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, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Disclosed is/are,” 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 18-19 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 Maladen et al., (hereinafter Maladen), US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0230337 A1.
With regard to claim 18, Maladen teaches a process of making a tissue including all the claimed process steps, see figures 7-9:
Depositing a dilute fiber suspension onto a foraminous wire/fabric/belt of a papermaking machine to form a wet web/tissue; ¶-[0148]-[0149];
Partially dewatering the wet web supported on a patterned belt a TAD fabric/belt (described on ¶-[0131]), the Molding member, said molding member comprising depressions arranged on cross-machine direction (¶-[0132]), where the wet web is further dewatered in a press nip, i.e., wet pressed; ¶-[0151]-[0154];
The wet-pressed molded web is then dried on a cylindrical dryer, a Yankee dryer and creped using a doctor blade, to form a molded, wet pressed (¶-[0157]) and creped tissue comprising substantially CD oriented elements; ¶-[0132], [0154]-[0161] and figures 3A-3C and 4A-4D.
Regarding to claim 19, Maladen teaches that the line element(s) has/have sinusoidal shape; see figures 3A-3C and 4A-4D and having wavelength and amplitude falling within the claimed range; see ¶-[0009] and [0017], which teach wavelength (hereinafter WL) in a range 0>WL>2000 mils (converts to 0<WL<50.8 mm) and amplitude (hereinafter AM) between 0<AM<190 mils (coverts to 0<AM<4.83 mm).
It seems that Maladen teaches all the limitations of the 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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maladen et al., (hereinafter Maladen), US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0230337 A1, cited above.
With regard to claims 1 and 13-15, Maladen teaches a method of making tissue and tissue made thereof. The process of making the tissue is the same as claimed or at the very least very similar, including the use of the same type of molding belt, structuring belt , a TAD belt; see above. While the product of the reference measured only the basis weight between 15 g/m2 to 120 g/m2 (¶-[0044]) and bulk, since the reference teaches the sheet density between (0.01 g/cm3 to 0.20 g.cm3) (¶-[0049]) and bulk=1/density (5 cm3/g to 100 cm3/g), both falling within the claimed range, then the other non-measured properties, such as the stiffness index of claims 1 and 15, GMT of claim 13, the geometric mean slope of claim 14, must be inherently the same or within the claimed range as-well, since as stated above the process is the same including the use of the same/similar molding structured belt.
Regarding to claims 2-4, 8-9, 11, 17, Maladen shows on figures 1-A-1D, 3A-3C and 4A-4D, continuous and/or discrete that can be sinusoidal wave of claim 11 ( see figure 3A and ¶-[0081]-[0082]) of the line elements which are oriented on the cross-machine direction (CD) and are equally separated in the machine direction (MD) parallel to each other (for claim 2 and 17; see ¶-[0093]), and spaced at a range falling within the range of claim 3; see (¶-[0102] which teaches spacing between 5 to 100 mils (0.127 mm to 2.54 mm). Maladen also teaches that the line elements are oriented at angle falling within the range of claim 4; see ¶-[0007] and have wavelength falling within the range of claim and amplitude also falling with the range of claim 9; see ¶-[0009] and [0017], which teach wavelength (hereinafter WL) WL) in a range 0>WL>2000 mils (converts to 0<WL<50.8 mm) and amplitude (hereinafter AM) between 0<AM<190 mils (converts to 0<AM<4.83 mm).
With regard to claims 5 and 16, Maladen teaches that the elements can have different shapes, such as circular, i.e., a dot, or elliptical; see ¶-[0082].
Regarding to claims 6-7 and 10, while Maladen is silent with regard to the size of the circular or elliptical dimensions and the cover area of the elements, choosing the size, shape and area covered by the line elements is/are considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art as obvious optimization of the product property/properties, e.g., stiffness, softness and/or just aesthetic, and thus considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected result.
Regarding to claims 12 and 20, Maladen teaches the embossing and plying of the tissue; see ¶-[0090], [0108], [0125] and [0174] which teaches the embossing and plying two tissues to form a multi-ply (2-ply) tissue. Note that for claim 20 as explained above the properties of the tissue are inherent to the product of the reference.
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 Cross-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