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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermans et al., (hereafter Hermans), US Patent No. 8,834,978 B1.
With regard to claim 1, Hermans teaches a rolled through air dried tissue products, including towels, that could be multiply and having GATS absorption and would have properties that would fall within the claimed range; see discussion below and abstract, column 4, lines 5-21 and Table 3, rolls 6 and 29-30, which teaches GATS around 17 g/g for bath tissues. Hermans discloses that the term tissues of the invention includes bath tissues, facial tissues, paper towels, industrial wipers, etc.; see column 2, lines 32-46, and taches that the tissues can be creped or uncreped; see column 2, lines 37-47 and column 7, line 35 through column 8, line16, thus the properties disclosed are expected to be greater GATS if made into a towel, since towels are more absorbent than that of the sanitary tissues. It is well-known fact that towels are much more absorbent than bath tissues which are the ones explicitly disclosed on the examples of the reference. It is well-known that:
Paper towels are significantly more absorbent than bath tissues because they're engineered for spills with thicker, more porous structures, larger surface areas (often quilted/layered), and optimized cellulose fibers, while bath tissues prioritize softness and less absorbency to avoid skin irritation and clogging toilets, making paper towels much better for bulk liquid absorption.
Paper Towels
Engineered for Absorbency: Designed with sponge-like pores, intricate patterns, and multiple layers (ply) to maximize space for water, notes PaperTR, Science Buddies, and UBC Library.
Capillary Action: Water is drawn in and held by the cellulose fibers and the tiny air pockets between layers, says Insinc Products.
Purpose: Excellent for soaking up spills, making them superior for cleaning up liquid messes.
Bath Tissues (and Toilet Paper/Facial Tissues)
Designed for Softness: Made to be gentle on skin, often with lighter construction and fewer (or different) layers.
Lower Absorbency: Less porous and thinner, reducing their capacity to hold large amounts of water compared to paper towels.
Purpose: Primarily for personal hygiene, requiring less absorbency and more softness to prevent irritation and clogs.
Key Difference
Paper towels use structure (thickness, layers, pores) for high capacity, whereas bath tissues prioritize feel (softness, smoothness) over maximum liquid absorption.
Note figure 13 of the current application shows that almost of the towels, except for the Sofidel QRT Giant Eagle have CD Wet Tensile Strength over 70 N/m, and thus it would be expected that the towel of the reference would have CD wet tensile strength over 70 N/m as- well. Note that the products cited in the tables are not towels but bath tissues; see table 4 and column 15, lines 36-45 of Hermans. Figure 13 of the current application shows that all the towels have GMT greater than the claimed range, i.e., greater than 295 N/m and therefore, towels made with the process taught by Hermans would inherently have GMT that falls within the claimed range.
With regard to claims 2, 4, 6 12 and 14, Hermans teaches products having basis weight of greater than 40 for example 40-50 gsm; see for example, abstract and column 4, lines 49-65.
Regarding to claims 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13, while Hermans does not provide such data, since the GATS of Towels prepared by the process of Hermans, would have absorption falling within the claimed range, since as explained above, the GATS of bath tissues are little lower than the ones claimed; see for example table 3 on column 15, and as indicated above it would be expected that the GATS of Towels made with the basesheets taught by Hermans would be more absorbent and falling within the claimed range, the basis weight and other properties of the products are the same, then the other non-measured properties can be assumed to be inherent the same or at least within the claimed range to the tissue taught by Hermans.
With regard to claims 5 and 10, Hermans teaches that the CD stretch of the tissue is from about 12% and about 15% that falls within the claimed range, since about 15% covers 15.5% of the lower limit; see claim 1 and column 5, lines 44-55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Affidavit/Declaration filed January 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that the product of the reference would not have the claimed absorbency since the tissues with the closest absorbency is uncreped and the creped ones show even lower absorbency, samples 14-21. While that is true, applicants have not explained why towels made using the basesheet(s) of the reference would not have absorbency within the claimed range, since the reference only shows the absorbency of bath tissues, which as discussed above are much absorbent than bath tissues. This especially when the reference id teaches that paper towels can be made with the tissue(s), i.e., the basesheet(s), of the invention. It is the examiner contention that paper towels made using the basesheet of the cited reference, Hermans, would have the same or at the very least similar properties. Note that a reference is not evaluated by only it examples, but what it actually teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art. It has been held that “A disclosure in a reference is not limited to its specific illustrative examples, but must be considered as a whole to ascertain what would be realistically suggested thereby to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Uhlig, 54 CCPA 1300, 376 F2d 320; 153 USPQ 460.
Figure 13 of the current application shows that all the towels have GMT greater than the claimed range, i.e., greater than 295 N/m and therefore, towels made with the process taught by Hermans would inherently have GMT that falls within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Multi-Ply Towels.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 PM.
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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF