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 claims 1-13 in the reply filed on June 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites: in facing relation” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “in a facing relation.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “there between” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “therebetween.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites “first pattern” in line 1. The claim is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the first pattern.”
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnholtz (US 5919556).
With respect to claim 1, Barnholtz discloses an embossed multi-ply tissue product (abstr., col. 3, lines 46-57), comprising a first embossed tissue ply and a second embossed tissue ply arranged in a facing relation and defining an interior portion therebetween (col. 3, lines 47-57, col. 8, lines 48-59, Fig. 1B), a plurality of first embossments disposed on the first ply and arranged in a first pattern, the plurality of first embossments oriented towards the interior portion of the product – e.g. element 184 of layer 31 (Fig. 1B), and a plurality of second embossments disposed in the second ply and arranged in a second pattern, the second embossments oriented away from the interior portion of the product – element 184 of layer 32 (Fig. 1B), wherein the first and second patterns differ (col. 8, lines 48-59, Fig. 1B). Regarding the recitation “the second ply has a TS750 value that is at least about five times greater than the TS750 value of the first ply”, Barnholtz discloses that the second ply can be useful in scrubbing or scouring operations, while the surface of the first ply is relatively smooth (col. 8, lines 48-59); in a related embodiment shown in Fig. 1A, the second ply – element 32 has a texture value that is at least about 4.0 times the texture value of element 31 (col. 8, lines 34-47). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second ply has a TS750 overlapping the recited range.
Regarding claim 2, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1. Barnholtz discloses the first and second plies are creped, wet-pressed tissue plies (col. 6, lines 41-61).
As to claim 3, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1. Barnholtz discloses the basis weight of each ply between about 7 and about 60 lb/3000 square feet, or 12-15 lb/3000 square feet (col. 8, lines 27-30), thus, the basis weight of the product of Barnholtz comprising two tissue plies overlaps the range recited in claim 3; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding a sheet bulk as recited in the claim, Barnholtz discloses a caliper of each ply of about 20 mils (col. 9, lines 24-27), and the basis weight of about 12 to about 15 lb/3000 square feet (col. 8, lines 28-30), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sheet bulk of the product of Barnholtz overlaps the range recited in claim 3; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 8, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1. Barnholtz does not disclose specifically the TS750 values of a first outer product surface formed by the first ply and the TS750 value of a second outer product surface formed by the second ply as recited in the claim, however, Barnholtz discloses that the second ply can be useful in scrubbing or scouring operations, while the surface of the first ply is relatively smooth (col. 8, lines 48-59), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the TS750 values of the two surfaces in order to obtain the desirable properties of the surfaces.
Regarding claim 13, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1. Barnholtz discloses the first and second tissue plies are adhesively bonded to one another at a plurality of bonded regions (col. 4, lines 60-65).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnholtz, in view of Rekoske et al. (US 2020/0270813 A1) (“Rekoske”).
With respect to claim 4, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1, but is silent with respect to a caliper of the product as recited in the claim. Rekoske discloses a multi-ply tissue product having a caliper within the recited range, e.g. 333 µm, 310 µm, 305 µm, 275 µm (0007, 0101, Table 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the product of Barnholtz having a caliper as disclosed in Rekoske, as such caliper values are known in the art of multi-ply tissue products.
With respect to claim 5, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1, but is silent with respect to a GMT in a range as recited in the claim. Rekoske teaches a multi-ply tissue product (abstr.), wherein the product comprises a GMT within the recited range (0101, Table 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the product of Barnholtz having a GMT as the product of Rekoske as such GMT is known in the art of multi-ply tissue product.
Regarding claim 6, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the product having an average TS7 value as recited in the claim. Rekoske teaches a multi-ply tissue product (abstr.), wherein the product comprises a TS7 value of from about 7.0 to about 11.0 (0011); the range of Rekoske overlaps the range recited in claim 6; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the product of Barnholtz having a TS7 value as the product of Rekoske as such value is known in the art of multi-ply tissue products.
As to claim 7, Barnholtz and Rekoske teach the product of claim 6. Barnholtz discloses that a first outer product surface of the first ply – element 31 – is a relatively smooth surface that can be used for wiping while a second outer product surface of the second ply can be used for scrubbing or scouring operations (col. 8, lines, 48-59, Fig. 1B), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in Barnholtz the TS7 value of the first outer product surface formed by the first ply would be less than the TS7 value of a second outer product surface formed by the second ply.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnholtz, in view of Bauernfeind (US 4483728).
With respect to claim 9, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the first embossments covering from about 6 to about 15 percent of the first ply surface area and the second embossments covering from about 20 to about 50 percent of the second ply surface area. Bauernfeind discloses a multi-layer tissue product (abstr.), wherein the embossments cover from about 10% to about 40% of the surfaces (abstr., col. 3, lines 60-68, col. 4, lines 1-6). The percentage range overlaps the ranges with respect to the first embossments and the second embossments. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the product of Barnholtz with the first embossments covering the first ply surface and the second embossments covering the second ply surface in the percentage of the surface suggested by Bauernfeind, as such percentage range is known in the art of multi-layer tissue products.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnholtz, in view of Jeannot et al. (US 2015/0225903A1) (“Jeannot”) and Bauernfeind (US 4483728).
With respect to claim 11, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1, but is silent regarding the plurality of second embossments having a density as recited in the claim, and covering from about 20 to about 50% of the second ply surface area. Jeannot discloses a multi-ply tissue paper (abstr.), wherein a plurality of embossments has a density of from 30 to 100 /cm2 (0028), the density overlapping the recited range; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Bauernfeind discloses a multilayered tissue wherein embossments cover from about 10% to about 40% of the surface area (abstr., col. 3, lines 60-68, col. 4, lines 1-6). The percentage range overlaps the range recited in claim 11; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Jeannot discloses that the numbers, densities, and positions of embossments can be adjusted depending on the desired aesthetic effect (0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plurality of second embossments of Barnholtz having density and surface area as suggested in Jeannot and Bauernfeind in order to obtain a desired aesthetic effect.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnholtz, in view of Kershaw et al. (US 6348131 B1) (“Kershaw”).
With respect to claim 12, Barnholtz teaches the product of claim 1. Barnholtz discloses the plurality of second embossments have substantially identical shape (col. 3, lines 13-14, Fig. 4), but is silent with respect to the plurality of second embossments, wherein the shape is selected from the group consisting of circles, squares, rectangles, and diamonds. Kershaw discloses a multi-ply tissue product (abstr.), wherein a plurality of embossments can have a shape of circles, squares, or rectangles (col. 9, lines 17-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the shape of the plurality of second embossments of Barnholz as disclosed in Kershaw as changes in shape are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights