The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. Specifically, the prior FINAL is withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040121079 A1 (Urscheler et al.).
Re claims 1-2 and 5-6, Urscheler discloses coated substrate for packaging [42] where the substrate includes paperboard [19]. The substrate is coated with bottom layer, top layer, and internal layers. The layers include at least one layer comprising water, pigment such as talc or clay, and binder that includes styrene-acrylate latex and styrene-binder latex [22-23, 69-71]. Given that water is present, the layer would necessarily be a coating dispersion layer (corresponding to first dispersion layer). The layers also include a polyethylene dispersion layer [29, 74-75] (corresponding to first dispersion layer). The paperboard has heat seal properties [27].
In light of the overlap between the claimed paperboard and that disclosed by Urscheler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a paperboard that is both disclosed by Urscheler and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Re claims 3-4, from Example 1 [78], the first dispersion layer comprises 70 parts dispersion of calcium carbonate having 77% solids, 30 parts dispersion of kaolin clay having 71% solids, 50 parts latex B having 50% solids, 1 part PVOH, and 0.4 parts surfactant. Therefore, it is calculated that the dispersion comprises ~60% pigment (0.77*70 +0.71*30)/(70+30+50*0.5+1+0.4) based on dry solid content of the layer.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the % as claimed to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the Urscheler reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Re claim 7, from Example 1 [78], the second dispersion layer comprises ~100% polyethylene (i.e. ethylene acrylic acid copolymer) based on dry solid content of the layer.
Re claim 8, given that the claim includes 0% co-binder, the claim is considered met by Urscheler.
Re claim 13, given that Urscheler discloses paperboard as claimed, it would inherently possess stretch at break and water absorption rate as claimed. Further, Example 1 has Cobb measurement of 8.9 g/m2 [47, 83].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040121079 A1 (Urscheler et al.) in view of Mongrain (US 2018/0058010).
Urscheler is relied upon above.
Mongrain discloses coated paper [2] comprising coating A on one side of the paper and coating B obtained by applying aqueous dispersion on the other side of the paper [10]. Coating A includes a primer layer 18 and a layer of extruded or laminated polymeric film 26 [97]. The primer layer (corresponding to the claimed third dispersion layer) is obtained by application of a water-based dispersion comprising polymer(s) including ethylene-containing polymers, i.e. polyolefin, styrene-acrylic copolymer, i.e. latex, or mixtures thereof and may include pigment [112, 116]. When the pigment is optional and only the ethylene-containing polymers is present, there would be 100% polyolefin present based on a dry solid content of the layer and 0% latex and pigment. The polymeric film 26 is obtained from polyethylene [106]. Although there is no disclosure that the polymeric film 26 is a dispersion layer, given that the final coated paper would be devoid of water, the polymeric film 26 would be indistinguishable from, and correspond to, the fourth dispersion layer claimed. Coating A provides an oil and/or grease and/or moisture and/or water barrier to the paper [105].
In light of the motivation for using a coating on the side of the paper opposite an aqueous dispersion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coating A disclosed by Mongrain on the coated paper of Urscheler on the side of the paper opposite to the coating disclosed by Urscheler in order to provide the coated paper with an oil and/or grease and/or moisture and/or water barrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are convincing in view of applicant’s arguments to priority, are mooted. See new reference above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached on 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787