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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDSs have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
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 8 and 14-16 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 8, it is unclear how the vacuum can be a fluid pressure as a fluid pressure implies it is a fluid that creates pressure and a vacuum is the absence of pressure. As the scope of this claim cannot be determined, no art rejection can be made.
Regarding claim 14, is it unclear which component of the welding apparatus is being referred to as there are a first and second component.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear if this clamping mechanism is intended to be in addition to the vacuum or claim one or in place of as the specification describes a second clamping mechanism which is a vacuum bar[0056] but does not have a first clamping mechanism so does “second” clamping mechanism mean a clamping mechanism for the second web? As examiner cannot determine the scope of this claim, no rejection has been made.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear if the “first web presence sensor” of line 6 is the same as that in line 9 or an additional one. For the purposes of examination, they are considered to be the same sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavalloni et al.(US Publication 2024/0425315) in view of Hiroyasu(WO 2024/034461)
Zavalloni et al. teaches a method of splicing in an absorbent article line[0002] comprising conveying a portion of a first web(2) through a splice box, accumulating part of the first web downstream of the splice box[0033], using a vacuum[0016] to hold a portion of a second web near the leading edge(Figure 5), positioning the bonding apparatus near each other, overlapping the two webs, cutting the first web upstream of the bond[0052], and conveying the joined web into the absorbent article line. Zavalloni et al. discloses the device is activated when one of the rolls is depleted but does not explicitly state it senses the depletion and while it discloses the joining can be ultrasonic or thermal, it does not disclose the specifics of the weld. Hiroyasu discloses a method of splicing an absorbent article web where a sensor detects the remaining web on a roll and uses that to actuate the splicer and discloses a welding element made of a heating wire which extends across the entire width of the web, thus forming the bond at the middle and edges simultaneously.(machine translation) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the sensor of Hiroyasu in the method of Zavalloni et al. since a sensor would allow automation of the splicing and to use the heating wire of Hiroyasu since Zavalloni et al. discloses that a thermal welder can be used.[0048]
Regarding claim 4, Zavalloni et al. discloses the joining means move from a non-operating to operating position, which implies they both move.[0045]
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyasu teaches the welder is longer than the width of the web, so the weld is formed at once, and not by travel of the welder.(machine translation)
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 9, Zavalloni et al. discloses the welding can be ultrasonic[0048] and Hiroyasu also discloses it can be ultrasonic. An ultrasonic welder has a horn and an anvil.
Regarding claim 10, since the second web is a replacement for the first web, one in the art would appreciate they were the same material.
Regarding claim 11, since absorbent article often have webs with more than one layer(topsheet plus backsheet), one in the art would appreciate the method could be used for laminates instead of single layer webs.
Regarding claim 12, there is no suggestion that tape is used.
Regarding claim 13, Zavalloni et al. discloses the joining must occur very rapidly.[0006] While reference does not disclose the specific times of various steps, the determination of the speed of various steps is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine absent unexpected results, since the references disclose they steps should occur rapidly.
Regarding claim 17, Zavalloni et al. discloses the splicing occurs very rapidly, and that in prior art devices, the operator manually positioned webs implying this invention does not require that.([0006];[0008]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to automate the splicing since this would allow rapid splicing as desired by Zavalloni et al.[0006]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 18-20 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.
Claims 14 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest extending the second roll of material downstream of the splice box, collecting it downstream to remove a plurality of layers(more than two layers), and retracting the leading edge into the splice location. Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a vacuum bar with an embedded optical sensor to detect the leading edge of the second web and which provides vacuum to hold the second portion of the second web against the thermal welding apparatus. Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a splicing device having a vacuum bar with a plurality of sensors to detect the presence of a second web, holding the second portion of the second web against the welder based on the detection of the second roll with a sensor and moving the second web upstream after holding it until the same sensor no longer detects the web. Regarding claim 18-20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a robot or robots which guides one of the webs into and through the splicing box. Through the splice box is considered to mean that the robot brings the web past the downstream edge of the splice box. While a robot could guide the web to the splicing box in Zavalloni et al., it is too narrow to easily have the same robot guide the web through the splice box and the reference suggests manual operation at times.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights