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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the upper welded portion” and “the lower welded portion” of line 18 lack antecedent basis, as previously “at least one upper welded portion” and “at least one lower welded portion” was claimed in claim 1 in lines 15-16.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as dependents of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the one elastic member” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected as dependents of claim 7.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-20, the limitations “the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members” renders the claim indefinite, as the relationship between the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion regarding the plural elastic members is unclear. The language suggests that a single upper welded portion and single lower welded portion are provided for all the plural elastic members, such that there is a single lower welded portion, a single upper welded portion, and many elastic members, though Fig. 3 of the current application suggests that each elastic member of the plural elastic members has a different lower welded portion and a different upper welded portion. For examination purposes, these claims are going to be interpreted as requiring a different lower welded portion and a different upper welded portion for each elastic member of the plural elastic members.
Claim 12 is additionally rejected as a dependent of claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya et al. (EP 3563817), disclosed by applicant in the IDS of June 2, 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Ninomiya discloses a pants-type disposable wearable article (see Figs. 2-3) having front 31 and back 41 waist portions (see Fig. 2, par. 45) whose edge portions are bonded to each other by a pair of side seals SS (see Fig. 2, par. 46), wherein the front and back waist portions include plural long and thin elastic members 35, 45 configured to extend in a waist direction and are arranged parallel to each other (see Fig. 3, par. 49) and a pair of sheets 32, 33, 42, 43 that sandwich the elastic members (see Fig. 3, par. 57-58, 61) and retain the elastic members with plural fastening portions j (see Fig. 5, par. 61) that fasten the elastic members intermittently in the waist direction (see Figs. 3, 5), the side seals include plural dot-like welded portions SSk that are arranged in a studded manner (see Figs. 5-6B) and weld and bond the front and back waist portions to each other (see par. 89), the plural welded portions include, relative to at least one elastic member of the elastic members, at least one upper welded portion and at least one lower welded portion that are spaced apart in an upper-lower direction orthogonal to the waist direction (see Figs. 5, 8C).
Ninomiya does not disclose a spacing in the upper-lower direction between the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion with respect to welded portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in a contracted state. However, Ninomiya discloses other welds, plural fastening portions with upper and lower portions (see Figs. 6A-6B) wherein a spacing in the upper-lower direction between an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state (see Fig. 6A) and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state (see Fig. 6B), such a position helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets (see par. 82). Ninomiya also discloses a different embodiment in Figure 11 that includes SSk welded portions against the elastic band. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the SSk welded portions that are above and below the elastic members, similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such a position helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions like those shown in Figure 11 of Ninomiya.
Regarding claim 2, Ninomiya discloses the limitations of claim 1 and the resulting relationship between the spacing and the first width and the second width of the elastic members is set as described above (see the rejection of claim 1), and the upper welded portion is in contact with a side surface on an upper side of the elastic one elastic member and the lower welded portion is in contact with a side surface on a lower side of the elastic member (see rejection of claim 1 and Figures 6A-6B, SSk would be in such a position as j with respect to elastic 35, 45), whereby the upper and lower welded portions are engaged in the waist direction with the one elastic member (see rejection of claim 1 and Figures 6A-6B, SSk would be in such a position as j with respect to elastic 35, 45).
Regarding claim 11, Ninomiya discloses the limitations of claim 1 but as described above, does not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 12, Ninomiya discloses the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses the plural welded portions SSk include plural intermediate welded portions (see Fig. 5, the welded portions SSk above and below those SSk that are directly above and below elastic members 35, 45), each intermediate welded portion is disposed in a position in which it is not in contact with either of the elastic members of mutually adjacent elastic members among the plural elastic members (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Ninomiya discloses the limitations of claim 2 but as described above, does not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Claim(s) 3-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninomiya as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mizobuchi et al. (US 2014/0378925).
Regarding claim 3, Ninomiya discloses limitations of claim 2 but does not disclose wherein one of the at least one upper or lower welded portion is provided as a plurality spaced apart form each other in the waist direction.
Mizobuchi discloses a disposable wearable article with side seals 13 (see Figs. 8, 9) having rows of welded dots (see Figs. 9-10, par. 137-151), multiple dots making each row and the dots can be in line form longitudinally and/or vertically (see par. 151) and in a different embodiment discloses side seals as lines (see Fig. 11). The substitution of one known element (rows/lines of dots of Mizobuchi like in Figs. 9-10) for another (lines of Ninomiya) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the dots of Mizobuchi would have yielded predictable results, namely, sealing of the front and back waist portions to each other. Additionally, Mizobuchi discloses such substitution. Consequently, one of the upper welded portions would be provided as a plurality spaced apart from each other in the waist direction of dots.
Regarding claim 4, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses limitations of claim 3 and Mizobuchi further discloses the other of at least one upper or lower welded portion is provided in a position between, in the waist direction, the upper or lower welded portions provided as a plurality spaced apart in the waist direction (see Figs. 9-10) due to the spacing disclosed by Mizobuchi and the positioning of the seals disclosed by Ninomiya.
Regarding claim 5, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose the limitations of claim 4 and further Ninomiya further discloses the pair of sheets are welded to each other on upper sides and lower sides of the elastic members (see rejection of claim 1, upper and lower welded portions), whereby the fastening portions j retain the elastic members in the pair of sheets (see Fig. 5, par. 61).
Regarding claim 6, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose the limitations of claim 5 and Ninomiya further discloses the plural fastening portions j adjacent to each other in the waist direction are provided spaced apart form each other in the waist direction at a first pitch relative to the at least one elastic member (see Fig. 5) and Mizobuchi disclose the plural upper or lower welded portions adjacent to each other in the waist direction are provided at a second pitch in the waist direction (see Figs. 9-10) but these references do not disclose the second pitch is smaller than the first pitch.
Mizobuchi discloses the pitch being optimized based on the desired ease of tearing (see par. 152), and therefore pitch is a result effective variable in that changing the pitch changes the ease of tearing. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the pitch as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Ninomiya and Mizobuchi by having the second pitch smaller than the first pitch as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose the limitations of claim 5 and Ninomiya further discloses each of the fastening portions j include an upper fastening portion at which, relative to the one elastic member, the pair of sheets are welded together on an upper side of the elastic member and a lower fastening portion at which, relative to the one elastic member, the pair of sheets are welded together on a lower side of the elastic member (see Fig. 5, par. 61).
Regarding claim 8, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose limitations of claim 8 but do not disclose the upper welded portion and lower welded portion are respectively larger in area than the upper fastening portion and larger in area than the lower fastening portion.
Mizobuchi discloses the welded portion areas being optimized based on the desired ease of tearing (see par. 152), and therefore the upper welded portion area and lower welded portion area are result effective variables in that changing the areas changes the ease of tearing. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the areas as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Ninomiya and Mizobuchi by having the upper welded portion and lower welded portion respectively larger in area than the upper fastening portion and larger in area than the lower fastening portion as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose the limitations of claim 7 and Ninomiya further discloses a spacing in the upper-lower direction between the upper fastening portion and the lower fastening portion is larger than the first width of the elastic members in a stretched state (see Fig. 6A) and smaller than the second width of the elastic members in a contracted state (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 10, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi disclose the limitations of claim 8 and Ninomiya further discloses a spacing in the upper-lower direction between the upper fastening portion and the lower fastening portion is larger than the first width of the elastic members in a stretched state (see Fig. 6A) and smaller than the second width of the elastic members in a contracted state (see Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 14, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 3 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 15, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 4 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 16, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 5 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 17, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 6 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 18, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 7 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 19, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 8 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Regarding claim 20, Ninomiya and Mizobuchi discloses the limitations of claim 9 but do not teach the upper welded portion and the lower welded portion are provided for each of the plural elastic members. However, Ninomiya discloses that each elastic member has an upper welded portion j and a lower welded portion j (see Fig. 5). Therefore, similar to the motivation in claim 1, it would have been obvious to have each of the SSk above and below an elastic member be positioned similar to upper and lower welded portions j, in a position such that spacing between the upper and lower portions SSk is larger than a first width of the elastic members in a stretched state and smaller than a second width of the elastic members in an unstretched state, such positions helping to attach the elastic members to the sheets and predictably resulting in creation of side seals via plural dot-like welded portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Back et al. (US 2012/0324633), disclosing various seam patterns for joining material in an absorbent article; Sasayama et al. (US 2008/0140038), disclosing different joint portions formed in longitudinal direction in joint regions of sheets; Nomura et al. (US 5,163,932) disclosing spot welding as alternative to bonding line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI whose telephone number is (303)297-4665. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 PST M-F.
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 E 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.
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights