DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/26/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 21-36 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) in view of SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1).
For claim 1, SAAS teaches a multiply fibrous paper with 2 to 6 plies made of cellulosic fibers [abstract and 0032]. This teaches the limitation of “A multi-ply paper product comprising, at least two cellulosic fibrous plies”. SAAS also teaches a ply with macroembossments (element 14) and microembossments (element 13) [Fig 2 and 0047-50]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a first ply comprises an emboss pattern with both microembossments and macroembossments,”. SAAS also teaches another ply with microembossments only [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a second ply comprises an emboss pattern with only microembossments,”. SAAS 2 teaches a similar multiply paper with micro and macroembossments [0047-50]. SAAS 2 also teaches the two plies are attached at the microembossments [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “and wherein the first ply and the second ply are joined together at tips of the microembossments on the first ply to tips of the microembossments on the second ply”. SAAS 2 teaches the paper of the invention have properties like good textile-like flexibility and high liquid absorbency [0087]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the embossment interactions of SAAS 2 into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of good textile-like flexibility and high liquid absorbency as taught by SAAS 2.
For claim 2, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS 2 teaches an embodiment where the plies are combined at the aligned microembossments [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second ply comprises a pattern of microembossments that substantially matches the pattern of microembossments on the first ply”.
For claim 3, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS 2 teaches an embodiment where the plies are combined at the aligned microembossments [Fig 2]. SAAS 2 further teaches the plies are glued together [0048]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first and second plies are joined together at the tips of the microembossments on the first ply to the tips of the microembossments on the second ply by glue lamination”.
For claim 4, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the product can have 2 plies [0032]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a two-ply product.
For claim 5, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS 2 teaches embodiments where macro embossments and microembossments do not overlap creating a void in points between microembossments [Fig 3]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the microembossments on the first ply are located in the negative spaces between the macroembossments on the first ply such that the microembossments and the macroembossments on the first ply do not overlap”.
For claim 8, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the product is a facial toilet [0082]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is one of a napkin, paper towel, facial tissue, or toilet tissue”.
For claim 9, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the tissue is rolled [0078]. SAAS 2 teaches the first layer and second layer are interchangeable in order [Fig 7 and 8]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a rolled product and wherein the first ply faces the outside of the rolled product”.
For claim 10, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 9, as above. SAAS teaches the product is a rolled toilet tissue [0078]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a rolled paper towel or rolled toilet tissue product”.
For claim 11, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the product can be folded [0135]. SAAS 2 teaches the first layer and second layer are interchangeable in order [Fig 7 and 8]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a folded product and wherein the first ply faces the outside of the folded product”.
For claim 12, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the product is a napkin [0032] and can be folded [0135]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a folded napkin product”.
For claim 13, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 11, as above. SAAS teaches the product is a napkin [0032] and can be folded [0135]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a folded napkin product”.
For claim 14, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches product has a basis weight of 10 to 30 g/m2 (equivalent to 6.14 to 18.43 lb/ream). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the basis weight of the product is from about 15 to about 25 lbs./ream”.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) and SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1) in view of MULLER (WO 02103112 A1).
For claim 6, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 5, as above. SAAS teaches an embodiment with a discontinuous macroembossment surrounding microembossments [0162 and Fig 3b]. MULLER teaches a similar combination of micro and macro embossments [. MULLER teaches an embodiment where a continuous macroembossment (element 46) surrounds microembossments (element 24) [Fig 5d]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first ply comprises at least one continuous macroembossment with microembossments located in the interior of the at least one continuous macroembossment”. MULLER also teaches the product has high softness and bulk [page 2]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the embossment pattern of MULLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of high softness and bulk as taught by MULLER.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) and SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1) in view of HEATH (US 6331228 B1).
For claim 7, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS and SAAS 2 is silent to the degree of offset of the macroembossment pattern. HEATH teaches a similar absorbent paper with micro and macroembossments [col 7 line 32]. HEATH teaches the product can be multilayer [col 5 line 8]. HEATH further teaches the pattern has a machine direction offset of more than 10° to less than 170° [col 18 line 64]. This range is within the claim range of “wherein the first ply comprises a pattern of macroembossments that is offset from the machine direction by at least about 5°”. HEATH teaches the product has a high-softness [col 5 line 18]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the embossment pattern of HEATH into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of high softness as taught by HEATH.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) and SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1) in view of MILLER (US 20130029105 A1).
For claim 17, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS does not teach the saturation capacity of the tissue. MILLER teaches a similar embossed multiply tissue [0176]. MILLER teaches the tissue has an SAT capacity of 548 g/m2 [Table 26]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the product has an SAT capacity of from about 400 to about 600 g/m2”. MILLER teaches the features of the invention improve the softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry [0184]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the SAT capacity of MILLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of improved softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry as taught by MILLER.
For claim 18, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS does not teach the saturation capacity of the tissue. MILLER teaches a similar embossed multiply tissue [0176]. MILLER teaches the tissue has an SAT capacity of 548 g/m2 [Table 26]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the product has an SAT capacity of from about 450 to about 550 g/m2”. MILLER teaches the features of the invention improve the softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry [0184]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the SAT capacity of MILLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of improved softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry as taught by MILLER.
For claim 19, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS does not teach the tensile strength of the tissue. MILLER teaches a similar embossed multiply tissue [0176]. MILLER teaches the tissue has a tensile strength of 1480 g/3 in [Table 25A]. This value abuts the claim range of “wherein the product has an MD tensile strength of from about 1500 g/3 in to about 3000 g/3 in”. MILLER teaches the features of the invention improve the softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry [0184]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the tensile strength of MILLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of improved softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry as taught by MILLER.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) and SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1) in view of RUTHVEN (US 20030138597 A1).
For claim 15, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS does not teach the product caliper. RUTHVEN teaches a similar embossed tissue paper [0056 and 0019] RUTHVEN teaches the base sheet has different calipers based on the engagement of different embossment designs [0083]. RUTHVEN also teaches an embodiment where the individual sheet has a caliper of 24 mils (equivalent to 128 mils for 8 plies) [0083]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the caliper of the product is from about 90 mils/8 sheets to about 200 mils/8 sheets”. RUTHVEN teaches the embossments of the invention provide better cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment [col 20 line 14]. It would be obvious to one skilled in to substitute the embossments of RUTHVEN into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment as taught by RUTHVEN.
For claim 16, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS does not teach the product caliper. RUTHVEN teaches a similar embossed tissue paper [0056 and 0019] RUTHVEN teaches the base sheet has different calipers based on the engagement of different embossment designs [0083]. RUTHVEN also teaches an embodiment where the individual sheet has a caliper of at least 15 mils (equivalent to 120 mils for 8 plies) [0083]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the caliper of the product is from about 110 mils/8 sheets to about 125 mils/8 sheets”. RUTHVEN teaches the embossments of the invention provide better cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment [col 20 line 14]. It would be obvious to one skilled in to substitute the embossments of RUTHVEN into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment as taught by RUTHVEN.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAAS (US 20190021553 A1) and SAAS 2 (US 20150184342 A1) in view of RUTHVEN (US 20030138597 A1) and MILLER (US 20130029105 A1).
For claim 20, SAAS and SAAS 2 teach the multi-ply paper product of claim 1, as above. SAAS teaches the product is a napkin [0032] and can be folded [0135]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product is a folded napkin product”. SAAS teaches product has a basis weight of 10 to 30 g/m2 (equivalent to 6.14 to 18.43 lb/ream). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the basis weight of the product is from about 15 to about 25 lbs./ream”.
SAAS does not teach the product caliper. RUTHVEN teaches a similar embossed tissue paper [0056 and 0019] RUTHVEN teaches the base sheet has different calipers based on the engagement of different embossment designs [0083]. RUTHVEN also teaches an embodiment where the individual sheet has a caliper of at least 15 mils (equivalent to 120 mils for 8 plies) [0083]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the caliper of the product is from about 110 mils/8 sheets to about 125 mils/8 sheets”. RUTHVEN teaches the embossments of the invention provide better cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment [col 20 line 14]. It would be obvious to one skilled in to substitute the embossments of RUTHVEN into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of cleansing of the skin than a typical embossment as taught by RUTHVEN.
MILLER teaches a similar embossed multiply tissue [0176]. MILLER teaches the tissue has an SAT capacity of 548 g/m2 [Table 26]. This value is within the claim range of “wherein the product has an SAT capacity of from about 450 to about 550 g/m2”. MILLER teaches the features of the invention improve the softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry [0184]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the SAT capacity of MILLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of improved softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry as taught by MILLER.
SAAS does not teach the tensile strength of the tissue. MILLER teaches a similar embossed multiply tissue [0176]. MILLER teaches the tissue has a tensile strength of 1480 g/3 in [Table 25A]. This value abuts the claim range of “and wherein the product has an MD tensile strength of from about 1500 g/3 in to about 3000 g/3 in”. See 2144.05(I). MILLER teaches the features of the invention improve the softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry [0184]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the tensile strength of MILLER into the structure of SAAS. One would be motivated the combine the art based on the added benefit of improved softness, strength, and resistance to linting when wet or dry as taught by MILLER.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
