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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 1/5/26. Claims 24-28 are withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/22/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-23 in the reply filed on9/22/25 is acknowledged.
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.
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, 3-16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinhuber USPA_20110315707_A1 in view of Hayashi JP_H0644781_U (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claims 1, 3, 15, and 16, Kleinhuber discloses a facial tissues (corresponds to claimed sanitary tissue product) that are in the form of sheets (corresponds to claimed 1 ply or 2 plies of instant Claims 15 and 16) that are folded together (corresponds to claimed bi-folded and interleaved of instant Claims 1 and 3) that can be surrounded by bands (paragraph 0018).
2. However, Kleinhuber does not disclose the claimed dimensions and subset with band dimensions.
3. Hayashi discloses a tissue paper box (Title) that can have a strip (element 19 in Figures; corresponds to claimed band) that can wrap around the tissue paper vertically to form what can correspond to a “subset”, and is smaller than width of the subset (Fig. 6). Hayashi explains how the strip (corresponds to claimed band) can assist in tearing the tissue paper (paragraph 0015).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the band, of Kleinhuber, by trying the dimensions of Hayashi’s strip. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying what prior art has used in the same field of endeavor to assist in tearing and stability of the set of tissue sheets.
5. Regarding Claims 4-10, these would be expected to inherently be the same given that the material of the tissue is the same.
6. Regarding Claim 11, this would be a simple aesthetic design.
7. Regarding Claims 12 and 21, Kleinhuber in view of Hayashi suggests a dispenser (Title). Remaining limitations of instant Claim 21 have been rejected above. The exact dimensions mentioned are a matter of design choice based on end-user product specifications. Applicants have not indicated how these exactly claimed dimensions results in unexpected and surprising properties.
8. Regarding Claims 13 and 22, Kleinhuber in view of Hayashi suggests using a cardboard box (Kleinhuber paragraph 0022).
9. Regarding Claims 14 and 23, Kleinhuber in view of Hayashi suggests using a plastic material (Kleinhuber paragraph 0022).
Claim(s) 2 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinhuber USPA_20110315707_A1 in view of Hayashi JP_H0644781_U (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1, 3-16, and 21-23, in view of Espinosa USPA_20130327487_A1.
10. Regarding Claims 2 and 17-20, Kleinhuber in view of Hayashi does not disclose the claimed embossing.
11. Espinosa discloses an embossed fibrous structure (Title) that can be used as sanitary tissue products (paragraph 0001) and further discloses making numerous different patterns of embossing (Abstract, Claims).
12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the tissue paper product, of Kleinhuber in view of Hayashi, by embossing it as disclosed by Espinosa. It would further be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose a particular pattern based on aesthetics and end-user specifications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 January 22, 2026