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 5-6 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 claims 5 and 6, the limitation “an elastic member” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether these are the same or different. For examination purposes, the “an elastic member” in claim 5 will be considered “a second elastic member” and the “an elastic member” in claim 6 will be considered “a third elastic member.”
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) 1-5, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (JP 2016030202), disclosed by applicant in the IDS of September 19, 2024, in view of Sasayama et al. (US 9,107,778).
Regarding claim 1, Maki discloses a disposable absorbent product for receiving a body wastes from a wearer (see Figs. 2-3), comprising: a top sheet 2; a back sheet 4; and an absorbent core 3 positioned between said top sheet and said back sheet (see Fig. 3; par. 41), wherein said top sheet includes: a center sheet (see Figs. 2-3, top sheet 2 is centered and considered center sheet); and a pair of gather sheets 6 fixedly attached to said center sheet while being spaced apart from a center line extending in a longitudinal direction on both sides in a width direction perpendicular to said longitudinal direction (see Figs. 2-3), each of said pair of gather sheets includes: a side sheet that is long in said longitudinal direction (see Figs. 2-3; par. 45); and an elastic member 6r (see Figs. 2-3) extending in said longitudinal direction and fixedly attached to a region on an inner side in said width direction of said side sheet (see Figs. 2-3, par. 45), said center sheet and said pair of gather sheets are joined together in a joining region, said joining region between said center sheet and each gather sheet (see Figs. 2-3) includes: a central joining region positioned in a central range in said longitudinal direction and spaced outward in said width direction from said elastic member (see Figs. 2, 3B, par. 45, hot melt adhesive along proximal end 6k in central region that includes crotch portion 1m); and an end joining region that is positioned in ranges of both end portions in said longitudinal direction and does not overlap with said elastic member (see Figs. 2, 3A, and 3C; par. 45-46, hot melt adhesive along proximal end 6k and end portions 6j in either waistline portion 1a or 1b), and said end joining region includes: an outer joining region located outward of said elastic member in said width direction (see Figs. 3A, 3C, par. 45, hot melt adhesive along proximal end 6k); and an inner joining region located inward of said elastic member in said width direction (see Figs. 3A and 3C, portion 6j is slightly inward from one of the elastics 6r as can be seen in the annotated drawing below).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As explained above, Maki discloses the joining region done via hot melt adhesive and therefore does not disclose joining being a compression joining region by welding involving pressure.
Sasayama discloses an absorbent article having bond zones where bonding of sheets is done via adhesive such as hot melt adhesives or fusion bonded by means of heat or ultrasonic emboss-working of known art (see col. 9, lines 33-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively have the joining be done via fusion bonding by heat or ultrasonic emboss-working of known art instead of hot melt adhesive, as disclosed by Sasayama, such heat or ultrasonic emboss being well known in the art and predictably resulting in joining regions as desired. Consequently, the joining region, being fusion bonding done by heat or ultrasonic emboss, would be compression joining by welding involving pressure.
Regarding claim 2, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maki further discloses said central joining region and said outer joining region are continuous in said longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maki further discloses an outer edge of said end joining region in said width direction is located inward in said width direction of an inner edge of said central joining region (see Fig. 2, annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
775
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Sasayama further discloses said compression joining region is an assembly of a large number of dot-shaped joining elements (see col. 8, lines 51-54) and a ratio of existence of joining elements between outer and inner edges in said width direction of said end joining region is lower than a ratio of existence of joining elements between outer and inner edges in said width direction of said central joining region (see Fig. 2, with dots covering larger width from 6k to 6j in end joining region, would have a lower ratio then dots of joining region of simply 6k).
Regarding claim 5, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maki further discloses a plurality of elastic members including said elastic member (see Figs. 2-3, elastic members 6r), wherein a second elastic member positioned on an innermost side in said width direction among said plurality of elastic members is positioned inward in said width direction of said inner joining region (see Figs. 2-3, a portion of Fig. 3A annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
566
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maki further discloses said outer joining region includes a plurality of linear regions extending in said longitudinal direction (see Fig. 6k, “regions” is extremely broad and the outer joining region can be broken up into an upper, middle, and bottom region, all which are linear).
Regarding claim 8, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1 and Maki further discloses the joining region exists along an overall length in said longitudinal direction of said top sheet (see Figs. 2-3) and a maximum value of a total length of a joint in the width direction of the joining region is greater than a minimum value of the total length (see Fig. 2) but does not disclose being 1.25 time or more and 4 times or less.
Maki discloses the total length L1 can be between 210 mm to 330 mm, disclosing that different lengths may be desirable depending on the shape/size of the newborn wearing the diaper (see par. 77). Therefore, Maki discloses that the length be optimized as it a result effective variable in that changing the size of the diaper affects the size of the baby that can wear the diaper. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that this would affect other dimensions of the diaper, specifically length of other parts such as 6seb and 6sea, which are joined via 6j (see Fig. 2, par. 46). Consequently, these are also result effective variables and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the product to have lengths within the claimed range as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Maki and Sasayama by making a maximum length of the joint 1.25 times or more and 4 times or less of a minimum value of the total length 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 10, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 1, being arranged in a diaper or in a diaper-shaped cover (see Figs. 1-3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki in view of Sasayama as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Popp et al. (US 5,895,382).
Regarding claim 6, Maki and Sasayama disclose the limitations of claim 5 but as described above do not disclose a third elastic member positioned on a second innermost side in said width direction among said plurality of elastic members is positioned between said inner joining region and said outer joining region in said width direction.
Popp discloses a disposable absorbent article with gather sheets 64 and elastic members 67 (see Fig. 6; col. 8, line 64-col. 9, line 1), there being three elastic members positioned from the edge of each gather sheet (see Figs. 6A and 7) to assist in proper positioning of gather sheets at the crotch of the wearer (see Fig. 6; col. 8, line 64-col. 9, line 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional elastic member, therefore having three elastic members, as disclosed by Popp, predictably resulting in positioning of the gather sheets in the product, as disclosed by Popp. As there are already two elastic members disclosed as adjacent to one another in Maki (see Figs. 2-3), one of ordinary skill would place the third adjacent the two elastic members 6r such that it would be between the inner joining region and outer joining region., therefore two of the elastic members of the plurality of elastic members would be positioned between the inner joining region and the outer joining region in said width direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art found is Maki and Sasayama, described above, which do not disclose the required positions of parts of the end joining region as claimed in claim 9. In applicant’s invention, the edge is inclined and additional joining region 401 exists outward of the range in which the edge (denoted by a reference sign 446 in FIG. 6) is interrupted in the width direction, which reduces variations in the range of the projections of the embossing roll on which the ultrasonic vibrations act during rotation of the embossing roll, and accordingly reduces variations in the strength of the welding joints, as explained in paragraph 43 of applicant’s specification. In Maki, the edge is straight and not inclined, nor is there an additional joining region as claimed, and one would not be motivated to provide such a configuration absent glancing into applicant’s specification.
Conclusion
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