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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: Mr2 in Fig. 2, as mentioned on page 21, line 26. It appears that the label “Mr1” has been used twice in Fig. 2 and the left sided one should be “Mr2”. Also, mean line M is not labeled in the figures. Reference sign “12” is not shown in Fig. 7, as mentioned on page 25, line 22. It appears that “Fig. 1” in line 21 on page 25 should be “Fig. 7” since the reference signs in this sentence appear to correspond to Fig. 7, not Fig. 1. With regard to Fig. 8, many of the reference signs listed on pages 25 and 26 with regard to the various webs and protrusions are marked with a (‘) whereas the reference signs for the webs and protrusions in this Figure as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “relate the thickness’ in line 6 on page 9 should be “relate to the thickness’. “to or more’ in line 12 on page 9 should be “to one or more”. “values” in line 26 on page 9 should be “valleys”. “adhesively bonding of the plies” in line 9 on page 12 should be “adhesive bonding of the plies”. “two out of the plies” in line 36 on page 14 should be “two of the plies”. “in the below” in line 14 on page 29 should be "below ".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
In claims 1 and 5, the phrase “the web” makes the claims vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if “the web” recited in the definition of the outer webs, refers to the web of the inner web or the outer webs.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al., (hereinafter Ward), US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0022955 A1 in view of Marinack et al., (hereinafter Marinack), United State Patent No. 5.685,954.
Regarding to claims 1 and 5, Ward teaches a multiply tissue and the process of making it, in which an inner/middle (17) ply is sandwiched between two outer plies (16) and (18) on figure 2, described on ¶-[0021]-[0022]. The inner ply comprising ribs and valleys, same as on figure 4 of the current application. Ward teaches also the inner ply can be creped using a creping technique of several United State Patents, including United State Patent No. 5,685,954 to Marinack (incorporated by reference); see ¶-[0030] and Marinack teaches the formation of a creped web including ribs and valleys. Said creped ribbed web comprising creping lines extending along a first direction, and parallel ribs and valleys extending continuously along a second direction being substantially perpendicular to said first direction, see figure 52 and column 13, lines 13-32, which is the same as figure 1 of the current application; see below. Note that the ribs (300) corresponds to crest (56) of Marinack and the valleys correspond to the furrows (54) of Marinack .
PNG
media_image1.png
365
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, creping the inner/middle layer of Ward as suggested by Marinack would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it is actually suggested by the primary reference, Ward, and said creping would create a ridged pattern of figure 2. Note also, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success if such inner ply is creped as suggested by Ward and taught by Marinack. Ward teaches also that the basis weight of the inner ply falls within the claimed range; see ¶-[0034]which teaches basis weigh of the plies between 5 to 10 lb/2880 ft2 which converts 8.5 to 16.96 gsm and on ¶-[0056] discloses the basis weight of the conventional wet pressed, which can be the inner ply, see examples, of 7.5 lbs/2880 ft2 which converts to 12.75 gsm. As to the ridges per inch Marinack teaches indentations, i.e., the longitudinal extending ridges, frequency from about 10 to 50 ridges per inch (about 4 to 20 ridges/indentations per cm), which falls within the claimed range’ see column 13, lines 13-32, (especially on lines 26-27). Ward shows and teaches that the outer plies do not have ridges and valleys (figure 2), just the inner ply and therefore, reading on the limitation of the claimed outer webs. Note however, that “less than 4 cm” includes zero (0) as the lower range and thus the reference reads on said alternative limitation, since the outer webs have zero (0) ridges and valleys . Although Ward does not explicitly teach ply-bonding, figure 2 shows a multiply web which plies are attached/bonded and thus this limitation is inherent to the reference or at the very least, ply-bonding the plies would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it is a common in the art. As to the roughness of the product, this property must be inherent to the combination of the references, since they show the same or very similar product, made using the same raw materials and same/similar process. Note that it has been held that “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 2-41, Marinack teaches a creping blade having a rake edge comprising indentations in number and depths falling within the claimed range; see column 3, lines 24-33 and paragraph bridging columns 13 and 14, which teaches a creping blade having serrulate undulations edge of depth between 0.008 in and .010 in (0.20 mm - 0.254 mm), and teaches indentations, i.e., the longitudinal extending ridges, frequency from about 10 to 50 ridges per inch (about 4 to 20 ridges/indentations per cm), which falls within the claimed range’ see column 13, lines 13-32, (especially on lines 26-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Tissue Product and Method and Apparatus for Producing Same.”
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 Note that claim 4 is the same as claim 3. Note that if the dependency changes in any of those claims, e.g., claim 3 depending on claim 1, then the independent claim must be changed to support the phrase “the rake edge” that was only mentioned on claim 2.