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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/04/2026.
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) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gonzalez et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0064865 as evidenced by Applicants supplied conversion chart from IDS filed on 10/16/2024 (already of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Gonzalez teaches a method of making a stretchable packaging material (Gonzalez teaches a tissue that has a stretch [0134 and 0138] that is capable of being used as a packaging material – it is also noted that the preamble of the claims is given full weight when the body of the claims breaths life into the limitations otherwise it is considered an intended use of the product), the method comprising:
Producing a cellulose layer from a refined wood pulp [0049], wherein the refined wood pulp has been refined to a reefing degree of at least about 70- SR (Gonzalez teaches a range as low as 50 ml Canadian Standard Freeness, according to the supplied conversion chart by the applicant in the IDS filed on 10/16/2024 this equates to a SR value of 80); and
Subjecting the cellulose layer to a wet creping process [0138-0140].
Regarding claim 6, Gonzalez further teaches that the dry weight of the cellulose fiber of 50 ml CSF is 1-60% (see claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0064865 as evidenced by Applicants supplied conversion chart from IDS filed on 10/16/2024 (already of record) in view of Veverka et al, US Patent Publication 2023/0127264.
Regarding claims 3-5, Gonzalez teaches the use of NBSK [0049] but is silent on the blend of the NBSK coming from Canada and Scandinavia.
In the same field of endeavor, Veverka teaches that the base paper can be blends of softwoods [0020] and gives a tables worth of different NBSK pulps to select from (see table 1 and [0021-0022]) that include examples form Canada and Scandinavia as both great examples with the provided physical properties (see table 1).
While a specific ratio is not provided for the blend of Canadian and Scandinavian examples the basic blend percentages given in [0020-0022] would provide a starting area to optimize when trying to combine the two different sourced pulps for blending purposes. A 1:1 ratio would be the obvious place to begin an optimization on this regards (which reads on the 1:4 – 4:1 range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a blend of the conventional NBSK pulps as taught by Veverka in the Gonzalez method that simply teaches the use of NBSK for the benefit of utilizing conventional and commonly known starting materials in the process.
Evidence for a showing of unexpected results from utilizing pulp from Scandinavia and Canada in the specifically claimed rage would need to be provided for consideration of more than routine optimization.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0064865 as evidenced by Applicants supplied conversion chart from IDS filed on 10/16/2024 (already of record) in view of Kormann et al, US Patent Publication 2014/0107229.
Regarding claims 7-9, Gonzalez teaches the act of adding a retention and drainage item into the creped cellulose layer [0059] but is silent on the specific use of one of the claimed glycerides.
In the same field of endeavor of papermaking [0010], Kormann teaches that unsaturated mono or diglycerides [0024] are utilized for the benefit of controlling the foaming and act as a stabilizer of the papermaking stock [0077] with the cationic emulsion [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a the time of the invention to utilize the specific stabilizer as taught by Kormann in the Gonzalez method or he benefit of utilizing a conventionally known additive in the same manner to arrive at the same predicable end result.
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