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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 24, 2026 , has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitations of the different shapes of the knuckles and/or pillows are not supported by the specification, since there is nothing in the specification that teaches such feature(s).
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 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 1-6, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maladen et al., (hereafter Maladen), WO 2016/022618 A1.
With regard to claims 1, 8-11 and 16-20, Maladen discloses a fibrous structure comprising a plurality of wet formed knuckles extending from a pillow surface of the fibrous structure, wherein the plurality of discrete knuckles are arranged in a pattern of repeat units having substantially the same shape and same size. At least some of the discrete knuckles are arranged in a plurality of rows of adjacent knuckles wherein all the rows are oriented along either a Y-axis or an X-axis. The rows are not taken to be strictly straight rows but the rows may be curved such as in a sinusoidal pattern; see abstract, page 13, lines 1-5 and figures 6 and 10 (which shows sinusoidal pattern); page 4, line 17 through page 5, line 3 and paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6. While Maladen does not explicitly teach the wavelength and amplitude as claimed, optimizing the distance and frequency of the patterns is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. While the reference does not teach the different shapes of the knuckles and/or pillows1 as now claimed on claim 1, it has been held that “[C]hanges of size, shape, without functional significance are not patentable.” Research Corp. V. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358: 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974). While Maladen does not measure all the claimed properties, Maladen shows SST that falls within the claimed range; see Table 1 and claim 10 for example and teaches sheet density between 0.02 g/cm3 and 0.10 g/cm3, which correspond to sheet bulk between 50 cm3/g to 10 cm3/g (bulk= 1/density), also shows SST between 1.91 and 2.1 ( also shown on page 15 lines 1-5 and page 16, lines 4-9 which reads on claims 1 and last paragraph of page 16, discloses roll bulk greater than 4 cm3/g and compressibility of less than about 10% (reading on claim 11), since the process seems to be the similar if not the same molding/structuring belt/fabric, then it must be assumed that the other properties also falls within the claimed range. It has been held that “Where the claimed and prior art apparatus or product is identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, 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). In other words, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding to claims 2 and 12, see page 13, lines 1-5 and figures 6 and 10 shows sinusoidal pattern.
With regard to claims 3-5 and 13-15, while Maladen teaches sinusoidal pattern, see page 13, lines 1-5 and figures 6 and 10 for example, the reference is silent with regard to the amplitude and wavelength of the pattern; however as indicated above the optimization of the frequency and period, i.e., wavelength and amplitude of the wave, sinusoidal pattern is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. Note also that it has been held that “[C]hanges of size, shape, without functional significance are not patentable.” Research Corp. V. Nasco Industries, Inc., 501 F2d 358: 182 USPQ 449 (CA 7) cert. Denied 184 USPQ 193; 43 USLW 3359 (1974).
With regard to claim 6, Maladen teaches that the cells have uniform size and shape; see abstract and page 13, lines 1-5 and table 1 on page 11, shows that knuckles can be constant in size or can vary in size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are deemed not convincing, because as discussed above, of size, shape, without functional significance are not patentable, i.e., do not add patentable way to the claim(s) and applicants have not provided any evidence that such changes change the properties of the product, tissue, and only affects the aesthetic of the product. Note that the limitation was added to only claim 1 and does not affect independent claim 11 and therefore, even if applicants provides evidence that the limitation(s) affect the properties of the product, it will be only valid for claim 1 and its dependent claims and not for claim 11 and its dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Fibrous Structures.”
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 on 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
Prosecution Insights