DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “Group A”, which is actually Group I, claims 1-10 as indicated by the indication that claims 11-20 are non-elected and withdrawn, (see page 6, paragraphs following “Group IV”) in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of the following species in the Response filed on 12/18/2025 is also acknowledged: Election A, virgin softwood; Election B, polyvinyl alcohol; Election C: sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate; Election D: recyclable paper.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The non-elected species of wood fibers, binders, surfactants and web substrates in instant claims 2-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “wherein the wood fibers are 5 million to 30 million fibers per gram.” Based on paragraph 33 of the instant specification, this is interpreted to mean that the wood fibers have a fiber weight of 5 million to 30 million fibers per gram of fibers.
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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabell et al. (US 2017/0282487) and further in view of Brennan et al. (US 2019/0211509).
Cabell et al. teach fibrous structures which are layered and optionally dispersible comprising a first web, sch as a web of wood pulp fibers such as Kraft, including hardwood or softwood pulp fibers (¶50-51). This meets instants claims 2-3. Given the teaching that recycled fibers can be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage either virgin or recycled fibers, including virgin or recycled hardwood or softwood, including Kraft pulp. This meets instant claims 2-3. The first web can be produced by making a fiber suspension in an aqueous medium, meaning water is present. The suspension is referred to as a fiber slurry. See ¶60. The first web may further comprise polymer filaments, with examples including polyvinyl alcohol filaments (¶119). The polyvinyl alcohol polymers of Cabell can be present in amounts ranging from about 0.05 to about 5wt% of the aqueous melt composition, filament or fibrous structure. See ¶178. This overlaps the range of binder of instant claim 1 and meets the binder of instant claim 5. The composition further includes a surfactant in an amount of about 0.3wt% to about 2%, with an expressly named surfactant being sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (¶144). This amount falls within the range of instant claim 1 and the surfactant meets instant claims 6-7. The additive of instant claims 1 and 8-10 is optional and therefore, Cabell meets instant claims 1 and 8-10. The composition of Example 1 comprises 35w% water which falls within the amount of instant claim 1.
Cabell does not expressly teach the specific amount of wood fiber pulp (hardwood or softwood) to include in the compositions used to produce the fibrous structures disclosed therein.
However, Brennan et al. teach fibrous structures produced using wood pulp fibers as a solid additive in amounts ranging from about 30wt% to about 80wt% (¶98). This overlaps the amount recited in instant claim 1. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Brennan et al., to use an amount of wood fibers which meets the instant claim limitations of instant claim 1 because “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art…” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP 2123.
Both Cabell and Brennan relate to the field of fibrous structures, including layered fibrous structures (¶35 of Brennan et al. and entire Cabell document), comprising filaments and comprising wood fibers, wherein the fibrous structures are used to produce, for example, sanitary tissue (see ¶2, ¶18, ¶47-48 of Brennan et al. and abstract, ¶1, ¶6, ¶13 and entire Cabell document). While Cabell et al. expressly teaches the incorporation of hardwood and softwood fibers including Kraft pulp (see ¶39, ¶40), Cabell et al. does not expressly disclose what amount of hardwood and/or softwood fibers to include in the compositions of the disclosed fibrous structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to Brennan et al., which is from the same field of endeavor as Cabell which is fibrous structures including layered fibrous structures comprising wood pulp additive, wherein the fibrous structures are produced from fiber slurries (¶34 of Brennan et al. and ¶49 of Cabell) and used to form sanitary tissue, to determine the proper amount of wood fibers to utilized, which includes amounts which overlap the range of instant claim 1.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabell et al. (US 2017/0282487) and further in view of Barrera et al. (CN 104508013). Because CN 104508013 is not in English, the machine-translated English equivalent is cited below and is attached.
Cabell et al. teach fibrous structures which are layered and optionally dispersible comprising a first web, sch as a web of wood pulp fibers such as Kraft, including hardwood or softwood pulp fibers (¶50-51). This meets instants claims 2-3. Given the teaching that recycled fibers can be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage either virgin or recycled fibers, including virgin or recycled hardwood or softwood, including Kraft pulp. This meets instant claims 2-3. The first web can be produced by making a fiber suspension in an aqueous medium, meaning water is present. The suspension is referred to as a fiber slurry. See ¶60. The first web may further comprise polymer filaments, with examples including polyvinyl alcohol filaments (¶119). The polyvinyl alcohol polymers of Cabell can be present in amounts ranging from about 0.05 to about 5wt% of the aqueous melt composition, filament or fibrous structure. See ¶178. This overlaps the range of binder of instant claim 1 and meets the binder of instant claim 5. The composition further includes a surfactant in an amount of about 0.3wt% to about 2%, with an expressly named surfactant being sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (¶144). This amount falls within the range of instant claim 1 and the surfactant meets instant claims 6-7. The additive of instant claims 1 and 8-10 is optional and therefore, Cabell meets instant claims 1 and 8-10. The composition of Example 1 comprises 35w% water which falls within the amount of instant claim 1.
Cabell does not expressly teach the specific amount of wood fiber pulp (hardwood or softwood) to include in the compositions used to produce the fibrous structures disclosed therein and does not expressly recite the weight of the wood fibers to use in the fibrous structures.
However, Barrera et al. teach toilet paper products (page 1, first sentence under “Background Art”) and tissue paper products (page 2, second full paragraph), including toilet paper and tissues (page 4, first full paragraph). The toilet paper products are produced from a composition comprising, for example, wood fibers (page 25, second full paragraph) such as hardwood fibers in an amount of from 23 to about 40% by weight (page 29, lines 9-13) which falls within the range of instant claim 4 and having a fiber density of about 15 to about 25 fibers per gram (in millions), which falls within the range of instant claim 4. An expressly named example of wood is kraft wood pulp (see page 29 of the attached translation).
Both Cabell and Barrera relate to the field of fibrous structures, comprising wood fibers, wherein the fibrous structures are used to produce, for example, toilet/sanitary tissue (see abstract, ¶1, ¶6, ¶13 and entire Cabell document and page 2, second full paragraph; page 4, first full paragraph; and page 29, line 9 through entire page of the attached Barrera translation). While Cabell et al. expressly teaches the incorporation of hardwood and softwood fibers including Kraft pulp (see ¶39, ¶40), Cabell et al. does not expressly disclose what amount of wood fibers to include in the compositions of the disclosed fibrous structures or the weight of fibers to utilize. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to Barrera et al., which is from the same field of endeavor as Cabell which is fibrous structures comprising wood pulp additive, wherein the fibrous structures are used to form sanitary tissue, to determine the proper amount of wood fibers as well as what wood fiber weight/density to utilize, which includes amounts which meet instant claim 1 and weights which meet instant claim 4. Additionally, use of the type, amount, and weight of the fibers disclosed in Barrera et al. imparts excellent soft feel to the tissues in which they are used. See page 29, lines 34-40 of Barrera et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. B BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7338. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/K. BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766