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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
53' is missing from Figure 4C
53’ seems to be replaced with 53’’’ with no explanation (i.e. 53’ missing from all drawings)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/04/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. It may be helpful to know that two documents in file wrapper places 41 (WO-2014200455-A1) and 79 (WO-2014200456-A1) were added as foreign documents but were not listed in the IDS and WO-2016195625 of IDS Foreign document citation number 42 had two of the same documents in positions 51 and 80 of the file wrapper. Additionally, NPL 116 within the file wrapper was a document without any information and from a different website than the IDS NPL citation number 22.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the 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,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Slip Stick is listed as having the units of dB V
Pages 58 through 61 are missing units for the different embodiment property values.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The units of "dB V2 rms” in claims 10 and 20 are used by the claim to mean “the units of the slip stick coefficient,” while the accepted units of measure for a slip stick coefficient is “(COF*10000).”
Slip Stick has units of (COF*10000) or none since it is a coefficient based. This was decided based on other prior art, and the patent that the testing method was derived from, US patent 9,896,806 as cited on page 151 in the instant disclosure. US patent 9,896,806 uses the units of (COF*10000) for the slip stick coefficient of friction which was consistent with other prior art (see e.g. Slip Stick Coefficient of Friction of less than 250 (COF*10000) as measured according to the Slip Stick Coefficient of Friction Test Method, in 2:42-55 of Ostendorf et al (US-9896806-B2)). It appears units from above claims, 9 and 19, were accidentally copied as the units of slip stick coefficient in error.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-7381297-B2) in view of the specification of Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-7381297-B2) as evidenced by Hu (US-6797114-B2). Hernandez-Munoa et al in both the claims and specification describe a fibrous substrate that can be used for sanitary tissues and towels, that may be creped or uncreped and requires the use of a 20-100 % short fiber. Additionally, Hernandez-Munoa et al and Hu are both hardwood tissue products that prioritize softness.
Regarding claim 1, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (layered fibrous structure in claim 1), comprising: a web (see e.g. fiber furnish in claim 1) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. comprising 64 % of the total fibers being short fibers selected from acacia fibers, eucalyptus fibers or a mixture, further having at least 20 to up to 100% by weight of total fibers contain acacia in claim 1); and wherein the web is through air dried (see e.g. fibrous structure is dried by through air dried in claim 5).
While quiet in the claims, Hernandez-Munoa et al does disclose that the web is further creped in the specification (see e.g. resulting tissue is then plied together with a like sheet to form a two-ply, creped, pattern densified tissue in 17:48-50).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layered fibrous structure as claimed in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the embodiment of the web being further creped as taught in the specification of Hernandez-Munoa et al because it creping ensures the acacia fibers(short fibers) are on the outside (see e.g. acacia fibers present on a surface of the fibrous structure in claim 1 in Hernandez-Munoa), maximizing softness, where controlling the location of the fibers via creping to ensure a higher amount of hardwood fibers on both the inside and outside, allows for undesirable sloughing to be reduced without sacrificing surface softness (see e.g. hardwood layer that faces the consumer, where outer layer with the hardwood fibers are soft due to the hardwood fibers in 1:53-57 in Hu, and hardwood layers on both the inside and outside further reduce sloughing without sacrificing softness 3:23-25 in Hu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Please note claim 1 includes product by process language regarding the recitation of “through-air-dried.” “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web is structured (see e.g. fibrous structure in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (layered fibrous structure in claim 1), comprising: a web (see e.g. fiber furnish in claim 1) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. comprising 64 % of the total fibers being short fibers selected from acacia fibers, eucalyptus fibers or a mixture, further having at least 20 to up to 100% by weight of total fibers contain acacia in claim 1); and wherein the web is structured (see e.g. fibrous structure in claim 1).
While quiet in the claims, Hernandez-Munoa et al does disclose that the web is further creped in the specification (see e.g. resulting tissue is then plied together with a like sheet to form a two-ply, creped, pattern densified tissue in 17:48-50).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layered fibrous structure as claimed in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the embodiment of the web being further creped as taught in the specification of Hernandez-Munoa et al because it creping ensures the acacia fibers(short fibers) are on the outside (see e.g. acacia fibers present on a surface of the fibrous structure in claim 1 in Hernandez-Munoa), maximizing softness, where controlling the location of the fibers via creping to ensure a higher amount of hardwood fibers on both the inside and outside, allows for undesirable sloughing to be reduced without sacrificing surface softness (see e.g. hardwood layer that faces the consumer, where outer layer with the hardwood fibers are soft due to the hardwood fibers in 1:53-57 in Hu, and hardwood layers on both the inside and outside further reduce sloughing without sacrificing softness 3:23-25 in Hu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web is through air dried (see e.g. fibrous structure is dried by through air dried in claim 5).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, and 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vieira et al (Impact of 5-Ply toilet paper configuration on its mechanical and absorption Properties, BioResource, Vol 15(4), 2020, pgs. 7475-7486).
Regarding claim 1, Vieira et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (see e.g. premium tissue paper in section “Introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7476), comprising: a web (see e.g. mixture of ingredients present as moving wet-web of fibers in section “introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7475) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. 85 % hardwood in section “Materials,” page 7478 and “Results and Discussion” page 7479-7480 and specifies hardwood is further shown to be short fibers by applicants definition of less than 1.0 mm in Figure 3); and wherein the web is through air dried (see e.g. introduction of TAD (through-air drying) technology in drying section of the tissue paper to produce final products with higher bulk, softness, and liquid absorption in section “introduction” paragraph 1, pgs. 7475-7476) and creped (see e.g. a creping blade is used, resulting in creped base paper in section “introduction” paragraph 1, pgs. 7476).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Vieira et al (Impact of 5-Ply toilet paper configuration on its mechanical and absorption Properties, BioResource, Vol 15(4), 2020, pgs. 7475-7486). Published in 2020
Please note claim 1 includes product by process language regarding the recitation of “through-air-dried.” “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Vieira et al teaches that the web is structured (see e.g. moving wet-web has water removed through pressing and through-air drying to obtain a paper structure and further a tissue structure in section “introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7475).
Regarding claim 11, Vieira et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (see e.g. premium tissue paper in section “Introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7476), comprising: a web (see e.g. mixture of ingredients present as moving wet-web of fibers in section “introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7475) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. 85 % hardwood in section “Materials,” page 7478 and “Results and Discussion” page 7479-7480 and specifies hardwood is further shown to be short fibers by applicants definition of less than 1.0 mm in Figure 3); and wherein the web is structured (see e.g. moving wet-web has water removed through pressing and through-air drying to obtain a paper structure and further a tissue structure in section “introduction,” paragraph 1, pg. 7475) and creped (see e.g. a creping blade is used, resulting in creped base paper in section “introduction” paragraph 1, pgs. 7476).
Regarding claim 12, Vieira et al teaches that the web is through air dried (see e.g. introduction of TAD (through-air drying) technology in drying section of the tissue paper to produce final products with higher bulk, softness, and liquid absorption in section “introduction” paragraph 1, pgs. 7475-7476).
Please note claim 12 uses product by process language regarding the recitation of “through-air-dried.” “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11-12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-20040163781-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (see e.g. sanitary tissue product in paragraph 11), comprising: a web (see e.g. embryonic web with fibers disperse in carrier liquid in paragraphs 28 and 59-60) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. Short fibers may be present in fibrous structure of level of at least 20 to up to 100% by weight of total fibers in paragraph 53); and wherein the web is through air dried (see e.g. fibers dried by through air dried in paragraph 74) and creped (see e.g. resulting tissue is then plied together with a like sheet to form a two-ply, creped, pattern densified tissue in paragraphs 142-143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Please note claim 1 includes product by process language regarding the recitation of “through-air-dried.” “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web is structured (see e.g. single layer embryonic fibrous web made into a fibrous structure in paragraphs 59-60).
Regarding claim 5, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the sanitary tissue product (see e.g. sanitary tissue product in paragraph 11) has a caliper greater than about 20 mils (see e.g. in one example it is shown to have 0.020-0.028 inches or (20-28 mils) in a two ply and four ply respectively in paragraph 143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web comprises a nonwood (see e.g. short fibers of the present invention may be derived from a fiber source selected from the group consisting of nonwood fibers such as Bagasse, Flax, Hemp, Kenaf and mixtures thereof in paragraph 66).
Regarding claim 11, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches a sanitary tissue product (see e.g. sanitary tissue product in paragraph 11), comprising: a web (see e.g. embryonic web with fibers disperse in carrier liquid in paragraphs 28 and 59-60) comprising at least about 85% short fibers by weight (see e.g. Short fibers may be present in fibrous structure of level of at least 20 to up to 100% by weight of total fibers in paragraph 53); and wherein the web is structured (see e.g. single layer embryonic fibrous web made into a fibrous structure in paragraphs 59-60) and creped (see e.g. resulting tissue is then plied together with a like sheet to form a two-ply, creped, pattern densified tissue in paragraphs 142-143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web is through air dried (see e.g. fibers dried by through air dried in paragraph 74).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 15, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the sanitary tissue product (see e.g. sanitary tissue product in paragraph 11) has a caliper greater than about 20 mils (see e.g. in one example it is shown to have 0.020-0.028 inches or (20-28 mils) in a two ply and four ply respectively in paragraph 143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web comprises a nonwood (see e.g. short fibers of the present invention may be derived from a fiber source selected from the group consisting of nonwood fibers such as Bagasse, Flax, Hemp, Kenaf and mixtures thereof in paragraph 66).
Claims 3, 6, 8, 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-20040163781-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Weisman et al (US-20130171421-A1) as evidenced by Vieira et al (Impact of 5-Ply toilet paper configuration on its mechanical and absorption Properties, BioResource, Vol 15(4), 2020, pgs. 7475-7486) and Textile Engineering (Properties and Uses of Jute Fibre, Textile Engineering, , https://textileengineering.net/properties-and-uses-of-jute-fibre/, 2023, printed webpages 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web comprises a first zone having a first density and a second zone having a second density (see e.g. yields pattern densified tissue with discontinuous low-density areas within continuous network of high density (knuckle) areas the knuckle area (area of the knuckles) is/are about 30% compared to the discontinuous low-density areas in paragraphs 139 and 150), however, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach about the difference between the first and second zone being at least 30 % different.
Weisman et al teaches that the first and second zones are at least about 30 % different (see e.g. density in one region can differ from the density in the other region in paragraph 66, and density of the network region can be from 0.05 g/cc to about 0.15 g/cc while the average density of the discrete zone can be from about 0.15 g/cc to about 0.80 g/cc in paragraph 98, which when density zones are compared it has a difference of 0% to 176% via the equation
(
h
i
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
-
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
(
h
i
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
+
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
2
)
and are calculated based on Table 4, which gives a more specific range of 27.3 – 84.4 % difference in densities between the two regions using the same equation).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
1056
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table 4: Highlighted densities and calculated percent difference of density regions from Weisman et al (US-20130171421-A1) Published in 2013
Hernandez-Munoa et al and Weisman et al are analogous in the art because both fibrous structures with two regions with different properties such as densities. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the areas of high and low density of the fibrous structure as taught by Hernandez-Munoa et al to have specific values of density differences taught in Weisman et al because it allows the fibrous substrate to begin to have the morphology of concave and convex regions through the material being more densely packed in the regions of high density (see e.g. high density in continuous network and pillows have relatively low density in paragraphs 92 and 427 of Weisman et al). This allows for greater absorption, entrapment of material, and favorable properties such as improved strength due to the two or more regions (see e.g. fibrous structures comprise two or more regions having distinct intensive properties for improved strength in paragraph 5 of Weisman et al).
Given the status in the art, it would have been obvious to try to increase the difference in densities between the two regions to at least 30 % because it had been established that up to 146.7 % difference was possible and effective as a densified fibrous structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach of a GM Dry Modulus.
Weisman et al teaches the sanitary tissue has a GM Dry Modulus less than 1000 g/cm (see e.g. suitable fibrous structures can exhibit a geometric mean modulus of about 2700 g/cm or less in paragraph 103).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous substrate disclosed in Hernandez-Munoa with the GM dry modulus taught in Weisman et al because the lower the dry modulus, the less stiff and more flexible the material for the sanitary tissue product would which is one of the desired qualities for tissue papers (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach the use of jutes within the web.
Weisman et al teaches that the web comprises jute (see e.g. natural fibers include those produced by plants, animals, and geological processes, such as hemp jute in paragraph 227).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the type of fibers taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al with the use of jutes as taught in Weisman et al because jutes have longer fibers of 650-750 mm that would qualify as a long fiber, allowing less softwood to be used, increasing sustainability, further jute’s physical properties are well suited for sanitary tissue paper, where they have a moderate elastic modulus, relatively soft, while maintaining a strength and durability from the fiber coarseness, and has moderate absorption (see e.g. Jute fibers have a fibre length of 650-750 mm, relatively soft to the touch, are coarse in texture, giving them strength and durability, are flexible, with moderate absorbency, and moderate elastic modulus that are regularly used in the paper industry in Textile Engineering pgs. 2-7) which are all desirable tissue paper properties (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
Regarding claim 13, Hernandez-Munoa et al teaches that the web comprises a first zone having a first density and a second zone having a second density (see e.g. yields pattern densified tissue with discontinuous low-density areas within continuous network of high density (knuckle) areas the knuckle area is about 30% in paragraphs 139 and 150), however, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach about the difference between the first and second zone being at least 30 % different.
Weisman et al teaches that the first and second zones are at least about 30% different (see e.g. density in one region can differ from the density in the other region in paragraph 66, and density of the network region can be from 0.05 g/cc to about 0.15 g/cc while the average density of the discrete zone can be from about 0.15 g/cc to about 0.80 g/cc in paragraph 98, which when density zones are compared it has a difference of 0% to 176% via the equation
(
(
h
i
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
-
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
)
(
h
i
g
h
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
+
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
2
)
) and are calculated based on Table 4, which gives a more specific range of 27.3 – 84.4 % difference in densities between the two regions using the same equation).
Hernandez-Munoa et al and Weisman et al are analogous in the art because both fibrous structures with two regions with different properties such as densities. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the areas of high and low density of the fibrous structure as taught by Hernandez-Munoa et al to have specific values of density differences taught in Weisman et al because it allows the fibrous substrate to begin to have the morphology of concave and convex regions through the material being more densely packed in the regions of high density (see e.g. high density in continuous network and pillows have relatively low density in paragraphs 92 and 427 of Weisman et al). This allows for greater absorption, entrapment of material, and favorable properties such as improved strength due to the two or more regions (see e.g. fibrous structures comprise two or more regions having distinct intensive properties for improved strength in paragraph 5 of Weisman et al).
Given the status in the art, it would have been obvious to try to increase the difference in densities between the two regions to at least 30 % because it had been established that up to 146.7 % difference was possible and effective as a densified fibrous structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach of a GM Dry Modulus.
Weisman et al teaches the sanitary tissue has a GM Dry Modulus less than 1000 g/cm (see e.g. suitable fibrous structures can exhibit a geometric mean modulus of about 2700 g/cm or less in paragraph 103).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous substrate disclosed in Hernandez-Munoa with the GM dry modulus taught in Weisman et al because the lower the dry modulus, the less stiff and more flexible the material for the sanitary tissue product would which is one of the desired qualities for tissue papers (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach the use of jutes within the web.
Weisman et al teaches that the web comprises jute (see e.g. natural fibers include those produced by plants, animals, and geological processes, such as hemp jute in paragraph 227).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the type of fibers taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al with the use of jutes as taught in Weisman et al because jutes have longer fibers of 650-750 mm that would qualify as a long fiber, allowing less softwood to be used, increasing sustainability, further jute’s physical properties are well suited for sanitary tissue paper, where they have a moderate elastic modulus, relatively soft, while maintaining a strength and durability from the fiber coarseness, and has moderate absorption (see e.g. Jute fibers have a fibre length of 650-750 mm, relatively soft to the touch, are coarse in texture, giving them strength and durability, are flexible, with moderate absorbency, and moderate elastic modulus that are regularly used in the paper industry in Textile Engineering pgs. 2-7) which are all desirable tissue paper properties (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-20040163781-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Barnholtz et al (US-20190063003-A1) as evidenced by Zawadzki et al (US-20180016749-A1) and Vieira et al (Impact of 5-Ply toilet paper configuration on its mechanical and absorption Properties, BioResource, Vol 15(4), 2020, pgs. 7475-7486).
Regarding claim 4, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach VFS properties.
Barnholtz et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a VFS greater than about 10 g/g (see e.g. article of present invention has a VFS of greater than 11.0 g/g in paragraph 193).
Hernandez-Munoa et al and Barnholtz are analogous in the art because both are fibrous structures that are used to make sanitary tissue products that additionally try to incorporate hardwood in the pulp. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue as taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by a high VFS value as taught in Barnholtz, because the value being tested with a VFS (vertical face side test) is liquid absorption where a high liquid absorption capacity is desirable in materials such as sanitary tissue papers that are used to clean, or carry away bodily fluids (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach a TS7 value to measure softness.
Barnholtz et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a TS7 less than about 12 dB V2 rms (see e.g. TS7 value of inventive tissue is less than 20 dB V2 rms for EMTEC TS7 outside, less than 27 dB V2 rms for EMTEC TS7 inside, where it is common for comparative examples to also be within the same range in Table 1-continued pg. 22).
PNG
media_image3.png
673
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Table 1: Highlighted TS7 values of Barnholtz et al (US-20190063003-A1) Published in 2019
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the TS7 value taught in Barnholtz et al because a lower TS7 value translates to the paper being softer (see e.g. measured TS7 where lower values indicate softer products in paragraph 39 of Zawadzki et al), which is preferable by customers when using on their skin (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach VFS properties.
Barnholtz et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a VFS greater than about 10 g/g (see e.g. article of present invention has a VFS of greater than 11.0 g/g in paragraph 193).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue as taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by a high VFS value as taught in Barnholtz, because the value being tested with a VFS (vertical face side test) is liquid absorption where a high liquid absorption capacity is desirable in materials such as sanitary tissue papers that are used to clean, or carry away bodily fluids (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach a TS7 value to measure softness.
Barnholtz et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a TS7 less than about 12 dB V2 rms (see e.g. TS7 value of inventive tissue is less than 20 dB V2 rms for EMTEC TS7 outside, less than 27 dB V2 rms for EMTEC TS7 inside, where it is common for comparative examples to also be within the same range in Table 1-continued pg. 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the TS7 value taught in Barnholtz et al because a lower TS7 value translates to the paper being softer (see e.g. measured TS7 where lower values indicate softer products in paragraph 39 of Zawadzki et al), which is preferable by customers when using on their skin (see e.g. high values of bulk, flexibility, liquid absorption capacity, and softness are common properties for tissue papers in abstract on pg. 7475 of Vieira et al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Munoa et al (US-20040163781-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ostendorf et al (US-20180051420-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach slip stick value.
Ostendorf et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a slip stick of less than about 500 (COF*10000) (see e.g. in multiple embodiments the slip stick coefficient of friction is less than 500 (COF*10000) in paragraphs 7-22).
Hernandez-Munoa et al and Ostendorf et al are analogous in the art because both are fibrous substrates being employed as sanitary tissue products that may be used with hardwood pulp. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the slip stick coefficient of friction taught in Ostendorf et al because it is favorable for friction to be decreased so that the customer’s expectations for surface smoothness are maintained (see e.g. when surface smoothness of a sanitary tissue product is increased, the cushiness is decreased, resulting in products falling short of consumers’ expectations. One solution is improving (i.e. decreasing) the slip stick coefficient of friction properties in paragraphs 2-3 of Ostendorf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Hernandez-Munoa et al does not teach slip stick value.
Ostendorf et al teaches that the sanitary tissue has a slip stick of less than about 500 (COF*10000) (see e.g. in multiple embodiments the slip stick coefficient of friction is less than 500 (COF*10000) in paragraphs 7-22).
Hernandez-Munoa et al and Ostendorf et al are analogous in the art because both are fibrous substrates being employed as sanitary tissue products that may be used with hardwood pulp. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sanitary tissue taught in Hernandez-Munoa et al by the slip stick coefficient of friction taught in Ostendorf et al because it is favorable for friction to be decreased so that the customer’s expectations for surface smoothness are maintained (see e.g. when surface smoothness of a sanitary tissue product is increased, the cushiness is decreased, resulting in products falling short of consumers’ expectations. One solution is improving (i.e. decreasing) the slip stick coefficient of friction properties in paragraphs 2-3 of Ostendorf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Additional References
Additional references in the prior art that read on the claims are Redd et al (US-20210140116-A1), Batra et al (US-6162327-A), Bailey et al (US-20220010495-A1), and Young et al (US-20230323604-A1), and Ehlerding et al (US-20090311478-A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights