PEL of claim 1, further comprising a second nonwoven layer, wherein the elastic film is located between the first nonwoven layer and a second nonwoven layer.
With respect to claim 2, Muslet teaches the laminate can comprise a second nonwoven layer, wherein the elastic film is located between the first nonwoven layer and a second nonwoven layer [0027, 0042].
3. The PEL of claim 2, further comprising a second plurality of discrete bond sites bonding the second nonwoven layer to a second side of the elastic film, wherein the plurality of second discrete bond sites define a second bonded area and a second bond pattern between the second nonwoven layer and the second side of the elastic film, and second nonbonded portions of the second nonwoven layer located between the second plurality of discrete bond sites, wherein the second nonbonded portions of the second nonwoven layer are not bonded to the second side of the elastic film.
With respect to claim 3, Muslet teaches a second plurality of discrete bond sites bonding the second nonwoven layer to a second side of the elastic film [0027, 0042], wherein the plurality of second discrete bond sites define a second bonded area and a second bond pattern between the second nonwoven layer and the second side of the elastic film, and second nonbonded portions of the second nonwoven layer located between the second plurality of discrete bond sites, wherein the second nonbonded portions of the second nonwoven layer are not bonded to the second side of the elastic film [0027, 0042-0043, 0046].
4. The PEL of claim 3, wherein the first nonwoven layer, the second nonwoven layer, or both comprise a spunbond nonwoven, a carded nonwoven, a meltblown nonwoven, a hydroentangled nonwoven, or any combination thereof.
With respect to claim 4, Muslet teaches the first and second nonwoven layers can comprise a spunbond nonwoven or a carded nonwoven [0044, Claim 4].
5. The PEL of claim 4, wherein the first nonwoven layer, the second nonwoven layer, or both comprise a basis weight from about 3 to about 50 gsm.
With respect to claim 5, Muslet teaches the nonwoven layer claimed range of about 3 to about 50 gsm, as Muslet teaches the carded or spunbond first and second nonwoven layers can each have a basis weight of 22 gsm [0057 – Example 1] or 20 gsm [0061 – Example 2].
6. The PEL of claim 3, wherein at least a portion of the first nonbonded portions, the second nonbonded portions, or both comprise deformed portions that project outwardly from an x-y plane.
With respect to claim 6, Muslet teaches at least a portion of the first nonbonded portions, the second nonbonded portions, or both comprise deformed portions that project outwardly from an x-y plane (Fig. 8, black curving item; [0027, 0058]).
7. The PEL of claim 6, wherein the deformed portions have an average height of about 1 to about 10 mm.
With respect to claim 7, Muslet teaches the deformed portions have an average height of “at least 2 mm+/−1 mm” [0027], which is fully within the claimed range of about 1 to about 10 mm.
12. The PEL of claim 1, wherein the PEL is devoid of an adhesive.
With respect to claim 12, Muslet teaches the PEL can be devoid of an adhesive. Muslet is silent on any adhesive used - with the exception of an ‘adhesively point bonding’ method - which is a possible alternative to the adhesive-free point bonding methods such as ultrasonic, extrusion lamination, calendaring, or patterned anvil roll also taught by Muslet [0043, 0048].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 8-11 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muslet (US20220111616A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
8. The PEL of claim 3, wherein the first bonded area, the second bonded area, or both comprise from about 5 to about 40%.
With respect to claim 8, Muslet is understood to teach the first bonded area, the second bonded area, or both comprise from about 5 to about 40% of the total area between respective first/second nonwoven layer and the elastic film.
Muslet does not explicitly teach the bonding area as a percentage.
However, Muslet teaches the point bonding sites are ‘about 3 mm to about 10 mm from each adjacent bond site’ [0007, Claim 1].
Muslet illustrates two patterns of point bonding (Figs. 7a, 7b, plan view of nonwoven layer) wherein the distances between adjacent bonding sites appear to range from about 4 to 7.5 mm. From each figure, the bonded area in relation to the non-woven layer total area appears to be about 5%.
Using the minimum bond distances of 3mm taught by Muslet, it is estimated that the bonded area to non-woven layer total area would be about 10 to about 15%.
The maximum bond distances of 10mm taught by Muslet would prima facie obviously result in a less than 5% bonded area.
From these teachings, a prima facie case of obviousness exists that Muslet teaches the claim 8 bonding area %, as the estimated ranges of ‘less than 5’ to ‘about 15%’ would partially overlap the claimed range of about 5 to about 40%. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
9. The PEL of claim 1, wherein the elastic film comprises an average thickness from about 10 to about 300 microns.
With respect to claim 9, Muslet teaches the elastic ‘film’, which can comprise a multilayer stack of coextruded films [0030], wherein the two outer ‘skin’ layers can each have a thickness ranging “from about 1 to about 20 microns”. Muslet teaches the skin layers can each range “from about 1% to about 20%” of the total film thickness [0037].
These teachings from Muslet are calculated to provide a film thickness ranging from 5 to 2000 micron.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Muslet teaches the claim 9 film thickness range
elements, as the Muslet range of 5 to 2000 micron fully overlaps the claimed overall average film thickness range of about 10 to about 300 microns. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
10. The PEL of claim 9, wherein the elastic film comprises one or more elastomers such as an acrylate; a polyolefin, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene, polyhexene, polyoctene; polystyrenes; polyurethanes; polyesters, such as polyethyleneterephthalate; polyamides such as nylon; natural or synthetic rubber resins such as styrenic block copolymers (e.g., styrene-isoprene-styrene, styrene-butadiene-styrene, styrene-ethylene-ethylene-propylene-styrene copolymers, styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene); epoxies; vinyl acetates, such as ethylene vinyl acetate; polydiorganosiloxane polyurea copolymers; copolymers thereof and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 10, Muslet teaches the elastic film comprises one or more elastomers such as a polyolefin, such as polypropylene [0036]; polystyrenes [0034]; polyurethanes [0035]; polyesters [0035]; polyamides [0035]; natural or synthetic rubber resins such as styrenic block copolymers (e.g., styrene-isoprene-styrene, styrene-butadiene-styrene, styrene-ethylene-ethylene-propylene-styrene copolymers, styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene) [0031]; copolymers thereof and mixtures thereof [0031, 0035].
11. The PEL of claim 9, wherein the elastic film comprises from 1 to about 8 individual layers.
With respect to claim 11, Muslet teaches an embodiment with only one film layer between two nonwoven layers [0042]. Muslet teaches an embodiment wherein the elastic film can comprise a core layer and two skin layers [0030]. Muslet does not explicitly teach an embodiment with greater than 3 film layers but suggests greater than 3 is a possible embodiment by teaching “the core layer (or layers in a film having more than three layers)” [0031].
From these teachings, Muslet anticipates the claimed layer range of from 1 to about 8 individual layers.
13. The PEL of claim 1, wherein PEL has a film coverage of at least about 80%.
With respect to claim 13, Muslet teaches PEL has a film coverage of at least about 80%.
Muslet is silent on the % film coverage by the first nonwoven layer and does not teach a reason for a minimum or maximum coverage value.
However, Muslet teaches these laminates can be useful for a wide variety of product applications including: diapers, face coverings, pants, gloves, swimwear, and as fasteners, waistbands and leg cuffs of absorbent articles [0052-0053].
The optimal laminate configurations, and therefore the application film coverage %, could be expected to vary greatly (based on the desired film area and overlapping nonwoven layer area) across this wide range of product applications.
While the film coverage area % is not explicitly taught by Muslet, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that an optimal design for at least one of these applications could result in the claim 8 film coverage area range of at least about 80%.
14. The PEL of claim 1, wherein the PEL has an elongation at break from about 250 to about 500%.
With respect to claim 14, Muslet teaches the PEL may be stretched to at least twice its original length (at least 200% elongation) before breaking [0045]. Muslet is silent on a maximum elongation recorded before breaking.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists that Muslet teaches the claim 14 PEL elongation range before breaking, as Muslet teaches the laminate elongation range of ‘at least 200% elongation’ which is close and would be expected to overlap into the claimed range of from about 250 to about 500%. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights