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
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.
Claim(s) 50-54 and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ostendorf et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0176220.
Regarding claim 50, Ostendorf teaches a stack of tissue paper product [0052], wherein the tissue paper product is forming panels having a length, and a width perpendicular to said length, said panels being piled on top of each other to form a stack height [0088], said tissue paper product comprising at least one non- wood tissue ply, the non-wood tissue ply [0181-0183] comprising non-wood pulp fibres being present in an amount of at least 10% by dry weight of the non-wood tissue ply [0186], and the stack having a density of at least 0.15 g/cm [0044 and 0050]. It is noted that he final stack of product is listed as the given densities in [0044 and 0050].
Regarding claim 51, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the non-wood tissue ply is made using structured tissue technology, such as one out of TAD (Through Air Drying), ATMOS, textured NTT, eTAD, QRT, UCTAD, and PrimeLineTEX technology (see claim 17).
Regarding claim 52, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the tissue paper product is a single-ply product consisting of said non-wood tissue ply (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 53, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the tissue paper product is a multi-ply product comprising at least two plies, wherein one or more plies is a non-wood tissue ply comprising non-wood pulp fibres (see claim 15) being present in an amount of at least 10% by dry weight of the non-wood tissue ply [0186].
Regarding claim 54, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the tissue paper product in an unfolded state has a basis weight less than 100 gsm, optionally less than 80 gsm or 60 gsm, (see table 1) and/or a GMT tensile strength of at least 60 N/m, optionally at least 70 N/m or at least 80 N/M, and/or wherein the tissue paper product has an absorbency of at least 7 g/g, optionally of at least 8 g/g. It is noted that limitations that are listed as “and/or” will be considered to read as or rendering the additional limitations as optional.
Regarding claim 61, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that said non-wood tissue ply or plies comprises two or more layers, and at least one layer comprises non-wood fibres [0072].
Regarding claim 62, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that a portion or all non-wood cellulose pulp fibres are never-dried non-wood cellulose pulp fibre [0124]. It lists through air dried as one of the dewatering processes, but any wet laid method what includes a dewatering step is covered by the teachings.
Regarding claim 63, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the stack includes softwood cellulose pulp fibres and wherein a portion or all softwood cellulose [0065] fibres are never-dried softwood cellulose pulp fibres [0055], and/or comprising hardwood cellulose pulp fibres and wherein a portion or all hardwood cellulose fibres are never-dried hardwood cellulose pulp fibres. It is taught that the pulp can be made through standard means including wet laying that can be either dried or bonded to form the web [0055]. This is a sufficient enough of a teaching to be understood to read on the never dried pulp fibers. Furthermore the papermaking section teaches wet forming and then a dewatering stage that may include through air drying but can also be performed by other dewatering molding members [0124].
Regarding claim 64, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that the tissue paper product being for personal hygiene, such as toilet paper, hand wipes, paper napkins, facial wipes, handkerchiefs or the tissue paper product being a kitchen towel or industrial wipe [2044].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 55 and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostendorf et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0176220 in view of Qin et al, US Patent Publication 2018/0320318.
Regarding claims 55 and 57, Ostendorf teaches the concepts of many o the claimed physical properties but is silent on the specific lengths and measurements.
In the same field of endeavor of a tissue product with a blend of woody and non-woody fibers, Qin teaches that the tissue product can have a thickness as little as 0.5 mm [0041] when taken alone and not part of the stack, and that the non-woody fibers have an average fiber length of as little as 0.5 or preferably 1-25 mm [0015] (this reads on the claim of less than 1.7 mm as the end points of the preferred range falls within the claimed values).
. Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostendorf et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0176220 in view of Hu, US Patent Publication 2003/0111197.
Regarding claim 56, Ostendorf teaches the presence of hemicellulose and lignin, but is silent on values of their composition of the non woody materials [0063]. Determining the amount of different components of the starting materials is well within the ability of the average artisan. To show that it is known to adjust the levels of the cellulose based components, Hu is presented.
Hu, in the same field of endeavor of making a tissue product teaches that the non woody and woody blends of fibers in the pulp [0019-0022] are combined in known ways to product tissue produces with a desired combination of physical properties. This mixture of fibers will directly control the amounts of values for known properties such as hemicellulose and lignin [0022]. Thus the amount of hemicellulose and lignin utilized in the material is a result effective variable based on the selection and blend of the non woody material with the fibers. The act of selected a known value for a known purpose with a high expectation of success is well within the ability of the average artisan.
Claim(s) 58-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostendorf et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0176220.
Regarding claims 58-60, Ostendorf remains as applied above and further teaches that a non woody trichrome blend can make up 13.3 % and 86.7% eucalyptus fibers [0186]. While there is not a direct one to one comparison of the claimed terms the starting values of the blends given in the reference are close enough to the claimed range (15% compared to 13.3 given in an example) that would lead the average artisan to fine the optimal values for the woody and non woody materials. This routine optimization is well within the ability of the average artisan, especially when the concept of the claims have been taught but not the specified values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights