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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/18/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USP 12,123,147 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/18/2026 have overcome the previously applied 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations of “the first and second embossed objects do not terminate at the same machine direction axis (MDA)” prevents “wrinkles and/or buckles” and that the Chu reference does not contemplate the reduction of wrinkles of buckles and therefore the average artisan would not find it obvious to modify the teachings of Chu to arrive at the same benefit.
This has not been found obvious in view of the fact that the reduction of wrinkles and/or buckles is not a claimed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The new limitation addresses a MDA. For purposes of continued examination the Examiner is considering the MDA to be the distance from the edge of the object int eh machine direction as depicted in figures 3 and 4. Ther term MDA is not provided a special or explicit definition in the instant specification so it is to be interpreted as one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand it upon viewing of figures 3 and 4 with the distances of each of the edge of the objects being located at a different distance than each other so that they do not terminate at the same point.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chu et al, US Patent Publication 2014/0134374.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Chu teaches a rolled product (see abstract), comprising:
an embossed pattern on a fibrous web (see figures and abstract), the embossed pattern comprising first (first emboss design element, item 14 [0022]) and second embossed objects ("other emboss elements", items 18 and 20 [0022]) and a logo (second emboss design element, item 16 for the brand name [0022]);
wherein the first embossed object (figure 2 item 14 is the repeating diamonds) has a first end or a first edge that is within a first CD distance of about 20 mm of the logo (see figure 2, more detail below); and
wherein the second embossed object (item S and 18 and 20 in figure 2 showing wavey dot pattern) has a second end or a second edge that is within a second CD distance of about 20 mm of the logo (see figure 2, more detail below); and
wherein the first and second embossed objects do not terminate at the same machine direction axis (see Figure 2 below with the yellow line being the edge of the first object and the blue line being the edge of the second object showing they are at different points in the machine direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chu teaches that figure 2 depicts a grid (item 26 [0026]) to determine the positioning of the different embossments and logos in order to keep a balanced embossing tool and an equal number of identifiers (logo) in each cut sheet [0026-0030].
This same area is presented in Figure 4 as well. It is stated in [0038] of Chu that the distance 58 (shown in figure 4 as half of the distance of the diamond in the MD) should be no greater than a quarter inch. This is one of the only measurements pretend in the discloser outside of the height of some of the embossments and the widths of the lines used to make up the letters of the logo (see claim 4).
We are left with how one of ordinary skill would interpret the figures of 4 and 2 to provide spatial understanding of the patterns even though the figures are not drawn to scale it is understood that the average artisan would understand basic relationships and positioning form them.
If the maximum distance of the lines in the MD of the diamonds is 6.35 mm (one quarter of an inch) as shown as distance 58 in figure 4 and then rotated to be shown in figure 2, then an assumption that the logo is within 20 mm of the other two embossments would be apparent considering the same gridded distance of half of the diamond can be at max 6.35 mm.
In the alternative, if it is argued that the distance cannot be surmised in an accurate manner, an obviousness rejection is presented. The act of selecting a pattern that can overlap has been shown by Chu. It is also shown that the different embossments can be modified as desired. The act of selecting where and what shape the embossments make is a matter of aesthetic design choice which has been found to be obvious to the average artisan (see MPEP 2144.04). A showing of criticality to the distance between embossments to provide a functional different in the rolled product would be taken into consideration if provided. Otherwise the Examiner is standing on the figures of Chu as sufficient to provide an obvious teaching of positioning the logo within 20 mm of the first and second embossments as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claims 2-3, 15, and 19, Chu further teaches that the CD distance is within 20 mm (see rejection above).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Chu further teaches wherein the second end or second edge of the second embossed object is at an angle, wherein the angle is from about 10 to about 50 (diamonds have an angle of approximately 45 degrees as shown in figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Chu further teaches wherein the logo is a collection of embossed letters (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Chu further teaches perforations that separate the fibrous web into a plurality of connected sheets (item 24 in figure 2 and [0030]).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Chu further teaches wherein at least one of the perforations overlaps the first embossed object (shown in figure 2).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 23-24, Chu further teaches wherein the embossed pattern comprises a plurality of closed forms selected from a group consisting of diamonds, rectangles, squares, circles, pentagons, hexagons, octagons, and combinations thereof (diamonds, see figure 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Chu further teaches wherein the rolled product is selected from paper towels and toilet paper [0031].
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Chu further teaches wherein the rolled product comprises a plurality of sheets separated by perforations, and wherein more than 50% of the plurality of sheets comprise logos identical to the logo (see figure 2 and [0030- 0035] teaches arranging the logo so it is present on every sheet when finished).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Chu further teaches wherein the fibrous web further comprises a molded pattern (pressed for the embossments reads on molded).
Regarding claim 13, Chu further teaches wherein a spatial relationship is formed between the first and second embossed objects and the logo, and wherein the spatial relationship is formed between third and fourth embossed objects and a second logo, wherein the first and second embossed objects are identical to the third and fourth embossed objects, respectively, and wherein the logo and the second logo are identical (see figure 2 and descriptions of pattern in [0031-0035]).
Regarding claims 14 and 28, the act of selecting where and what shape the embossments make is a matter of aesthetic design choice which has been found to be obvious to the average artisan (see MPEP 2144.04). A showing of criticality to the distance between embossments to provide a functional different in the rolled product would be taken into consideration if provided. Otherwise the Examiner is standing on the figures of Chu as sufficient to provide an obvious teaching of positioning the logo within about 3 mm of the first and second embossments as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claim 18, Chu further teaches that the embossed object is open (dot embossment of lines see figure 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights