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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025, has been entered.
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.
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiskanen (US20180245289, herein Heiskanen), in the view of Sannino (US20160319042, herein Sannino).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, Heiskanen teaches a method for improving the barrier properties [0021] of a cellulosic film, from by surface size suspension, with CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) as a surface sizing chemical [0085] the carboxymethylcellulose is present in the solution as the sodium salt (NaCMC) [0046], wherein, the method comprising the steps of: a. forming surface size suspension, with CMC as a surface sizing chemical [0085]; b. apply the surface sizing chemicals comprising cross-linkers [0031] indicates more than one crosslinking agents can be selected into the coating composition, and carboxymethyl cellulose [0031] to the microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [0030], reads on applying a barrier coating composition to the surface of the cellulosic film; c. the drying step; performed with any conventional means, e.g. through dewatering on the web by air, hot air, vacuum, or by using heating roll. The drying can further be performed with infrared heat (IR), near infrared heat (NIR) or air, [0074] which collectively read on the curing, hence, the drying step [0074] can achieve the effect of post-curing of the coated cellulosic film, upon the surface sized on one side [0066], which further lead to the barrier layer formation on one side of the cellulosic film.
Heiskanen does not teach the specific CMC with the average degree of substitution in the range of from 0.05 to 0.5, specific crosslinking agent, and the specific method of mixing a dry CMC into a solution of water and the crosslinking agent and its concentration; and mixing the solution. However, Sannio teaches the carboxymethylcellulose is present in the solution as the sodium salt (NaCMC) [0046], the carboxymethylcellulose or salts thereof preferably have an average degree of substitution from about 0.3 to about 1.5 [0039], which overlaps the claimed range; purified water was added to Hobart mixer and agitated, then citric acid (1.8 g) was added to the water and dissolved. [0117] which indicates the formation of the crosslinking agent solution; after that, NaCMC (600 g) was then added to the solution and the resulting mixture was agitated [0117], indicates dry CMC/salt was added into the aqueous solution of crosslinking agent, which collectively read on the claimed mixing method; Sannio further teaches sodium carboxymethylcellulose was mixed in aqueous solution with citric acid at different concentrations [0181] including CA 0.4%; NaCMC 6% [P18; Table 15] lie in the claimed ranges, hence, the concentration of crosslinking agent to dry CMC is 0.4/6=6.67%, also lies in the claimed range. Heiskanen and Sannio are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of cellulosic film composite upon specific CMC/salt and mixing method selection. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the carboxymethylcellulose is present in the solution as the sodium salt (NaCMC) [0046], the carboxymethylcellulose or salts thereof preferably have an average degree of substitution from about 0.3 to about 1.5 [0039]; purified water was added to Hobart mixer and agitated, then citric acid (1.8 g) was added to the water and dissolved. [0117], NaCMC (600 g) was then added to the solution and the resulting mixture was agitated [0117], and sodium carboxymethylcellulose was mixed in aqueous solution with citric acid at different concentrations [0181] into the composition formation process, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product processing owing to the selection of the specific CMC and the mixing method, along with the increasing citric acid concentration [0183] to 0.4% [P18; Table 15], can further collectively lead to the desired property of takes into account target ranges of eleastic modulus, viscosity modulus and swelling capacity [0183].
Regarding Claim 2, Heiskanen teaches MFC wet web could be prepared by casting the above described MFC suspension, e.g. at consistency of 5 to 25 wt-%, onto a non-porous substrate [0053] overlaps the claimed range, and indicate the claimed aqueous suspension.
Regarding Claims 10, 12, Heiskanen teaches the total pick-up or coat weight was about 2.2 g/m2 which means 1.1 g/m2 per side [0086], lies in the claimed range, and surface sized on both sides [0066], indicates the two sides coating.
Regarding Claim 13, Heiskanen teaches the product may be single or double coated [0073] which indicates the steps were repeated, such that more than one barrier layers are formed on the cellulosic film.
Regarding Claim 14, Heiskanen teaches “the film may have a basis weight in the range of from 10 to 40 g/m2” [0043] lies in the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 9, 15, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, Heiskanen and Sannio teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts, and Heiskanen teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of surface sized on one side [0066]; and formed wet web is then subjected to a surface sizing process, before drying the web to form a film [0054]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. pH, Gurley Hill value would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients and amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 16, Heiskanen teaches “the moisture content of the film after drying may be in the range of from 1 to 8 wt-%” [0026] lies in the claimed range.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiskanen (US20180245289, herein Heiskanen) and Sannino (US20160319042, herein Sannino) as applied in claim 1 above, and in the further view of Anderson (US20120107533, herein Anderson).
Regarding Claim 11, Heiskanen teaches CMC [0046], but does not explicitly teach the wherein said CMC has a weight average molecular weight of less than 50,000 mol/g, however, Anderson teaches “CMC (Finnfix 10)” [0070] reads on the specific CMC from the instant application specification, hence, match the claimed molecular weight. Heiskanen and Anderson are considered analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of cellulosic film composite development toward coating application. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specified “CMC (Finnfix 10)” [0070] as taught by Anderson, into the composition formation of Heiskanen. Doing so would further achieve a desirable viscosity [0070] as taught by Anderson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Heiskanen (US20180245289, herein Heiskanen), and Sannino (US20160319042, herein Sannino) as set forth above.
In this case, the new added reference_ Sannino explicitly teaches the carboxymethylcellulose is present in the solution as the sodium salt (NaCMC) [0046] and purified water was added to Hobart mixer and agitated, then citric acid (1.8 g) was added to the water and dissolved. [0117] which indicates the formation of the crosslinking agent solution; after that, NaCMC (600 g) was then added to the solution and the resulting mixture was agitated [0117], indicates dry CMC/salt was added into the aqueous solution of crosslinking agent, which collectively read on the claimed mixing method.
Additionally, regard to the “unexpected benefits”, in fact, when Examples 1-10 are considered as a whole, they establish results associated with the ranges, respect to the claimed ranges provided for comparison. Claim 5 is open to the crosslinking agents in the barrier coating composition is 1-100 wt % based on a dry weight of CMC in said barrier coating composition. However, Examples 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 only include the amount of citric acid was 50% (w/w) as single vale. Examples 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are therefore insufficient to establish non-obviousness.
Whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767