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 .
Priority
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/519,622 filed 10/11/2024, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 12/22/2024 and 12/09/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the First Office Action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LaVon, with reference to Image 1 above, teaches: An absorbent article (see at least Abstract) comprising:
a chassis (200 at least in Fig. 5 and para. [0210]) comprising a topsheet (see Image 1), a backsheet (Id.), and an absorbent core (Id.) positioned between the topsheet and the backsheet (Id.), the chassis further comprising a first end region (see front end edge 136 at least in Fig. 7) and a second end region (see back end edge 138 at least in Fig. 7) longitudinally separated from the first end region by a crotch region (see at least Fig. 7);
a first belt (see waistband 122 at front end edge 136 in Fig. 7) connected with the first end region of the chassis (see at least Fig. 7 and para. [0248]);
a second belt (see waistband 122 at back end edge 138 in Fig. 7) connected with the second end region of the chassis (see at least para. [0248]), wherein laterally opposing end portions of the second belt are connected with laterally opposing end portions of the first belt to form a waist opening (para. [0296], for example, teaches that the elastic waistband may fully surround the waist opening 190; therefore, the first belt and the second belt are connected at laterally opposing end portions to form a waist opening; see also Figs. 8A-B);
wherein at least one of the first belt and the second belt comprises:
a distal edge (see at least Fig. 7);
an elastic material (see Image 1) positioned between and connected with a first substrate and a second substrate (Id.), the elastic material comprising a first plurality of elastic strands positioned between and connected with a first substrate and a second substrate (Id.; see also para. [0244]), wherein the first plurality of elastic strands comprises an Average-Strand-Spacing from about 0.25 mm to about 4 mm (see at least para. [0012]) and an Average-Dtex from about 10 to about 500 (Id.);
wherein at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises a proximal edge extending across the backsheet (as shown in Image 1, the second substrate has an edge that extends across the backsheet);
wherein the first substrate and the second substrate each comprise a wearer facing surface (see Image I), a garment facing surface (Id.); and
a panel layer (see Image 1) connected with the garment surface of the second substrate (Id.), the panel layer comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge (Id.), wherein the first lateral edge is positioned longitudinally outboard of the second lateral edge (Id.), wherein the first lateral edge of the panel layer is positioned longitudinally outboard of the distal edge of at least one of the first belt and the second belt (as shown in Figs. 7 and 10, and as broadly recited, the first and second belt are considered to be waistband 122 and the 1st lateral edge of the panel layer is considered to be waist edge 438b, which is longitudinally outboard of the waistband 122), and wherein the panel layer is a laminate comprising a second elastic material (see Image 1; as broadly recited, the panel layer of LaVon is considered to include the second elastic material).
Regarding claim 2, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein the elastic material comprises elastic film (see at least para. [0259]).
Regarding claim 3, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein the elastic strands comprise extruded elastic strands (see at least para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein the first substrate defines a first lateral width W1 between a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge (see Image 1); the second substrate defines a second lateral width W2 between a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge (see Image 1); and the panel layer defines a third lateral width W3 between a first longitudinal edge and a second longitudinal edge (see Image 1).
Regarding claim 15, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein panel layer covers a portion of the first end region of the chassis (as shown in Image 1, since the panel layer is located adjacent front/back belt end edge 438f, 438b; as shown in Fig. 10, the front/back belt end edges 438f, 438b and the first/second end regions 136, 138 have shared boundaries; therefore, the panel layer covers a portion of the first end region of the chassis).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1) in view of Melbye (U.S. Patent No. 5,681,302 A).
Regarding claim 4, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 3. However, LaVon fails to explicitly teach that the extruded elastic strands are bonded with the first substrate in a pre-corrugated configuration, as required by the claim.
Melbye teaches an analogous elastic sheet-like composite (see Abstract) comprising extruded elastic strands (see col. 2, lines 7-10) that are bonded with a first substrate (see first sheet 12 at least in Fig. 2) in a pre-corrugated configuration (see at least Fig. 1 and col. 7, lines 15-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of LaVon to incorporate the teachings of Melbye by bonding the extruded elastic strands with the first substrate in a pre-corrugated configuration at least in order for the elastic strands and first substrate to have good elastic properties, as taught by Melbye (see col. 18, line 24).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1) in view of Greening (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2017/0079850 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein the elastic material further comprises a second plurality of elastic strands (see for example para. [0497]), wherein the second plurality of elastic strands comprises an Average-Dtex greater than about 450 (see at least para. [0012]). However, LaVon fails to explicitly teach that the second plurality of elastic strands comprises an Average-Strand-Spacing greater than about 4 mm, as required by the claim.
Greening teaches an analogous absorbent article (see for example Fig. 13) comprising elastic members (77 and 78) that are spaced at least 4mm apart (see para. [0075]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of LaVon to incorporate the teachings of Greening by spacing the second plurality of elastic strands at least 4mm apart such that the second plurality of elastic strands comprises an Average-Strand-Spacing greater than about 4 mm at least in order for the elastic members to be positioned in a lateral array within the absorbent article, as taught by Greening (see para. [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, LaVon in view of Greening teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 5. Additionally, LaVon teaches wherein at least one of the first plurality of elastic strands and the second plurality of elastic strands are bonded with the panel layer (see Image 1; as broadly recited, the elastic material/strands are not required to be directly bonded to the panel layer; therefore, the elastic material/strands are considered to be bonded to the panel layer even though the second substrate is in between; see also para. [0070] teaching portions of the material layers may become partially melted and pressed together such that once cooled they are physically bonded together).
Claims 7-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1).
Regarding claim 7, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, LaVon teaches:
a first region of at least one of the first belt and the second belt that comprises the panel layer (as shown in Fig. 7, the first region that comprises the panel layer is at the top-most or bottom-most edges of the absorbent article, indicated by numerals 136, 138);
a second region of at least one of the first belt and the second belt outside the first region that does not comprise the panel layer (as shown in Fig. 7, the second region is located inboard of the elastics 316, in a direction towards the interior surface 202).
However, while LaVon does not explicitly teach that the first and second regions each comprise longitudinally extending gathers when the elastic material is contracted, as required by the claim, the device of LaVon will necessarily form gathers when the elastic material is contracted. For example, in Fig. 7, if one side panel 330 was pushed toward an opposing side panel 330, the elastic material will buckle and create longitudinally extending gathers.
Additionally, while LaVon does not explicitly teach a first Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength for the first region and a second Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength for the second region, as broadly recited, the first and second regions necessarily have a first and second Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. However, LaVon does not explicitly teach a first Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength for the first region and a second Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength for the second region.
However, since the first region comprises the elastic strands of the panel layer while the second region does not comprise elastic strands, the Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength of the first region will not be equal to the Rugosity Frequency and Wavelength of the second region.
Regarding claims 13-14, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 12. However, while LaVon does not explicitly teach the relationship between the widths of the first substrate, the second substrate, and the panel layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try various widths as there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential relationships between the widths since it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could have chosen a first lateral width W1, a second lateral width W2, and a third lateral width W3 such that W1, W2, and W3 are equal, such that W1, W2, and W3 are not equal, or such that two of the W1, W2, or W3 are equal and different than one of W1, W2, or W3, as required by the claims; see MPEP 2143 I. (E).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1), as applied above to claims 7-8, and further in view of Zink (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/0310797 A1).
Regarding claim 9, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. However, LaVon does not explicitly wherein the first Rugosity Frequency is less than the second Rugosity Frequency.
Zink teaches that as the distance between elastic elements decreases, the rugosity frequency increase and vice versa (see para. [0104]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that since the first region of LaVon comprises the elastic strands of the panel layer while the second region does not comprise elastic strands, the distance between elastic strands is less in the first region than in the second region, and therefore, the first Rugosity Frequency is less than the second Rugosity Frequency.
Regarding claim 10, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 7. However, LaVon does not explicitly a first and second Rugosity Frequency, as required by the claim.
Zink teaches that suitable rugosity frequencies may range from about 0.1 to about 50 (see para. [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of LaVon to incorporate the teachings of Zink by making at least one of the first Rugosity Frequency and the second Rugosity Frequency from about 0.40 to about 0.59 or from about 0.60 to about 2 since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, Zink teaches that as the distance between elastic elements decreases, the rugosity frequency increase and vice versa (see para. [0104]) and that suitable rugosity frequencies may range from about 0.1 to about 50 (see para. [0121]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a first and second Rugosity Frequency that are within the claimed ranges at least because Zink teaches a broad range of suitable rugosity frequencies, which encompasses the claimed ranges.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVon (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168874 A1) in view of Zink (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2013/0310797 A1), as applied above to claim 10, and further in view of LaVon ‘875 (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0168875 A1).
Regarding claim 11, LaVon teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 10. However, neither LaVon nor Zink explicitly teach a first and second Rugosity Wavelength, as required by the claim.
LaVon ‘875 teaches that an elastomeric laminate can have a Rugosity Wavelength of from 0.5mm to 5mm (see para. [0160]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined device of LaVon in view of Zink to incorporate the teachings of LaVon ‘875 by making the first/second region have a first/second Rugosity Wavelength from about 0.50mm to about 1.65mm and/or from about 1.70mm to about 2.50mm since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, LaVon ‘875 teaches that the Rugosity Wavelength of an elastomeric laminate is from 0.5mm to 5mm (see para. [0160] of LaVon ‘885). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a first and second Rugosity Wavelength that are within the claimed ranges at least because LaVon ‘885 teaches a broad range of suitable rugosity wavelength, which encompasses the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaufman (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2019/0358093 A1) - Absorbent Articles with Visually Different Chassis.
Takino (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2012/0191057 A1) - Wearing Article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM ET.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JACQUELINE F STEPHENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights