Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/706,251

TOWEL PRODUCTS COMPRISING REGENERATED CELLULOSE FIBER

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Priority
Nov 01, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTUS2021057527 +1 more
Examiner
KRUER, KEVIN R
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
27%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
Est. Remaining
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 27% of cases
27%
Career Allowance Rate
213 granted / 799 resolved
-38.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
860
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
§112
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 799 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 7/15/2025 and 12/18/2024 have been fully considered. Initialed copies of said IDSs are enclosed herein. Drawings The drawings filed 4/30/2024 are accepted. 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 1-20 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. Specifically, the claims held to be indefinite because the specification does not contain objective methods by which the claimed “geometric mean slope” / “geometric mean modulus” (herein understood to be synonymous) and the claimed “geometric mean tensile strength” can be determined. The lack of a clear methodology by which said values can be calculated renders the claim indefinite. For example, with regards to the “geometric mean tensile strength”, said term is defined in paragraph 0034 as “the square root of the product of the machine direction tensile strength and the cross-machine direction tensile strength”. The claim does not specify how said value is determined, and limitations from the specification cannot be read into the claim. The tensile test in the specification (106 as published) further states that the majority of peak load values fall between 10 to 90 percent of the load cell's full-scale value, but fails to provide sufficient clarity how the test is conducted. With regards to the “geometric mean slope” / “geometric mean modulus” said term is defined in paragraph (0033) as ““Geometric Mean Slope” (GM Slope) generally refers to geometric mean modulus of a product and is equal to the square root of the product of machine direction slope and cross-machine direction slope.” Said definition does not specify which modulus. Furthermore, slope is measured as the gradient of the least-squares line fitted to the load-corrected strain points falling between a specimen-generated force of 70 to 157 grams (0.687 to 1.540 N) divided by the specimen width (0033). It is unclear, however, how the least square line is calculated and what calculation is associated with the “load-corrected” strain points. The specification states the slope “refer to the slope of the line resulting from plotting tensile versus stretch and is an output of the MTS TestWorks….” It is unclear how said “tensile” and “stretch” are determined and what assumptions may be part of MTS TestWorks. With regards to claim 9, said claim is further held to be indefinite because the manner in which the “Stiffness Index” is determined is indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Specifically, Stiffness Index is defined (0035) as the quotient of the geometric mean tensile slope dived by the geometric mean tensile strength. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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. /KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12550643
NOVEL OXIDANTS AND STRAINED-RING PRECURSORS
4y 7m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546012
Zn-PLATED HOT STAMPED PRODUCT
3y 1m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528977
Magnetic Adhesive for Use on Skin
1y 2m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12503630
ORGANOPOLYSILOXANE COMPOSITION HAVING PRESSURE-SENSITIVE ADHESIVE LAYER FORMATION PROPERTIES, AND USE OF SAID COMPOSITION
3y 10m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12473460
CROSSLINKED POLYOLEFIN RESIN FOAM, ADHESIVE TAPE, LAYERED BODY, MOLDING, AND DISPLAY MEMBER
3y 7m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
27%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+29.7%)
4y 2m (~2y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 799 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month