Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-07-26)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, Double Patenting

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS What is claimed is:
1\. A paper towel roll that exhibits a Roll Diameter of at least 8.25 inches, a Roll Density of less than 0.075 g/cm3 and a Moment of Inertia of greater than 2.00 g\*m2 and a roll width of greater than 1.0 inch to less than 12.0 inches.
2\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of at least 9.0 inches.
3\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel that exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
4\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of less than 9.0 inches.
5\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of greater than 7.0 inches.
6\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a paper towel and a core around which the paper towel is wound.
7\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 6 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
8\. The paper towel roll according to 6 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
9\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel comprising a creped, embossed fibrous structure.
10\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel comprising an embossed through-air-dried fibrous structure.
11\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel comprising an uncreped, embossed through-air-dried fibrous structure.
12\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel comprising one or more perforations.
13\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a paper that comprising two or more fibrous structure plies.
14\. The paper towel according to Claim 1 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel that exhibits permanent wet strength.
15\. The paper towel roll according to Claim 14 wherein the paper towel comprises a paper towel comprising a permanent wet strength agent.
16\. A package comprising one or more paper towel rolls according to Claim 1.
17\. The package according to Claim 16 wherein the package comprises a single paper towel roll.
18\. The package according to Claim 16 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
19\. A method for making a paper towel roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a paper towel; b. convolutely winding the paper towel such that a paper towel roll according to Claim 1 is formed.
20\. The method according to Claim 19 wherein the step of convolutely winding the paper towel comprises the step of convolutely winding the paper towel about a core.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/328,989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/328,989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/328,989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well. Note that the limitation on the tissue being made by a through-air-drying process is common in the art and obvious. Moreover, this is also evidenced by claims 10 and 11 of the current application that teach a through-air-dried web.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 16/663,470 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps. Note that claims 2-3 of the co-pending application evidence that that the properties of the paper towel is within the scope of the claimed range and also indicates that the properties of the current application fall below the line of the plots of the equations shown in claim 1 of the co-pending application. Note that claims 15-20 includes the same type of products, i.e., packages, and the method is the same. Note also, that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,724 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and thus the US patent can be used to reject the claims of the current application.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,979 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the differences, such as the web being multi-ply, non-embossed and through-air-dried, are common in the art and obvious and also evidenced by claims 10-11 of the current application that teaches unembossed, through-air-dried rolls and claim 13 that teaches a multiply product.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,076 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well. Note that the limitation on the tissue being made by a through-air-drying process is common in the art and obvious. Moreover, this is also evidenced by claims 10 and 11 of the current application that teach a through-air-dried web.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,916 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the none recited property, i.e., the basis weight, is common and obvious for the recited product as evidenced by claim 3 of the current application and thus the US patent can be used to reject the claims of the current application.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkowicz et al, (hereafter Wolkowicz), US Patent No. 6,746,569 B1 as evidenced by Applicants Admission of Prior Art, (hereafter AAPA).
With regard to claims 1-3, 5 and 18-19, Wolkowicz teaches roll of papers including tissues and towels, having properties falling within the range of claim 1, i.e., Roll Density, Roll Diameter, as evidenced by AAPPA, page 17; see below:
PNG
media_image1.png
115
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
158
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As it can be seen the roll diameter is greater than 6.5 and shows Roll Diameter of 8 inches in all instances, the roll density is less than 0.075 g/cm3 for sample 4A-prior art. The process of making the roll is disclosed on column 5, lines 31-41, which is common way of making a roll of paper, i.e., convoluting the web onto a core, and doing so for the prior art product disclosed by Wolkowicz is at the very least obvious. Figure 2 shows a roll convoluted onto a core.
While Wolkowicz teaches that the diameter of the roll is about 8 inches; see column 9, lines 5-10, which includes diameter, by the word “about”, greater than 8 inches, such as 8.25 and a bit greater, increasing the diameter of the roll to be greater than the claimed range is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it just the addition of more convoluted tissue/towel in the roll. Therefore, increasing the diameter to be within the claimed range is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding to claim 4, Sample 4A shows moment of inertia which is greater than 1.5 g*m2; see table above.
With regard to claim 6, Wolkowicz shows that Example 4A has a core diameter of 1.5 inches; see column 11, lines 45-55.
With regard to claims 7, while the reference does not explicitly teach the coefficient of friction, this property is considered to be inherent to the tissues of the reference, since they have all the other properties in the same range, or at the very least modifying the web to have the coefficient of friction falling within the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 8-11 and 14, creping, embossing, perforating the web and adding papermaking additives, such as wet-strength agents, are common operations on the art1 and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding to claim 12, Wolkowicz teaches the making of single and multi-ply products; see column 4, lines 56-63, and therefore, making multi-ply product from the 4A web would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if webs were plied to make a multi-ply product.
With regard to claim 13, since all the paper products have at least some permanent wet strengths, i.e., they won’t lose all its strength when wet and since no limits/range have been recited/claimed, then this limitation is inherently met.
Regarding to claims 15-17, packaging the products into multiple or single roll and wrapping it a film, or included in carton board, corrugated board, etc., are the common ways to present the final product to the consumer, including the intermediate consumer, i.e., the warehouses, supermarket, etc., and the final consumer, people buying the product, and thus presenting the product as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 20, Wolkowicz teaches that embossing increases the sheet bulk, but weakens the sheet which is detrimental; see column 3, lines 48-57. However, it is well-known that papermakers work based on trade-offs, i.e., papermakers know that the change of a property will affect other(s) and thus work on the balancing of the properties. Therefore, embossing of the web taught by Wolkowicz would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if the web is embossed. This is more evident by the fact that the embossing increases bulk, which decreases the density, i.e., bulk=1/density, hence the density of the sheet/web of the reference is even lower than the ones of the table and thus falling within the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Rolled Paper Towels.”

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2 and 4-20 are pending in the present application. No additional claims fee is believed to be due.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of Claim 3.
Claim 1 has been amended to state, "wherein the paper towel roll comprises a creped paper towel." Support for the Amendment is found in the Specification on Page 14, Lines 20-23.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
The Applicant submits that these changes do not involve any introduction of new matter. Consequently, entry of these changes is believed to be in order and is respectfully requested.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C.
§
103 (A
IA)
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA) as being unpatentable over Wolkowicz et al., (U.S. Patent No. 6,746,569 B1; hereinafter "Wolkowicz"), as evidenced by Applicants Admission of Prior Art, (hereafter AAPA).
Applicant respectfully submits that Wolkowicz in view of AAPA fails to teach each and every element of Claim 1, the independent claim, because Wolkowicz in view of AAPA fails to teach, at a minimum, sanitary tissue product rolls that exhibit a Roll Diameter of at least 8.25 inches and a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm3 and a Moment of Inertia of greater than 1.50 g*m2, wherein the paper towel roll comprises a paper towel that exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples; and wherein the paper towel roll comprises a creped paper towel. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1, as amended, is not rendered obvious over Wolkowicz in view of AAPA. MPEP 2143.03.
Non-Statutory Double-Patenting Rejection
Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/328,989. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/328,989. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 16/663,470. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,724 B2. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,979 B2. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,076 B2. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,916 B2. Upon indication of allowable subject matter but
for the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if necessary.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 of copending Application No. 18/328,989 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet “sanitary tissues” comprises paper towels as-well, as evidenced by claim 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 of copending Application No. 18/125,185 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet “sanitary tissues” comprises paper towels as-well, as evidenced by claim 15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,952,724 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious and thus the US patent can be used to reject the claims of the current application. Note that  claim 3 evidences the Basis Weight range of the reference’s towel.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,700,979 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet “sanitary tissues” comprises paper towels as-well, as evidenced by claim 15.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,633,076 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,447,916 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and thus the US patent can be used to reject the claim(s) of the current application.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,347 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims overlaps and the missing property, i.e., the Basis Weight is common to paper towels and thus considered inherent or at the very least obvious and thus the US patent can be used to reject the claim(s) of the current application. Note that the only difference is that the co-pending application recites a sanitary tissue product instead of a paper towel roll, yet the webs have the same or overlapping and thus the paper towel could be used as a sanitary tissue as-well. Moreover, the above references evidences that “sanitary tissues” comprises “Paper Towels” as-well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of the remarks, filed on October 14, 2024, with respect to the rejection under USC §103 over Wolkowicz have been fully considered and are persuasive.  The rejection of July 26, 2024 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:  the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest a paper towel with the combination of properties as claimed in claim 1. Note that the method of making is also allowable since it has been held that the process of and/or using a novel and non-obvious product is also novel and non-obvious. In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Brouwer, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1663.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Rolled Paper Towels.”
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20200129013A1: Claims:
A sanitary tissue product roll comprising a web, wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 8.25 inches as measured according to the Roll Diameter Test Method, a Moment of Inertia of greater than 1.50 g*m 2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method, a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method described herein.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 3 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a roll width of less than 4.5 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a structured web.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web is convolutely wound about a core.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 9 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 10 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web is void of permanent wet strength.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a toilet tissue roll.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a paper towel roll.
A package comprising one or more sanitary tissue product rolls according to claim 1 .
The package according to claim 16 wherein the package comprises a single sanitary tissue product roll.
The package according to claim 16 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
A method for making a sanitary tissue product roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
a. providing a web;
b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
The method according to claim 19 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core.
Ref US20200129014A1: Claims:
A sanitary tissue product roll comprising a web, wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia of greater than 6.00 g*m 2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method and a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Roll Density of less than 0.200 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 8.25 inches
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll comprises a core around which the web is wound.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 4 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 4 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web is void of permanent wet strength.
The sanitary tissue product according to claim 1 wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a structured web.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a toilet tissue roll.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a paper towel roll.
A package comprising one or more sanitary tissue product rolls according to claim 1 .
The package according to claim 16 wherein the package comprises a single sanitary tissue product roll.
The package according to claim 16 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
A method for making a sanitary tissue product roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
a. providing a web;
b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
The method according to claim 19 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core.
Ref US20200131707A1: Claims:
A sanitary tissue product roll comprising a web, wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia value as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method and a Roll Density value as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method such that the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits such values that fall below a line having the following at least one of the following equations: 1) y=0.0643ln(x)+0.0039 graphed on a plot of Moment of Inertia in units of g*m 2 (x-axis) and Roll Density in units of g/cm 3 (y-axis) and 2) y=0.0385 log(x)+0.0478 graphed on a plot of Moment of Inertia in units of g*m 2 (x-axis) and Roll Density in units of g/cm 3 (y-axis).
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia of greater than 1.50 g*m 2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a structured web.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web is convolutely wound about a core.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 10 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 10 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the web is void of permanent wet strength.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a toilet tissue roll.
The sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 wherein the sanitary tissue product roll is a paper towel roll.
A package comprising one or more sanitary tissue product rolls according to claim 1 .
The package according to claim 16 wherein the package comprises a single sanitary tissue product roll.
The package according to claim 16 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
A method for making a sanitary tissue product roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
a. providing a web;
b. convolutely winding the web such that a sanitary tissue product roll according to claim 1 is formed.
The method according to claim 19 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core.
Ref US20200131709A1: Claims:
A paper towel roll comprising a web, wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 6.5 inches and a Roll Density of less than 0.075 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method, wherein the web exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of greater than 7.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia is greater than 1.50 g*m 2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a core around which the web is wound.
The paper towel roll according to claim 5 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
The paper towel roll according to 5 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an uncreped through-air-dried fibrous structure.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies.
The paper towel according to claim 1 wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength.
The paper towel roll according to claim 13 wherein the web comprises a permanent wet strength agent.
A package comprising one or more paper towel rolls according to claim 1 .
The package according to claim 15 wherein the package comprises a single paper towel roll.
The package according to claim 15 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
A method for making a paper towel roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a paper towel roll according to claim 1 is formed.
a. providing a web;
b. convolutely winding the web such that a paper towel roll according to claim 1 is formed.
The method according to claim 18 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core.
A paper towel roll comprising a web, wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm 3 and wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength.
Ref US11447916B2: Claims:
What is claimed is: 1. A paper towel roll comprising a web, wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 6.5 inches and a Roll Density of less than 0.075 g/cm3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method and a Moment of Inertia of greater than 2.00 g*m2, wherein the web exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples. 2. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches. 3. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of greater than 7.0 inches. 4. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia is greater than 2.50 g*m2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method. 5. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a core around which the web is wound. 6. The paper towel roll according to claim 5 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches. 7. The paper towel roll according to 5 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method. 8. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure. 9. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an uncreped through-air-dried fibrous structure. 10. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations. 11. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply. 12. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies. 13. The paper towel according to claim 1 wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength. 14. The paper towel roll according to claim 13 wherein the web comprises a permanent wet strength agent. 15. A package comprising one or more paper towel rolls according to claim 1. 16. The package according to claim 15 wherein the package comprises a single paper towel roll. 17. The package according to claim 15 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof. 18. A method for making a paper towel roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a paper towel roll according to claim 1 is formed. 19. The method according to claim 18 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core. 20. The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 47 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
A paper towel roll comprising a web, wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 6.5 inches and a Roll Density of less than 0.075 g/cm3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method and a Moment of Inertia of greater than 2.00 g*m2, wherein the web exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of greater than 7.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia is greater than 2.50 g*m2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a core around which the web is wound.
The paper towel roll according to claim 5 wherein the core exhibits an outer diameter of less than 2.25 inches.
The paper towel roll according to 5 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction value of greater than 0.10 and less than 0.50 as measured according to the Core Kinetic Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises a creped fibrous structure.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an uncreped through-air-dried fibrous structure.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises one or more perforations.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises an embossed fibrous structure ply.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the web comprises two or more fibrous structure plies.
The paper towel according to claim 1 wherein the web exhibits permanent wet strength.
The paper towel roll according to claim 13 wherein the web comprises a permanent wet strength agent.
A package comprising one or more paper towel rolls according to claim 1.
The package according to claim 15 wherein the package comprises a single paper towel roll.
The package according to claim 15 comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: a film overwrap, a film bag, a cartonboard, a corrugated board, a cardboard, and combinations thereof.
A method for making a paper towel roll, wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. providing a web; b. convolutely winding the web such that a paper towel roll according to claim 1 is formed.
The method according to claim 18 wherein the step of convolutely winding the web comprises the step of convolutely winding the web about a core.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 47 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
Ref US20230059906A1: Claims:
A paper towel roll that exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 8.25 inches, a Roll Density of less than 0.250 g/cm 3 and a Moment of Inertia of greater than 1.50 g*m 2 .
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Diameter of greater than 6.5 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Roll Density of less than 0.075 g/cm 3 as measured according to the Roll Density Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the embossed web exhibits a Basis Weight of greater than 45 gsm as measured according to the Basis Weight Test Method for Paper Towel Samples.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of less than 12.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a roll width of greater than 7.0 inches.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll exhibits a Moment of Inertia is greater than 2.00 g*m 2 as measured according to the Moment of Inertia Test Method.
The paper towel roll according to claim 1 wherein the paper towel roll comprises a core around which the web is wound.
The paper towel roll according to claim 8 wherein the core exhibits an outer d
[Truncated to input limit]