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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1)/103. This rejection is set forth in the prior Office action mailed on November 04, 2025.
Response to Arguments1
Applicant's arguments filed on May 04, 2026 with regard to the rejection over Sealy et al., have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Sealy does not teach a MD stretch as it is now claimed, i.e., between 8% to 12%. The arguments are not convincing because Sealy actually teaches MD stretch of 10.7, see the properties of 2-ply products of example 1, paragraphs [0093]-[0094], shown on the office action mailed on October 29, 2024 and reproduced below for applicants convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants previously indicated that the calculations are made using different basis weight, since the GATS uses air dry and the basis weight shown by the reference is based on a bone dry weight. This argument is not convincing, because even if the absorbency is calculated based on air dry, i.e., the basis weight, the absorbency relationship would still be within the claimed range, as shown below:
Bone dry= Air dry*0.9; which is at the end of the spectrum, i.e., very conservative estimation, since it assumes a 10% moisture, which in most cases the moisture is lower, especially the equilibrium moisture. Using the results of the table the Air basis weight would be the Bone dry/0.9, i.e., 46.15; which gives an absorbency (g/g)= 700 gsm/46.16 gsm of fiber=15.16 and the ratio of absorbency to MD stretch would be 15.16/10.7 = 1.417, which is still within the claimed range, i.e. greater than 1.2.
Applicants have previously argued, see applicants remarks filed on October 24. 2025, that the reference uses enzyme, but the use of enzyme this is a process limitation and not a property of the product and the product of the reference has the claimed properties. Note that enzymes are taken out, recovered, from the final product and thus the end products would be the same, i.e., they have the same properties.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 Rejections not explicitly treated have been withdrawn.
Prosecution Insights