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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments dated 10/31/25 have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 8-10, and 13 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 14-24 remain withdrawn. This leaves claims 1-13 currently active and pending.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeannot et al. (US 2015/0225903) in view of Pleyber et al. (US 2020/0011014).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Jeannot teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product, such as toilet paper or towels (Jeannot para 26, 41) where the tissue paper comprises two or more plies (Jeannot para 28), with a particular embodiment being three or more plies (Jeannot para 65), where there is a top ply, a bottom ply, and an intermediate ply between the top and bottom plies (Jeannot para 65). Each individual ply may have a basis weight of 10-45 g/m2 (Jeannot para 57), which for a tissue product of 3 plies would provide for a total basis weight from 30-135 g/m2. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Jeannot further teaches that the top ply may be embossed with two different embossments of differing heights and frequency (Jeannot para 58-59). Jeannot calls the larger, less frequent embossments the second embossment, equivalent to the claimed first embossment, that is alternating first peaks and valleys, with an embossment height of 0.7-1 mm (Jeannot para 59, 61); and the smaller more frequent embossments the first embossment, equivalent to the claimed second embossment, with an embossment height of 0.5-0.7 mm (Jeannot para 59, 61). Thus the claimed first embossment is has a first top ply depth greater than the second embossment top ply depth. The inner ply may comprise at least one kind of protuberance (item 9) (Jeannot para 60, 65) and thus at least one ‘third’ valley, and the bottom ply is embossed in a manner similar to that of the top ply and thus comprises second peaks and second valleys with first and second bottom ply valley depths (Jeannot para 59, 65)).
Finally, Jeannot teaches that all of the plies, top, intermediate, and bottom, are ply bonded via adhesive applied to the tips of the tall (first) embossments (Jeannot para 78-81).
Applicant’s limitation requiring the embossing be performed by a heated embossing roll and that the inner ply has not been “pre-embossed” is a product-by-process type limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113. In the instant case, as the tissue product of Jeannot has been embossed, the structure of the final product is the same whether performed by hot or cold embossing. Further, there is no claimed or apparent structural difference in a in inner ply with ‘pre-embossments’ and the finally claimed tissue paper product with an inner ply with embossments.
Jeannot is silent with respect to the multi-ply tissue paper product having an alignment of the second top ply valley, inner ply valley, and second bottom ply valley are stacked at a common region.
Jeannot and Pleyber are related in the field of multi-ply tissue paper products. Pleyber teaches utilizing an embossing step in the lamination process, separate from the formation of other valleys or embossments, which yields ‘crushed zones’ of valleys where all plies are stacked and glued together as this allows for less glue overall to bond the plies, giving a less stiff product (Pleyber para 61, 95, 97; figs 1, 2, item 12). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lamination process in Jeannot that bonds all layers together at a single point (the claimed alignment of the second top ply valley, inner ply valley, and second bottom ply valley) as taught by Pleyber because this alignment allows for the use of less adhesive giving a more flexible product.
Regarding claim 2, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. Jeannot further teaches that all of the plies, top, intermediate, and bottom, are ply bonded via adhesive applied to the tips of the tall (first) embossments (Jeannot para 78-81) and be bonded together in a nested manner (Jeannot para 34), thus the at least one third valley of the intermediate play is interposed via nesting of the first peaks/valley(s) of the top layer and the second peaks/valley(s) of the bottom layer. Further, at least one ply may be conventional wet press (Jeannot para 5-7, 57, 65).
Regarding claims 3-6, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. Jeannot teaches an exemplary embodiment of three plies (Jeannot para 65), but notes that three, four (“another ply”), five, and six plies may be used, provided the outer layers are so embossed (Jeannot para 99).
Regarding claim 7, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. It is noted that this claim is wholly optional. Jeannot does however teach that the inner ply may be embossed (Jeannot para 65).
Regarding claim 8, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. As above, Jeannot further teaches that the top ply may be embossed with two different embossments of differing heights and frequency (Jeannot para 58-59). Jeannot calls the larger, less frequent embossments the second embossment, equivalent to the claimed first embossment (“decorative embossments”), with an embossment height of 0.7-1 mm (Jeannot para 59, 61); and the smaller more frequent embossments the first embossment, equivalent to the claimed second embossment (“micro-embossments”), with an embossment height of 0.5-0.7 mm (Jeannot para 59, 61). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Jeannot further teaches that the micro-embossments cover at least 80% of the surface of the top ply of the tissue paper product with a density of 30-100 protuberances (dots) per cm2 (Jeannot para 58, 61) and that the decorative embossments have a frequency of about 10 times less than the micro-embossments (Jeannot para 61), which would give a coverage of 8-10%, within the claimed range of 1-20%. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Jeannot further teaches that the bottom ply may have at least one embossment with an embossment density of 30-100 protuberances (dots) per cm2 (Jeannot para 61). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 11, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. Jeannot further teaches that the tissue paper product may be rolled onto a core (Jeannot para 39, 92) and as such would be expected to possess the claimed first end and second end, with the core defining the claimed axial inner hole.
Regarding claim 13, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. Jeannot further teaches that the tissue paper may be cut into sheets that are stacked and may be folded (Jeannot para 41, 92).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeannot in view of Pleyber as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Marinack et al. (US 5,685,954).
Regarding claim 10, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 1. Jeannot further teaches that the inner ply (Jeannot para 65) may have a basis weight of 10-45 g/m2 (Jeannot para 57) and that it may be a wet press ply (Jeannot para 65). Jeannot further teaches that creping of wet press plies provides the benefits of increasing the thickness of the sheet while also increasing elasticity (Jeannot para 5-7).
While Jeannot does not explicitly teach that the inner ply is creped, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify this layer to be creped because Jeannot teaches creping would improve the thickness and elasticity of the layer.
Jeannot in view of Pleyber remains silent with respect to the creped ply comprising creping lines extending in a first direction and parallel ribs and valleys extending in a second direction, where the angle between the first and second directions is 80-100°, the ribs and valleys provides an average core roughness Rk of 10-300 µm, and finally that the number of peaks is in the range of 4-12 per cm.
Jeannot in view of Pleyber and Marinack are related in the field of multi-ply tissue papers. Marinack teaches a creped web (Marinack fig 52) which has biaxial undulations comprising crepe bars (items 52) that extend transversely in the cross-machine direction and ridges (item 50) extending in the machine direction with furrows (items 54) between the ridges (Marinack col. 13, ln 13-32). This would provide an angle between the crepe bars and the ridges of about 90°. Further, Marinack teaches that the ridges should have a frequency of about 10-50 ridges per inch (about 4-20 ridges per cm (Marinack col. 13, ln 13-28). Marinack teaches that this type and amount of creping provides the benefits of improved combinations of bulk, strength and absorbency (Marinack col. 3, ln 40-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the biaxial creping of Marinack as the inner creped layer of Jeannot in view of Pleyber because this would provide that layer with improved strength, bulk, and absorbency.
While Jeannot in view of Pleyber and Marinack remain silent to the average core roughness, as the materials are the same and as the spacing of the ridges is the same, it follows that other properties such as roughness would be the same. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), See MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 12, Jeannot in view of Pleyber teaches a multi-ply tissue paper product as above for claim 11.
Jeannot in view of Pleyber is silent with respect to the size of the paper roll.
Jeannot in view of Pleyber and Marinack are related in the field of multi-ply tissue papers. Marinack teaches winding a tissue paper into a roll with a diameter of 4.31 inches (109.4 mm) (Marinack Table 17, col. 40, ln 35-43). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to wind the roll of Jeannot in view of Pleyber to have a diameter of about 4.31 inches because this is a known size for tissue rolls in the art.
Response to Arguments
It is respectfully noted that the previous claim objections and 112s mentioned in the Arguments of 10/31/25 were previously withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 and again on pages 11-12 that Jeannot does not teach a point at which all plies are joined at a single valley/common region.
The Examiner respectfully notes that while Jeannot does not appear to teach this feature, the new reference, Pleyber has been cited to cure the deficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 12/30/25