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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al., (hereafter Lang), US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0047781 A1, as evidenced by Zawadzki et al, (hereafter Zawadzki), US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/025 Zawadzki A1 and further evidenced by any of Boettcher et al., (hereafter Boettcher), United State Patent No. 7,959,761 B2 and Soerens, United State Patent No. 4,528,316 just to cite a couple.
With regard to claims 1, 5, and 10-13, Lang teaches that the web can be made by conventional wet press and creped, see ¶-[0093], which teaches that the web can be made using the wet-pressing process of United State Patent No. 9,896,805 (Timm et al., (hereinafter Timm)), which teaches the same process steps as claimed:
Forming a slurry of cellulosic fibers;
Adding the slurry to a forming fabric to forma wet web;
Pressing the wet web to dewater it;
Adding a and adhesive/release agent to a drying cylinder, a Yankee Dryer;
Drying the wet pressed web in a drying cylinder, and;
Creping the dried web to form a tissue ply; see column 6, line 22 through column 8, line 11 of Timm
Lang teaches the addition of a lotion, a softening agent, to the already formed creped tissue; see below; and
Lang Teaches the plying of the web to form a multi-ply tissue; see below.
Lang teaches a lotion treated creped tissues, having plies (¶-[0022] and [0103]) that could be made by conventional wet-pressing (¶-0093]) and each ply having basis weight (¶-[0012], [0018], and [0091]) falling within the claimed range of claims 11 through 13 and including a softening agent disposed at least the first or second outer surface (¶-[0008], [0015], [0082] and [0087]). The tissue having properties, e.g., GMT and TS7, that fall within the claimed range of claims 10; see abstract, ¶-[0008] and [0068] for the softening composition; [0027] and [0034] for the TS7; [0011] and [0025] for the GMT. While Lang does not explicitly teach a three-ply tissue, Lang teaches multi-ply tissues of basis weight of less than 100 gsm; see ¶-[0091], which for a three ply each would have basis weight greater than 14.0 gsm as claimed and thus the making of a three-ply product with the tissues of the reference would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success in the making of three- ply tissue with the tissues of the reference (reading on claims 11-13). Lang teaches that the composition includes a polysiloxane a polyhydroxy and Glycerin; see ¶-[0008] and on ¶-[0068] teaches the use of a fatty-alkyl derivative (a surfactant), e.g., TERGITOL® (same as disclosed on ¶-[0077] of the current application) (reading on claim 5).
Regarding to claims 2-4, as discussed above Lang teaches the plying of the web, i.e., teaches multi-ply creped tissues; see above. As Lang teaches that the web can be creped and wet-pressed; see for example ¶-[0093] and it is well-known in the art the use of an adhesive and a release agent added to the surface of the Yankee cylinder or the surface of the before the web is creped. While Lang does not teach the add-on of adhesive/release agent composition to the Yankee dryer, Zawadzki teaches that creping composition can be added at rate/add-on at levels falling within the claimed range, since Zawadzki teaches add-on of 5 mg/m2 to 2000 mg/m2 and preferably between 5 to 100 mg/m2; see ¶-[0061]-[0062]. Zawadzki also teaches the use of PAE in the composition. Both Boettcher and Soerens teach that the claimed creping composition are common in the art and thus using the add-on range taught by Zawadzki and using the known creping as taught by the references, Zawadzki, Boettcher (paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5, which teach a blend of PVOH, PAE and quaternary ammonium complex as a creping adhesive/release agent and column 13, line 5 through column 17, line 52) and Soerens (column 1, line 40 – column 2, line 15 and example I starting on column 3, which teach a blend of PVOH (a film forming, which acts as the release agent, and PAE), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if such known creping compositions were used to crepe the web/tissue taught by Lang. Note that optimizing the ratio of creping and release agent of the composition is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. It has been held that “[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Note that the relative amounts amount of creping adhesive and release agents, since the secondary references teach that a range of each component on the blend/mixture, which indicates that changing the amount of each component in the mixture will affect the adhesion on the dryer.
With regard to claim 6, Lang teaches that the composition includes a polysiloxane a polyhydroxy and Glycerin; see ¶-[0008] and on ¶-[0068] teaches the use of a fatty-alkyl derivative (a surfactant), e.g., TERGITOL® (same as disclosed on ¶-[0077] of the current application) and teaches that the relative amount/ratio of each compound can be varied to achieve desired property/properties of the tissue product; see ¶-[0064] and thus changing the ratio of the different materials in the composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Lang’s teaching. Note also that the beneficial components are optional since the lower limit is zero (0). Moreover, Lang teaches the use of beneficial agents of the same type as claimed, e.g., aloe vera, vitamin-E; see ¶-[0076].
Regarding to claims 7-8, while Lang teaches away from using of quaternary ammonium compounds in the surface of the paper/tissue. However, the secondary references, see for example Boettcher, column 9, lines 14-40, teaches that the use of wet-strength agent and quaternary ammonium in the papermaking slurry is common in the art and therefore, adding such compounds to the papermaking slurry taught by Lang would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if such components were used in the papermaking slurry taught by Lang.
With regard to claim 9, Lang teaches the use of hardwood and softwood; ¶-[0092] and on ¶-[0105] teaches the layering of kraft softwood and the eucalyptus, the hardwood.
Regarding to claims 14-15, since the combination of references teach the same process of making, which produce a tissue having similar properties, i.e., the ones measured, then the non-measured properties must be assumed to be inherent to the combination. 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). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Soft Treated Tissue Product”
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 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 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