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 Amendment filed 23 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 14 remain pending in the application.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (US 2008/0280088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baum discloses a web (“tissue roll” comprising a “tissue substrate”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0016] – [0052]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“zone of perforations” comprising “slits” separated by “connecting regions”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0020] – [0023], [0029] – [0042], [0048] – [0052] );
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (“S-shape”: e.g. ¶ [0030]);
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness extends at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than 40 degrees (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0033], [0034], [0049] – [0052]);
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0036], [0038] – [0041]);
wherein at least two of the perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0048], [0055]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the perforations vary in magnitude to effect the same perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (the “identical” “slits” can be aligned with the line of the “zone of perforations”, and thus will be understood to change angle with respect to a cross machine direction across the “tissue roll”, thus varying the magnitude of cross machine direction width according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. ¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
Baum does not explicitly disclose the perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
As a rule, Baum discloses larger perforation lengths provide a web with lower resistance to sheet detachment (e.g. ¶¶ [0035], [0040]). Baum discloses the perforation lengths can be identical or can vary (e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0048], [0055]). Accordingly, for the embodiments where the perforation lengths are identical, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be uniform across the web. Likewise, as the variability increases, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be less uniform.
From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the embodiments where variability exists, a suitable deviation from identicality can be determined which balances uniformity with the particular purpose for deviation.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, it would have been obvious for the perforation lengths to be substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baum discloses at least two non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baum discloses each of the perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has more web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the curvilinear line of weakness with a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 5, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide the curvilinear line of weakness with a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 6, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the perforation and non-perforation lengths such that the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 7, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the perforation and non-perforation lengths such that the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 8, Baum discloses a web (“tissue roll” comprising a “tissue substrate”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0016] – [0052]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“zone of perforations” comprising “slits” separated by “connecting regions”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0020] – [0023], [0029] – [0042], [0048] – [0052] );
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (“S-shape”: e.g. ¶ [0030]);
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness extends at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than 40 degrees (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0033], [0034], [0049] – [0052]);
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0036], [0038] – [0041]);
wherein at least two of the non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0041]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the bond areas vary in magnitude to effect the same non-perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (the “identical” “slits” can be aligned with the line of the “zone of perforations”, and thus will be understood to change angle with respect to a cross machine direction across the “tissue roll”, thus varying the magnitude of cross machine direction width according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. ¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
Baum does not explicitly disclose the non-perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the non-perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
As a rule, Baum discloses larger non-perforation lengths provide a web with higher resistance to sheet detachment (e.g. ¶¶ [0035], [0041]). Baum discloses the non-perforation lengths can be identical or can vary (e.g. ¶¶ [0041], [0048], [0055]). Accordingly, for the embodiments where the non-perforation lengths are identical, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be uniform across the web. Likewise, as the variability increases, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be less uniform.
From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the embodiments where variability exists, a suitable deviation from identicality can be determined which balances uniformity with the particular purpose for deviation.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, it would have been obvious for the non-perforation lengths to be substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the non-perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baum discloses at least two perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Baum discloses each of the non-perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 11, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has more web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the curvilinear line of weakness with a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide the curvilinear line of weakness with a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the perforation and non-perforation lengths such that the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 14, although Baum is not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Baum discloses the introduction of the curvilinear line of weakness immediately makes the web more susceptible to breaking (e.g. ¶ [0005]), meaning the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Baum acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]). Given Baum uses generally conventional equipment and practices to introduce the curvilinear line of weakness (e.g. ¶¶ [0047] – [0052]), Baum implies one of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adjust process equipment to make webs with the appropriate peak tensile strength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the perforation and non-perforation lengths such that the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupp (US 2011/0311748 A1) in view of Baum.
Regarding claim 1, Hupp discloses a web (“web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0009] – [0082]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“line of weakness”, e.g. “line of perforation” 132, 132a’ comprising “perforations” 134 separated from one another by material of the “web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0010], [0025], [0026], [0031] – [0034], [0037], [0043] – [0046], [0049], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0078]),
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (e.g. Fig. 1, 7A),
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (corresponding to “protrusions” 114, 114’ used to perforate “web” 122 and the “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’ making each “perforation” 134, respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0025] – [0029], [0031] – [0047], [0051], [0053] – [0055]),
wherein at least two of the perforation lengths are substantially equal (“protrusions” 114, 114’ can have the same dimensions: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶ [0033]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the perforations vary in magnitude to effect the same perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (identically dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134 which, given the “line of perforation” 132, 132’ changes its angle with respect to the cross-machine direction across the “web” 122, must vary the cross machine direction widths according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. Fig. 7A).
Although Hupp is not explicit as to (I) the curvilinear line of weakness extending at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than or equal to 45 degrees or (II) the perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line, these features would have been obvious in view of Baum.
Baum discloses a web (“tissue roll” comprising a “tissue substrate”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0016] – [0052]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“zone of perforations” comprising “slits” separated by “connecting regions”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0020] – [0023], [0029] – [0042], [0048] – [0052] );
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape or similar shape (“S-shape”: e.g. ¶ [0030]);
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness extends at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than 40 degrees (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0033], [0034], [0049] – [0052]);
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0036], [0038] – [0041]);
wherein at least two of the perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0040]);
wherein the perforation lengths are substantially the same length in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs (all “slits” can be “identical”: e.g. ¶ [0040]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the perforations vary in magnitude to effect the same perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (the “identical” “slits” can be aligned with the line of the “zone of perforations”, and thus will be understood to change angle with respect to a cross machine direction across the “tissue roll”, thus varying the magnitude of cross machine direction width according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. ¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
The angle Baum discloses is advantageous for minimizing resistance to detachment upon use, giving easier dispensing, while also maximizing resistance to tear during manufacturing, giving more reliable processing and minimizing material breakage during processing (e.g. ¶ [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hupp’s curvilinear line of weakness to extend at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than or equal to 40 degrees, as Baum suggests, the motivation being to ease dispensing, make processing more reliable, and minimize breaking during processing.
While Baum does not explicitly disclose the perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line, the following are observed:
As a rule, Baum discloses larger perforation lengths provide a web with lower resistance to sheet detachment (e.g. ¶¶ [0035], [0040]). Baum discloses the perforation lengths can be identical or can vary (e.g. ¶¶ [0040], [0048], [0055]). Accordingly, for the embodiments where the perforation lengths are identical, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be uniform across the web. Likewise, as the variability increases, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be less uniform.
From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the embodiments where variability exists, a suitable deviation from identicality can be determined which balances uniformity with the particular purpose for deviation. It should also be noted Hupp permits individual tailoring of perforation lengths (by controlling size and spacing of “protrusions” 114 used to form the perforations: e.g. ¶¶ [0033], [0034]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, it would have been obvious for the perforation lengths to be substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses at least two non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses each of the perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7, 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 5, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 6, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 7, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 8, Hupp discloses a web (“web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0009] – [0082]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“line of weakness”, e.g. “line of perforation” 132, 132a’ comprising “perforations” 134 separated from one another by material of the “web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0010], [0025], [0026], [0031] – [0034], [0037], [0043] – [0046], [0049], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0078]),
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (e.g. Fig. 1, 7A),
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (corresponding to “protrusions” 114, 114’ used to perforate “web” 122 and the “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’ making each “perforation” 134, respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0025] – [0029], [0031] – [0047], [0051], [0053] – [0055]), and
wherein at least two of the non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (“protrusions” 114, 114’ have the same “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶ [0033]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the bond areas vary in magnitude to effect the same non-perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (identically pitched dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134 which, given the “line of perforation” 132, 132’ changes its angle with respect to the cross-machine direction across the “web” 122, must vary the cross machine direction widths according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. Fig. 7A).
