DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/7/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 14-23 have been cancelled.
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Claims 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/7/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 8/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0047420), hereinafter SCHNEIDER.
Regarding claim 1, SCHNEIDER teaches: A method of bonding substrates (SCHNEIDER teaches a process of bonding substrates [Abstract].), the method comprising: providing a first substrate comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface (SCHNEIDER teaches a first substrate (200) comprising a first surface (206) and an opposing second surface (208) [0064; Figs. 3-4].); providing a second substrate comprising a first surface and an opposing second surface (SCHNEIDER teaches a second substrate (202) comprising a first surface (212) and an opposing second surface (214) [0064; Figs. 3-4].); applying a layer of substantially tackifier free adhesive to the first surface of the second substrate to define an adherence zone (SCHNEIDER teaches depositing a tackifier free adhesive to the first surface of the second substrate to define an adherence zone (402) [Fig. 3; 0065].); positioning the second surface of the first substrate on the adherence zone of the second substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches positioning the second surface of the first substrate on the adherence zone of the second substrate [Fig. 3; 0065].); and pressing the first substrate and the second substrate against each other in the adherence zone to force a first portion of the layer of the substantially tackifier free adhesive into the first substrate and a second portion of the layer of the substantially tackifier free adhesive into the second substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches the laminate (204) may advance through a nip (318) that is adapted to press first substrate (200) together with the second substrate (202) in the first region (404) of the adherence zone (402) to help the tackifier free adhesive (400) to penetrate into the first and second substrates [0075].), wherein the first portion of the layer of the substantially tackifier free adhesive penetrates through the second surface of the first substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches the pressure exerted on the first and second substrates (200, 202) may force the tackifier free adhesive (400) in the adherence zone (402) through the first surface (212) of the second substrate (202) and through the second surface (208) of the first substrate (200) [0075].), wherein the second portion of the layer of the substantially tackifier free adhesive penetrates through the first surface of the second substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches the pressure exerted on the first and second substrates (200, 202) may force the tackifier free adhesive (400) in the adherence zone (402) through the first surface (212) of the second substrate (202) and through the second surface (208) of the first substrate (200) [0075].), and the second surface of the first substrate and the first surface of the second substrate are separated from each other by a central portion of the layer of the substantially tackifier free adhesive (SCHNEIDER teaches the adherence zone (402) may have a perimeter that may or may not correspond with shapes defined by all or portions of the perimeter (210) of the first substrate (200) and the adherence zone (402) and the first substrate (200) may have the same shape [0072].).
Regarding claim 2, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the first portion of the substantially tackifier free adhesive penetrates through the first substrate without reaching and penetrating through the first surface of the first substrate, and wherein the second portion of the substantially tackifier free adhesive penetrates through the second substrate without reaching and penetrating through the second surface of the second substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches the tackifier free adhesive is intermeshed with the fibers between the first surface (212) and the second surface (214) of the second substrate and intermeshed with fibers between the first surface (206) and the second surface (208) of the first substrate (200) [0075; claim 19].).
Regarding claim 3, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the first substrate comprises a first nonwoven and the second substrate comprises a second nonwoven (SCHNEIDER teaches the first and second substrates (200, 202) may include nonwoven layers [0075].).
Regarding claim 4, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the first nonwoven comprises first fibers and wherein the second nonwoven comprises second fibers (SCHNEIDER teaches the substrates (200, 202) nonwoven layers that include fibers [0075].), and wherein the first portion of the substantially tackifier free adhesive is intermeshed with the first fibers on the second surface of the first nonwoven and the second portion of the substantially tackifier free adhesive is intermeshed with the second fibers on the first surface of the second nonwoven (SCHNEIDER teaches the tackifier free adhesive is intermeshed with the fibers between the first surface (212) and the second surface (214) of the second substrate and intermeshed with fibers between the first surface (206) and the second surface (208) of the first substrate (200) [0075].).
Regarding claim 7, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein at least one of the first nonwoven and the second nonwoven comprises a meltblown layer (SCHNEIDER teaches the nonwoven may be meltblown [0035].).
Regarding claim 10, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein providing the first substrate further comprises cutting a discrete piece from a continuous first substrate (SCHNEIDER teaches the first substrate may be a discrete piece that may be cut from a continuous first substrate [0064].).
Regarding claim 11, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein providing the second substrate further comprises advancing a continuous second substrate in a machine direction (SCHNEIDER teaches the second substrate may be a continuous second substrate in a machine direction [0064].).
Regarding claim 12, SCHNEIDER teaches: further comprising converting the first substrate and the second substrate into components of an absorbent article (SCHNEIDER teaches converting the first and second substrate into absorbent articles [0066].).
Regarding claim 13, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the first substrate comprises one of a waist band, a connection zone, a leg cuff, an absorbent chassis, and a first elastic belt, and wherein and wherein the second substrate comprises one of a topsheet, a backsheet, and a second elastic belt (SCHNEIDER teaches the first substrate (201) may be in the form of a first elastic belt (172a) and the second substrate (202) may be in the form of a second elastic belt (174a) [0085; 0083].).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0047420), hereinafter SCHNEIDER, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of TURNER (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0165396), and STIEHL et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0270986), hereinafter STIEHL.
Regarding claim 5, SCHNEIDER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the first fibers comprise first diameters and wherein the second fibers comprise second diameters, and wherein the central portion of the layer of substantially tackifier free adhesive comprises a thickness, wherein the thickness is greater than 1 times the first diameters and 1 times the second diameters. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, TURNER teaches the substrates have fibers that have different fibers [0171]. TURNER teaches the diameters of the fibers may range from 0.001 mm to about 0.2 mm [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER, by having the fibers be different diameters, as suggested by TURNER, in order to provide a pore gradient between the layers [0172].
SCHNEIDER and TURNER are silent as to: wherein the central portion of the layer of substantially tackifier free adhesive comprises a thickness, wherein the thickness is greater than 1 times the first diameters and 1 times the second diameter. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, STIEHL teaches the adhesive may have a range in thickness from about 1 to 90 micrometers [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER and TURNER, by having the adhesive be 1 times the diameters, as suggested by STIEHL, in order to improve adhesion [0053].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0047420), hereinafter SCHNEIDER, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of TURNER (U.S. PGPUB 2017/0165396).
Regarding claim 6, SCHNEIDER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but is silent as to: wherein the first diameters are different than the second diameters. In the same field of endeavor, substrates, TURNER teaches the substrates have fibers that have different fibers [0171]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER, by having the fibers be different diameters, as suggested by TURNER, in order to provide a pore gradient between the layers [0172].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0047420), hereinafter SCHNEIDER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TURNER (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0222251), hereinafter TURNER 2.
Regarding claim 8, SCHNEIDER teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: wherein the substantially tackifier free adhesive comprises an adhesive composition comprising a polymer and/or a copolymer (SCHNEIDER teaches the adhesive composition comprises a polymer and/or a copolymer [0039].), but is silent as to: wherein the adhesive composition comprises less than 10% tackifiers by weight. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, TURNER 2 teaches the adhesive composition comprises less than 20 wt. % or being substantially free of an effective amount of a conventional tackifier material [0133], which overlaps the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SCHNEIDER, by having the composition have less than 20% of tackifier, as suggested by TURNER 2, in order to reduce product costs [0133].
Regarding claim 9, SCHNEIDER teaches: wherein the adhesive composition is free of or devoid of tackifiers (SCHNEIDER teaches the adhesive is free of tackifiers [0064].).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (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 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights