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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19-28 are currently pending.
Claims 10, 12, and 18 are been canceled.
Claims 14-17 and 19-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 02/20/2026 have been entered.
Claim 12 has been canceled. Claim 28 has been newly added.
The Section 112(b) rejections on claims 6 and 12 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
A new Section 103 rejection has been implemented to reflect newly added claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamps et al. (US 5,702,571 A).
Regarding claim 1,
Kamps teaches an absorbent tissue paper product comprising at least one tissue (defined as a single sheet or ply) being an essentially continuous ply of fibrous structure having a first side and a second side which are micro-embossed (related to surface roughness) which can be balanced/adjusted to give a substantially equal feel on both sides (Kamps: abstract; col. 5, lin. 1-10; col. 10, lin. 58-65). The ply may have a bulk of at least 9 cm3/g or greater which is within the claimed range of at least 7.5 cm3/g (Kamps: col. 2, lin. 56-60).
As the embossments are designed with specific sets of patterns from a micro-embossment roller with fixed structures (Kamps: col.3-4) and the embossments feel substantially the same on each side by balancing/adjusting said dimensions, the surface roughness on each side would satisfy the claimed equation of surface roughness arithmetically mean heights of the first and second side being 7 µm or less (i.e. a same sided feel would result in a surface roughness absolute value difference of 0% or a surface roughness difference of 0 µm which lies within the claimed range of a first and second side roughness being 7 µm or less). That is, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the absolute value difference of the surface roughness arithmetical mean height of the first and second side would be substantially zero. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to adjust the embossment dimensions and thus the surface roughness arithmetically mean heights of each side to achieve a one sided feel (a substantially similar embossment pattern on each side) to provide the desired tactile properties.
Regarding claim 2,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the ply has a one-sided feel and thus would have substantially similar or the same embossment structures on each side. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the interfacial area ratio of a difference between the first and second sides would be substantially similar and would be substantially zero. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to adjust the embossment dimensions and thus the interfacial area ratio of each side to achieve a one sided feel (a substantially similar embossment pattern on each side) to provide the desired tactile properties.
Regarding claim 3,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps further teaches the ply may have a basis weight of between about 20 to about 50 gsm which is within the claimed range of 18 to 60 gsm (Kamps: col. 3, lin. 19-23).
Regarding claim 4,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps further teaches the thickness of a single sheet is the thickness (Caliper) and the Bulk of the products are calculated as the quotient of the Caliper divided by the basis weight (Kamps: col. 5, lin. 66-67 – col. 6, lin. 1-19). Therefore, calculating the thickness of a single sheet can be done using the Bulk and basis weight properties in the examples in Tables 1-8, which results in the samples having a thicknesses that the claimed range of from 0.1 to 0.5 mm (Kamps: Tables 1-1-8). For example, Sample X4 has a Bulk of 11.03 cm3/g (1.103x10-5 m3/g) and a basis weight of 27.63 g/m2 which equals a Caliper (a thickness) of about 0.3 mm when converted, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps is silent towards the ply having a CD wet strength in the range of 40 to 120 N/m. However, Kamps teaches the same structure and properties for the ply, such as thickness, embossing patterns, and dot density as explained in the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8-13.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the ply to necessarily have the same properties, such as the claimed CD wet strength. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps is silent towards the absorption capacity of at least 7 g/g. However, Kamps teaches the same structure and properties for the ply, such as thickness, embossing patterns, and dot density as explained in the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8-13.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the ply to necessarily have the same properties, such as the claimed absorption capacity. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps further teaches the micro-embossed structure comprises preferably from 45 to 75 elements (dots)/cm2, which is within the claimed range of from 30 to 80 dots/cm2 (Kamps: col. 3, lin. 49-64).
Regarding claim 8,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the micro-embossed structure to be an “Accurate Bulk Embossed (ABE) structure” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed micro-embossed structures and the micro-embossed structures disclosed by Kamps.
Regarding claim 9,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the micro-embossed structure to be an “Matched Steel embossed structure” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed micro-embossed structures and the micro-embossed structures disclosed by Kamps. It is noted Kamps does teach matched steel embossed structure (Kamps: col. 9, lin. 35-57).
Regarding claim 11,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the ply to be a “TAD technology produced ply” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed ply and the ply disclosed by Kamps.
Regarding claim 13,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. Kamps further teaches the product may consist of a single-ply or tissue and thus may be considered to “consist” of said ply (Kamps: col. 1, lin. 55-67 – col. 2, lin. 1-40).
Regarding claim 26,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the ply to be a “a calendered ply” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed ply and the ply disclosed by Kamps.
Regarding claim 27,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the ply to be a “both micro-embossed and calendered” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed ply and the ply disclosed by Kamps.
The limitation requiring the ply to be softer than a ply is only micro-embossed and softer than ply that is only calendered is met as Kamps teaches the structural limitations required by the claims that would lead to the claimed properties.
Regarding claim 28,
Kamps teaches the absorbent tissue paper product of claim 1. The limitation requiring the ply to be a “both micro-embossed and calendered” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference between the claimed ply and the ply disclosed by Kamps.
The limitation requiring the ply to be softer than a ply before being micro-embossed and calendered is met as Kamps teaches the structural limitations, such as having the claimed micro-embossed structures and would be expected to be softer than a base sheet that hasn’t been micro-embossed and calendered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office’s stance that the rejection is not based on an inherency rejection and that what constitutes a one-sided feel is very subjective. Thus, Applicant appears to be arguing that the rejection is based on inherency and that a same sided feel would not necessarily result in the claimed difference in surface roughness being within the claimed equation required in claim 1.
The argument is not found persuasive for the reasons previously stated in the previous Office action. However, the rejection has been updated to clarify the position taken. That is, the rejection is 1) a same sided feel is the result of the embossment structures which may be tailored, embossment structures which are the same would result in the same surface roughness and same sided feel and 2) it would alternatively be obvious to adjust said embossment features and thus surface roughness to achieve the desired same sided feel.
Applicant further argues in more detail throughout the Arguments/Remarks that the standard for an inherency position on the equation relating to the absolute value of the surface roughness difference of the first side and the second side being 7 µm or less improper. Applicant points to cited paragraphs of Kamps that states balancing dimensional features of the embossments is “preferable” or that it “can” achieve a same sided feel” and argues that this does not meet the “necessary requirement” of inherency.
The argument is not found persuasive as Applicant appears to misunderstand the nature of Examiner’s rejection as stated above and is reiterated from the previous Office action in this paragraph. The rejection is not based on MPEP 2112 inherency as alleged by Applicant. The rejection is centered around adjusting the embossment dimensions to achieve a one sided feel and thus make the surface roughness the same on each side, the surface roughness difference would be zero which is within the claimed range for the absolute value difference equation required in claim 1. That is, the word inherency is simply stating that when you achieve a surface roughness on both sides that is the same, the difference would (inherently) be zero. As pointed out in Applicant’s arguments Kamps does teach approaching a same sided feel and ties that it to balancing various embossment roll dimensions. Thus, it would be within the skill of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the various embossment dimensions via adjusting the embossment roller dimensions to achieve a same sided feel to achieve the desired tactile properties as explained in the Office action above. The fact Kamps uses words like “preferably” and “can” does not negate or dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from seeking to make the proposed adjustments, but would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant has not provided a persuasive example or evidence of teaching away from one of ordinary skill in the art from making the proposed adjustments. The cited section of Kamps that discusses how to achieve minimization or elimination of a two sided feel supports or reinforces that one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to obtain the one sided feel.
Applicant’s arguments about the subjectivity of “substantially” are also not found persuasive as the rejection is about adjusting the structural aspects of the embossment patterns to achieve a same sided feel. Applicant states that “substantially” is a broad term and that micrometers is a very small unit and gives examples of some objects that have micrometers larger than the range in the claims. This is also not found persuasive as Kamp’s may also be measured on the micrometer scale. Additionally, the claimed range is about a difference between the two sides, so the resulting same sided feel would be zero, which is within the claimed range as explained previously. That is, it does not matter what the specific dimensions of the embossments are in the claimed absolute value equation, but what the surface roughness is on one side relative to the other. Thus, once one of ordinary skill in the art achieves a same sided feel through the teachings of Kamps, it would have no difference in surface roughness, irrespective of the specifics on the embossments individual structural dimensions.
Applicant argues that Kamps does not teach the tissue sheet embossed will achieve a one-sided feel and that Kamps does not provided guidance on how to achieve a “substantially the same” feel, but Applicant does quote Kamps as teaching it can approach a one sided feel (both sides of the embossed sheet feel substantially the same) if the accommodation, element size, female roll land distance and the number elements per unit length are properly balanced.
The argument is not found persuasive as the quoted section of Kamps does provide guidance on how to achieve a same sided feel and the Office’s position remains that “a same sided feel” would mee the claimed equation as explained above.
Applicant argues against the rejection of claim 2 in the same way as in claim 1 as the rejection was a similar position.
The argument is not found persuasive for the same reasons as explained above.
Applicant argues the product by process limitations do impart structure that shouldn’t be ignored and points to Table 1 and states it results in the argued previous limitations regarding the absolute value difference of surface roughness and interfacial area required by claims 1 and 2.
The argument is not found persuasive as the resulting structure of claims 1 and 2 are already met as shown in Table 1, the thickness and basis weight (see the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4) is also already met as explained in the rejection above. Thus, there appears to be no additional structure in the final product that is not taught or suggested by Kamps in the final tissue product. Thus, the product by process limitations are met. Applicant has not persuasively proven a structural difference between Kamps and the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783