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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “Disclosed,” “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Burazin et al., (hereinafter Burazin), US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0298560 A1.
With regard to claims 1, 8-12, 14-15 and 19-20, Burazin teaches a creped, wet pressed tissue having a first and a second surface in which one of the surface having a plurality of continuous molded elements, arranged substantially in the machine direction and having basis weight, sheet bulk and stiffness index properties falling within the claimed range (¶-[0029], [0031] and [0036]) respectively). Burazin also teaches that the continuous molded elements can have a substantially sinusoidal wave shape having wavelength and amplitude falling within the claimed range (reading on claims 8-9, and 14-15 and 19-20); see ¶-[0043], [0052], [0054], [0056] and [0061]. Burazin teaches that the web can be made by wet-creping, which is a wet-pressed process in which the wet web is pressed onto a drying cylinder and then creped, here the pressing and drying is done on the same stage and thus reading on claim 20; see ¶-[0043] and [0061].
Regarding to claim 2, Burazin teaches the angle of the continuous elements can vary from 1 to 20º, which falls within the claimed range; see ¶-[0063].
With regard to claim 3, Burazin teaches that the parallel line elements are equally spaced apart from one another in the CD direction and spaced in range between 1.0-10 mm; see ¶-[0052] and [0063].
Regarding to claims 4 and 16, Burazin discloses that the line elements, the discrete molded elements, can have other shapes, such as oval, i.e., elliptical, circular, etc.; see ¶-[0055]-[0056].
With regard to claim 7, Burazin shows in figures 2 and 4, tissues without non-discrete molded elements; see also ¶-[0025].
Regarding to claim 13, Burazin teaches that the web can have 2 to 3 plies and embossed; see ¶-[0073] and teaches that the tissue can be spirally wound; see also ¶-[0090].
It seems that Burazin teaches all the limitations of the above claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vogt et al., (hereinafter Vogt), US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0140119 A1.
With regard to claims 1-3, 11, 13 and 20, Vogt discloses a creped, wet pressed tissue (¶-[0054]) having a first and a second surface in which one of the surface having a plurality of continuous molded elements, arranged substantially in the machine direction (¶-[0093]) and having basis weight, sheet bulk and stiffness index properties falling within the claimed range; see figure 6-7 and ¶-[0006]-[0007] which teaches the basis weight, falling within eth range of claim1, and GMT falling within the claimed range of claim 11 and that the web is spirally wound; ¶-[0011] which teaches the GMT and sheet bulk and ¶-[0046] which teaches the stiffness index of less than about 10. Note that ¶-[0054] teaches that the tissue is made or can be made by the wet papermaking process, which as it is well-known includes the steps of claim 20; shown also on ¶-[0157]. Vogt also teaches that the web can be embossed, multi-ply and spirally wound (reading on claim13); see ¶-[0053] and [0092].
Regarding to claim 7, Vogt teaches and shown in figures 6 and 7, that the web is free of substantially non-discrete molded elements; see ¶-[0093].
With regard to claim 10; Vogt discloses that the continuous line elements comprises less than 20% of the tissue web surface; see ¶-[0052].
Regarding to claim 12, Vogt teaches Geometric mean slope of less than 15 kg; see ¶-[0044].
It seems that Vogt teaches all the limitations of above claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burazin, cited above.
With regard to claims 5-6 and 17-17, while Burazin teaches that the continuous molded elements can have different shapes; see ¶-[0056], such as oval and circular, Burazin is silent with regard to the dimensions of same shape. However, choosing the size, diameter, of the shape, is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Creped Tissue Products Having a Machine Direction Oriented Pattern.”
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 at 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