Although Hupp is not explicit as to (I) the curvilinear line of weakness extending at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than or equal to 45 degrees or (II) the non-perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the non-perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line, these features would have been obvious in view of Baum.
Baum discloses a web (“tissue roll” comprising a “tissue substrate”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0016] – [0052]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“zone of perforations” comprising “slits” separated by “connecting regions”: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0020] – [0023], [0029] – [0042], [0048] – [0052] );
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (“S-shape”: e.g. ¶ [0030]);
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness extends at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than 40 degrees (e.g. ¶¶ [0023], [0033], [0034], [0049] – [0052]);
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0036], [0038] – [0041]);
wherein at least two of the perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. ¶ [0040]);
wherein the perforation lengths are substantially the same length in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs (all “slits” can be “identical”: e.g. ¶ [0040]); and
wherein cross machine direction widths of the perforations vary in magnitude to effect the same perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (the “identical” “slits” can be aligned with the line of the “zone of perforations”, and thus will be understood to change angle with respect to a cross machine direction across the “tissue roll”, thus varying the magnitude of cross machine direction width according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. ¶¶ [0036], [0040]).
The angle Baum discloses is advantageous for minimizing resistance to detachment upon use, giving easier dispensing, while also maximizing resistance to tear during manufacturing, giving more reliable processing and minimizing material breakage during processing (e.g. ¶ [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hupp’s curvilinear line of weakness to extend at an angle with respect to a cross machine direction, the angle being greater than zero and less than or equal to 40 degrees, as Baum suggests, the motivation being to ease dispensing, make processing more reliable, and minimize breaking during processing.
While Baum does not explicitly disclose the non-perforation lengths are substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the non-perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line, the following are observed:
As a rule, Baum discloses larger non-perforation lengths provide a web with higher resistance to sheet detachment (e.g. ¶¶ [0035], [0041]). Baum discloses the non-perforation lengths can be identical or can vary (e.g. ¶¶ [0041], [0048], [0055]). Accordingly, for the embodiments where the non-perforation lengths are identical, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be uniform across the web. Likewise, as the variability increases, the resistance to sheet detachment is understood to be less uniform.
From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the embodiments where variability exists, a suitable deviation from identicality can be determined which balances uniformity with the particular purpose for deviation. It should also be noted Hupp permits individual tailoring of perforation lengths (by controlling size and spacing of “protrusions” 114 used to form the perforations: e.g. ¶¶ [0033], [0034]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, it would have been obvious for the non-perforation lengths to be substantially the same length, but not identical, in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs, such that the non-perforation lengths do not vary by more than 15% along the curvilinear line.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses at least two perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses each of the non-perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, although Hupp and Baum are not explicit as to the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 14, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]; Baum: e.g. ¶ [0005]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0078]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0018], [0043]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp and Baum each acknowledge and seek to correct: Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0009]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]; Baum: e.g. ¶¶ [0020], [0022], [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5 – 6, filed 23 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Baum or Hupp and Baum have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a particular understanding of alternative embodiments Baum discloses.
Applicant asserts patentability on the basis that Baum does not teach perforation lengths (for claim 1) or non-perforation lengths (for claim 8) varying by no more than 15% while substantially equal, and also not being identical, in crests, troughs, and between crests and troughs of the curvilinear line. Applicant particularly points to Baum’s embodiments for identical features as evidence to support this assertion.
However, Baum discloses embodiments where variability in the perforations and non-perforations are permitted. Baum further identifies the properties that identical and non-identical curvilinear lines exhibit based on general properties of perforation lengths and non-perforation lengths affecting uniformity in resistance to sheet detachment.
Accordingly, based on the needs of a particular application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine a suitable deviation from uniformity to obtain the required properties of the web.
Hupp provides further support for the ability, noting perforation lengths and non-perforation lengths are readily tailorable to particular applications.
For these reasons, the examiner maintains the rejections consistent with the present amendments.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights