Detailed Action
The communications received 11/08/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is unclear to the examiner why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to supply a tensile force on the un-embossed paper sheet above a tear strength of the embossed paper sheet when advancing the sheet to the printing station. Typically one of ordinary skill in the art desires to avoid nearing the tearing strength of the paper substrate of the process whether embossed or not. Setting the tension above the tear strength of the embossed version of the paper sheet runs the risk of causing a tear when the regular paper sheet is run through the printing process as any slight irregularity then in thickness etc. that might cause similar structural damage as embossing runs the risk of tearing in the printing process which causes process downtime. This feature is not anticipated nor obvious in light of the prior 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et al (WO 2004/047572) hereinafter ASH.
As for claim 1, ASH teaches a method of forming an embossed wrapper for a hygiene product (a wrapper which could be used for a hygiene product) [Abstract], the method comprising steps of:
advancing a plain, un-embossed paper sheet to a printing station [Fig. 1 #25; 0021-23], applying a deposit to the plain, un-embossed paper sheet to provide a coated, un-embossed paper sheet (applying the liquid dispersion) [0023],
drying the coated, un-embossed paper sheet [Fig. 1 #33; 0025],
moisturizing the coated, un-embossed paper sheet after the step of drying to provide a wetted, un-embossed paper sheet (via an additional printing which provides moisture) [Fig. 1 #27; 0026],
and embossing the wetted, un-embossed paper sheet to provide the embossed paper sheet (via the etched cylinder) [Fig. 1 #29; 0026-28]. Although it could be argued that printing step imparts an embossing, the examiner notes that the cylinder used in the printing step can include a surface that that only has recessed cells/grooves for the imparting of ink and that the amount of engraving that can be done on each imparted layer depends on desired air permeability and can explicitly have specified regions [0020; 0023-24; 0062].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have only performed the engraving after the moisturizing step as a means of controlling the desired air permeability of the initial layers versus the later layers, i.e. to only impart air permeability on the final layer.
As for claim 2, ASH teaches claim 1 and further drying the embossed paper sheet [Fig. 1 #37; 0028].
As for claim 3, ASH teaches claim 2 and wherein each step of drying is performed in an oven [0025].
As for claim 4, ASH teaches claim 2 and wherein each step of drying is performed in a separate oven [Fig. 1 #33 and 37].
As for claim 5, ASH teaches claim 4 and the ovens can be set at different temperatures which is a different intensity/magnitude [0025].
As for claim 6, ASH teaches claim 1 and the application of a primer layer [00257].
As for claim 7, ASH teaches claim 6 and the applying of a release layer to the primer layer (as a salt which can be smoked off) [00257].
As for claim 8, ASH teaches claim 7 and wherein the step of applying the deposit includes applying a heat seal layer to the release layer (as hydrated salts can be added which protect against burning) [0072; 00419].
As for claim 9, ASH teaches claim 8 and as this occurs during the application of the printing, it is understood include applying an ink layer [0023; 0026; 0072].
As for claims 19-20 this is substantially the apparatus present in claim 1 and ASH further teaches and infrared heater (optical detection devices which have near-infrared detection, therefore at least some heat is imparted along with heated rollers) [0030]. The examiner notes that the composition of the article worked upon does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art [MPEP 2115].
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et al (WO 2004/047572) hereinafter ASH in view of Boehmer et al (US 2010/0311296) hereinafter BOE.
As for claim 10, ASH teaches claim 8 but fails to teach a flipping and application of a second primer layer and a second heat seal layer, although the examiner notes that the additional printing of a printing composition would have these components [0072; 00419]. ASH additionally teaches that a coating/printing can be applied to both sides [0064].
BOE teaches that when producing an inked paper sheet (sheet cellulose product with ink applied) [Abstract] that the flipping of the sheet can be done to apply the composition to the other side [0192].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have flipped the paper sheet of ASH as BOE teaches that this is an acceptable manner of applying a composition to the other side of a paper sheet. As both ASH and BOE pertain to the art of applying ink to paper sheets they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 11 ASH/BOE teaches claim 10 and it is understood that it would achieve the application of first and second ink layer application as multiple ink printing steps are performed [see claim 1].
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et al (WO 2004/047572) hereinafter ASH in view of Lindsay et al (US 2004/0020614) hereinafter LIN.
As for claim 12, ASH teaches claim 1 and that multiple techniques can be used to apply the coating [0019].
However ASH does not teach immersing through a reservoir.
LIN teaches that known manners of applying a coating to a sheet that includes printing also includes passing the paper sheet through a reservoir of composition [Abstract; 0127]. Therefore the immersion through a reservoir serves as a substitute for the additional printing which is performed as a moisturizing step in ASH.
In accordance with the MPEP a simple substitution with an expectation of reasonable success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the immersion through a reservoir technique of LIN as the one to impart a coating in ASH as LIN teaches that this is an acceptable manner of coating and therefore serves as a substitution with the expected result of achieving a coating. As both ASH and LIN pertain to applying a coating to a sheet they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 13, ASH/LIN teaches claim 12 and ASH further teaches that the moisturizing step and further include spraying liquid as an additional treatment [0019]. Since the spraying could be an additional treatment this is understood to occur after the immersion in the reservoir of liquid.
As for claim 14, ASH/LIN teaches claim 12, it is understood that as a continuous process [ASH: 0020-21; 0026-28] that there would be a limited amount of time that the paper sheet would be submerged in the reservoir, and in addition there is desired a specific amount of moisturizing amount applied to the printing paper [ASH: 0089]. Therefore there would be a predetermined moisture reached based on the solvent used to achieve a desired amount of moisturizing composition [ASH: 0082; 0089-90].
As for claim 15, ASH/LIN teaches claim 13 and there is desired a specific amount of moisturizing amount applied to the printing paper [ASH: 0089]. Therefore there would be a predetermined moisture reached based on the solvent used to achieve a desired amount of moisturizing composition [ASH: 0082; 0089-90].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcraft et al (WO 2004/047572) hereinafter ASH in view of Lehrter et al (US 2003/0213548) hereinafter LEH.
As for claim 16, ASH teaches claim 1 but doesn’t teach the metallic roller and rubber roller used in embossing.
LEH teaches that when embossing and applying a coating at high speed that one manner of roller arrangement is to utilize a metallic roller and a rubber coated roller [Abstract; 0052; 0057]. This arrangement allows for reduced damage to the rollers surface [0057].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the roller arrangement of LEH to emboss in ASH in order to reduce the damage caused to the surface of the embossing roller. As the rollers of LEH also participate in coating (transfer) and used in embossing they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights