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 .
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered and based upon further search and consideration, a new combination of references is applied in the rejection above. The Saas reference is applied in addressing the newly added claim features.
Amendments to the claims overcome the prior identified claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 18-20 remain withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NICOLAS WEISANG, et al. WO 2019203699 A1 submitted by the IDS dated on 12/29/2022, further in view of SAAS et el. USPPN 2015/0184342.
Regarding claim 1, WEISANG (Applicant's previous disclosure) discloses: A tissue paper product, such as toilet paper or household towel (Title, para [0012] discloses "These properties allow tissue paper to be used, for example, as cleaning cloths (e.g., household towels), sanitary products (e.g., toilet paper, hand towels), paper handkerchiefs, cosmetic wipes (facial tissues) or as serviettes/napkins." and para [0046], [0078].), wherein the tissue paper product comprises between two and four plies, including at least a first ply and a second ply, the two plies, three plies, or four plies being ply-bonded, optionally using an adhesive such as lamination glue or mechanical bonding, such as edge embossing, to form the tissue paper product, the first ply and the second ply being the outermost plies of the tissue paper product (Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, para [0007], for example, Fig. 1A, para [0024], [0052-0053], and [0057- 0058], [0078] and so on teach the same thing.), a grammage of the tissue paper product being in a range of 24 to 50 g/m² if a total number of plies of the tissue paper product is 2, in a range of 34 to 65 g/m² if a total number of plies of the tissue paper product is 3, and in a range of 55 to 95 g/m² if a total number of plies of the tissue paper product is 4 (Para [0035- 0036], [0053], [0067], and claims 6-7.), and wherein the first ply is made of Conventional Wet Press (CWP) paper, the second ply is a structured paper ply, such as a ply made of TAD, UCTAD, eTAD, Atmos, or NTT, and the first ply has been embossed with a heated embossing roll (Para [0021] and [0078].).
In Weisang, multiple plies are disclosed and the selection of a conventional wet press paper and structured ply paper are also disclosed (see paras [0021] and [0078]). It may not be clear whether this disclosure of Weisang means that either one of a conventional wet press paper or structured ply paper are selected, or if any combination of these materials are selected. For clarity, Saas is relied on for specifically disclosing each of these materials for are distinctly selected for each of the outer plies, thus resulting in a first ply different from a second ply. See Saas at claim 1 describing use of a structured ply and another ply is a wet pressed ply in creating a hybrid multi-ply paper product, and more particularly at claim 11 describing the structured ply being produced by a through air drying TAD system and the wet pressed ply being formed by a conventional wet press manufacturing method, for example. As it known in the art, as taught by both Weisang and Saas, the selection of both a structured ply and a conventional wet press ply are useful in manufacturing paper products. Saas makes clear that such a configuration is used in developing multi-ply tissue products that has improved thickness, softness, absorption capacity and strength, and is more economical due to this fabrication and thus would be useful to apply in Weisang for these known reasons.
Regarding claim 2, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the first ply comprises micro-embossments with a micro-embossment height in a range of 0.1 mm to 1.2 mm (Para [0080], and para [0092] discloses "those plies may be either already associated together, micro- embossed and/or embossed (preparation of the parent rolls at a previous step in another location), or micro-embossed, embossed and/or associated within the converting machine/line 100 just after the parent roll unwinding steps (concomitantly or slightly after step S1 and step S4.).
Regarding claim 3, the applied prior art at WEISANG further in view of SAAS discloses all of limitations of its base claim 1. Although, as noted in claim 2, WEISANG teaches " ...micro-embossed and/or embossed (preparation of the parent rolls at a previous step in another location), or micro-embossed, embossed and/or associated nonetheless, it does not expressly teach "maro" embossed as recited in the claimed invention: wherein the first ply comprises macro-embossments with a macro- embossment height in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, optionally 0.8 mm to 1.4 mm, wherein, optionally, the macro-embossments cover between 1% and 20% of a total surface of the first ply, optionally between 2% and 10%, or between 3% and 6% (However, the cited reference clearly teaches micro-embossed and/or embossed and therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the embossed of the tissue being macro-embossed since micro-embossing and macro-embossing are different techniques for creating raised textures on paper. Micro- embossing creates very fine, almost invisible, textures, while macro-embossing creates larger, more noticeable raised areas. The height of embossing and cover percentages are taught on para [0080].).
Regarding claim 4, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the first ply has been embossed with a heated first embossing roll heated to a temperature in the range of 80°C to 170°, 100°C to 165°, 110°C to 165°, 120°C to 160° or 130°C to 155°, and/or wherein the second ply has been embossed with a non-heated embossing roll (Para [0078] discloses "The engraved cylinder 43 is applied with a defined calendering pressure onto the mating rubber cylinder 42. The engraved cylinder 43 may be further heated." and para [0081] discloses "The engraved cylinder calendering pressure is low, for example ranging from about 3 to about 5 bars. The engraved cylinder calendering temperature may range from about 60 to about 130°C.").
Regarding claims 5-6, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the first ply has been moistened, prior to the step of embossing the first ply, with a liquid, such as water with or without one or several additives, with an amount of liquid being in the range of 2% to 12% of the basis weight of the first ply, or optionally 4% to 10% of the basis weight of the first ply or wherein the first ply has not been moistened with a liquid prior to the step of embossing (Referring to para [0005], [0009], [0012], [0021], and [0053] clearly denote the wetting or moistening the ply before the step of embossing and not to mention that it is a common practice in the entire paper towel and/or toilet paper tissues making process. For example, para [0006] and [0009] teach the tissue web basis weight and using specific % of liquid to moisten or wet the ply directly dependent on the basis weight and therefore, it is obvious could readily determine that in accordance to the teachings of WEISANG and that % do not defined patentability. Applicant's attention is respectfully directed to MPEP 2144.05 II-A:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).).
Regarding claim 7, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the tissue paper product comprises exactly two plies, being the first ply and the second ply, wherein the first ply comprises first embossments with a first height (h1), the first height (h1) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, the second ply comprises second embossments with a second height (h2), the second height (h2) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, the first ply optionally comprises third embossments with a third height (h3) smaller than the first height (hl) (h1>h3); and the second ply optionally comprises fourth embossments with a fourth height (h4) smaller than the second height (h2) (h2>h4); wherein, optionally, the adhesive, such as lamination glue, is optionally applied to tips of the first embossments of the first ply and/or to tips of the second embossments of the second ply (The embossment heights are taught on para [0043], [0080], and claim 15 and the fact that different plies have different height form one another is implicitly taught as well. MPEP 2144.05 II-A: In re Williams "...a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions).
Regarding claim 8, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the tissue paper product comprises exactly three plies, being the first ply and the second ply and a third ply, located between the first ply and the second ply, the third ply optionally being made of Conventional Wet Press (CWP) paper, wherein the first ply comprises first embossments with a first height (h1), the first height (h1) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, the adhesive, such as lamination glue, is optionally applied to the third ply at parts bonded to tips of the first embossments of the first ply and/or to tips of the second embossments of the second ply, and/or wherein the adhesive, such as lamination glue, is optionally applied to tips of the first embossments of the first ply and/or to tips of the second embossments of the second ply, the second ply comprises second embossments with a second height (h2), the second height (h2) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, the first ply optionally comprises third embossments with a third height (h3) smaller than the first height (h1) (h1>h3) (Para [0021], [0024], [0047] and [0057], [0078], and [0101] teach wet press, adhesive bonding, lamination/delamination and the manner in which the several plies attached to one another. The embossment heights are taught on para [0043], [0080], and claim 15 and the fact that different plies have different height form one another is implicitly taught as well.).
Regarding claims 9-10, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the third ply has not been embossed prior to ply-bonding, wherein the third ply optionally, is only partially embossed at locations where it is ply-bonded with the first ply and the second ply or wherein the first ply and the third ply have been embossed together to form the first embossments on the first ply and the third ply, and, optionally, the first ply and the third ply have been embossed together to form also the third embossments on the first ply and the third ply (Again, para [0024] teaches the ply-bonding and the fact that only partially embossed does not have a patentable weight since the cited reference implicitly teaches that throughout the disclosure.).
Regarding claim 11, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the tissue paper product comprises exactly four plies, being the first ply and the second ply, and a third ply and a fourth ply located between the first ply and the second ply, the third ply and the fourth ply optionally being made of Conventional Wet Press (CWP) paper, wherein the first ply comprises first embossments with a first height (hl), the first height (h1) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, the adhesive, such as lamination glue, is optionally applied to the third ply at parts bonded to tips of the first embossments of the first ply, the second ply comprises second embossments with a second height (h2), the second height (h2) being in a range of 0.2 mm to 2.0 mm, and the first ply optionally comprises third embossments with a third height (h3) smaller than the first height (h1) (h1>h3) (Para [0021], [0024], [0047] and [0057], [0078], and [0101] teach wet press, adhesive bonding, lamination/delamination and the manner in which the several plies attached to one another. The embossment heights are taught on para [0043], [0080], and claim 15 and the fact that different plies have different height form one another is implicitly taught as well. MPEP 2144.05 II-A: In re Williams "...a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 12, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the first ply and the third ply have been embossed together to form the first embossments on the first ply and the third ply, wherein the fourth ply has not been embossed prior to ply- bonding or has been embossed separately from the first ply and the third ply, and the third embossments have optionally been formed only on the first ply but not on the third ply, or wherein the first ply and the third ply have been optionally embossed together to form the third embossments on the first ply and the third ply (Para [0021], [0024], [0047] and [0057], [0078], and [0101] teach the structure as well as manner in which the various plies are attached to one another. WEISANG discloses the claimed invention except for exact arrangement of various plies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the location of various plies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).).
Regarding claim 13, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the first ply, the third ply, and the fourth ply have been embossed together to form the first embossments on the first ply, the third ply, and the fourth ply, and, optionally, the first ply, the third ply, and the fourth ply have been embossed together to form the third embossments on the first ply, the third ply, and the fourth ply, or, optionally, the third embossments have been formed on the first ply and the third ply, but not on the fourth ply, or, optionally, the third embossments have been formed on the first ply, but not on the third ply and the fourth ply (Figs. 1 & 4, Para [0021], [0024], [0047] and [0057], [0078], and [0101] teach the structure as well as manner in which the various plies attached to one another. The embossment are taught on para [0024-0025] [0037-0043], [0076-0080], and claims 14-15. MPEP 2144.05 II-A: In re Williams ...a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding claim 14, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the third ply and the fourth ply have been embossed together separately from the first ply, or wherein the third ply and the fourth ply are unembossed (Para [0021], [0024], [0047] and [0057], and [0078] teach the structure as well as manner in which the various plies are attached to one another. WEISANG discloses the claimed invention except for exact arrangement of various plies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to change the location of various plies, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).).
Regarding claim 15, W the applied prior art at EISANG discloses: wherein the first embossments are provided on an area constituting between 1% and 20% of a total surface of the first ply, and/or a density of the third embossments is in a range of 25 to 120 embossments/cm², optionally 40 to 100 embossments/cm², or 50 to 80 embossments/cm2 (Figs. 2-4, Para [0029], [0031], [0037- 0038], [0043], [0047], [0055-0056], and para [0080] discloses "The dots density for the embossing patterns of the first association pattern may have a density of at least about 10 dots/cm.sup.2. The dots density for the embossing patterns of the second association pattern may have a density of less than about 2.5 dots/cm.sup.2. Further, about 0.2% to about 20%, in particular about 0.5% to about 6% of the total surface between the first outer ply 2 and the second outer ply 3 is being glued.". Even though the exact embossments/cm² is not disclosed, but the cited reference clearly teach manner in which embossments/cm² could be extrapolated by one of skilled in art.).
Regarding claim 16, the applied prior art at WEISANG discloses: wherein the grammage of each of the plies is in a range of 13 to 30 g/m² optionally 16 to 28 g/m² or 18 to 24 g/m² (Para [0035-0036], [0053], [0067], and claims 6-7.).
Regarding claim 17, the applied prior art WEISANG (Applicant's previous disclosure) discloses: A tissue paper product, such as toilet paper or household towel (Title, para [0012] discloses "These properties allow tissue paper to be used, for example, as cleaning cloths (e.g., household towels), sanitary products (e.g., toilet paper, hand towels), paper handkerchiefs, cosmetic wipes (facial tissues) or as serviettes/napkins." and para [0046], [0078].), wherein the tissue paper product comprises between two and four plies, including at least a first ply and a second ply, the two plies, three plies, or four plies being ply- bonded, optionally using an adhesive such as lamination glue or mechanical bonding, such as edge embossing, to form the tissue paper product, the first ply and the second ply being the outermost plies of the tissue paper product (Figs. 1-7, title, abstract, para [0007], for example, Fig. 1A, para [0024], [0052- 0053], and [0057-0058], [0078] and so on teach the same thing.), a grammage of each of the plies being in a range of 13 to 30 g/m² optionally 16 to 28 g/m² or 18 to 24 g/m² (Para [0035- 0036], [0053], [0067], and claims 6-7.) and wherein the first ply is made of Conventional Wet Press (CWP) paper, the second ply is a structured paper ply, such as a ply made of TAD,UCTAD, eTAD, Atmos, or NTT, and the first ply has been embossed with a heated embossing roll (Para [0021] and [0078].).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added features of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. Although the primary reference relied on in the prior Office Action, WEISANG is still relied on, clarification regarding the first ply being a different ply than the second ply is made by reliance on the SAAS reference. For these reasons, the claims are rejected to above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RITA P ADHLAKHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 9-3pm EST.
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 Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights