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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 84 is vague and indefinite since it is missing the measuring units, i.e., the last part of the claim recites “by dry,” but does not recite the unit(s), i.e., by volume by weight?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 68-69, 71-74, 81-84, 86-87, 89-90, 92-93, 95 and 98-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegenbein, US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0332471 A1, in view of Upgradation of Wheat Straw and Rice Straw for Pulp and Papermaking by Sushma, hereinafter and evidenced by Singh et al., (hereinafter Singh), in “Complete Characterization of Wheat Straw (Triticum Aestivum PBW-343 L. Emend. Fiori & Paol.) A Renewable Source of Fibres for Pulp and Paper Making” and/or Buranov et al., (hereinafter Buranov) in “Lignin in straw of herbaceous crops.”
With regard to claims 68-69, 71, 81, 83-83, 86-87, 89 and 98-101, Ziegenbein discloses an absorbent paper product, such as tissue and towels (reading on claims 68 and 71), which could be single or multiply (¶-[0017]-[0019]) having unique properties. Said absorbent product including from 20 through 90 wt.% on the dry basis of a refined softwood pulp, (which includes the wood pulp of claims 87-89) and the rest of hardwood, non-wood fibers, recycled, synthetic fibers and mixtures thereof; see abstract and ¶-[0029]. Ziegenbein discloses also that the non-wood fibers are or can be straw (belongs to the Poaceae Family); see ¶-[0029]. Therefore, it is within the scope of the reference a pulp including 20 to 90 % by dry weight of fibers of softwood and between 10 through 80 % by dry weight of straw or straw with any other fiber(s) while still be within the claimed range, i.e., 10 to 60 %. Ziegenbein teaches that the paper has an GMT Index between 6 N.m/g to 12 N.m/g (¶-[0071] and claim1) and having basis weight between 10 gsm to 120 gsm, but preferably between 20 to 60 gsm (¶-0065) and the examples show a target basis weigh of 52 gsm and GMT Index between 6.5 to 11 N.m/g, which converts to GMT between 338 N/m to 572 N/m (GMT Index= GMT/BW ⸫ GMT=GMT Index*BW) and table on ¶-[0178] shows values for a single ply towel 1 having basis weight of less than 30 gsm) 8.58*25.7=220.50 N/m: 2) 9.91*26.2=259.64 N/m and 3) 26.2*10.8=282.96, all of them within the range of claims 53-54, 56 and 85. Ziegenbein is silent with regard to the type of straw used. However, all of the secondary references teach the use of wheat straw and other straws, e.g. rice straw, that can be used in the making of papers and teach that wheat straw have hemicellulose content of at least 15% and lignin that has been reduced to less than 15% by delignification; see page 93 and Table 3 of Sushma, which teaches hemicellulose greater than 15% (Pentosan is part of the hemicellulose) and lignin between 3.45 and 1.5 after the delignification; Buranov teaches that the lignin composition of wheat straw depends on the country and varies from 5.3 through 17.0 and Singh teaches Hemicellulose of 28.95 table 3 and teaches that on table 2 that the fiber length is 1.18± 0.08 mm. Therefore, using wheat straw as the straw suggested by Ziegenbein would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if such fibers were used as the straw suggested by Ziegenbein. Note also that using the straw with low lignin content as suggested by Sushma the pulp would have higher brightness and increases formation with less shive, as shown on table 7 and last paragraph on column 1 of page 96. As to the absorbency, paper tissues, including paper towels, are known to have absorbency of at least 7 g/g1 and therefore, said property must be inherent to the tissues of the primary reference, Ziegenbein. Moreover, Ziegenbein teaches the use of absorbent aids if an increase of the absorbency is desired; see ¶-[0097] and therefore, it would be at least obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to optimize the absorbency of the tissue of the primary reference to desired range by the use of absorbency aids as suggested by Ziegenbein.
Regarding to claims 72-74, Ziegenbein on ¶-[0017] teaches that the absorbent paper can be a multiply tissue and that each ply can have the same type of pulp or different fibers in each ply. Therefore, optimizing the amount of the type of fibers in each ply is considered obvious, absent a showing of unexpected results.
With regard to claims 90, 92, 93 and 95, the use of never dried pulp instead of dry market pulp is known in the art and considered obvious, absent a showing of unexpected results. It is also known that the use of virgin pulps, i.e., never dried pulps, have more strength than that has been previously dried, i.e., dry market pulp, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 68-69, 71-74, 81-84, 86-87, 89-90, 92-93, 95 and 98-101 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Tissue Paper Material and Tissue Paper Product.”
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 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 Evidenced by Table 1 of US Patent Application Publication No. 202/0407922 A1; table 3 of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0370246 A1 and Example 1on ¶-[0134] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0347553 A1, just to cite a few.
Prosecution Insights