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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1 and 7-10 18-30 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. New claims 21-30 are added. Claims 18-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of present claims 1 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrell et al. (US 2017/0267434; “Farrell”) in view of Gonzalo et al. (entitled “Evaluation of different agricultural residues as raw materials for pulp and paper production using a semichemical process”, by Gonzalo et al, January 2017, “Gonzalo”) and Jho et al. (US 2006/0122318; “Jho”) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 on Farrell, Gonzalo, Jho in view of newly found prior art reference.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
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 and 7-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrell et al. (US 2017/0267434; “Farrell”) in view of Gonzalo et al. (entitled “Evaluation of different agricultural residues as raw materials for pulp and paper production using a semichemical process”, by Gonzalo et al, January 2017, “Gonzalo”) and Jho et al. (US 2006/0122318; “Jho”) and further in view of Bunch et al. (US 6,007,666).
Regarding independent claim 1, Farrell teaches an absorbent paper laminate (10, para [0068]-0070] [0081]-[0084], Fig. 1-1), comprising:
- an absorbent crepe paper layer (the absorbent layer 12 is of crepe paper, para [0068]-0070] [0084]; Farrell teaches the suitable materials for its absorbent layer include crepe paper);
- a non-absorbent high-density paper layer (layer 14, para [0072] [0081] [0085]; Farrell teaches the suitable materials for its non-absorbent layer 14 include an oil and grease resistant paper material, OGR paper, para [0072]-[0075], and such non-absorbent paper layer of Farrell is considered as to read on the instantly claimed nonabsorbent high-density paper layer; see rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the record); and
- an adhesive selectively applied in a layer between the absorbent and nonabsorbent layers to form a laminate (para [0034] [0068], layer 12 and layer 14 are joined/bonded by any suitable means, including adhesive, embossing, surface bonding, and see para [0077], bonding to the ridge on the surface of absorbent layer and meeting the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the absorbent layer, Farrell teaches the use of suitable paper material having a thickness (i.e., caliper) of 1 to 7 mils (para [0071]), of which the thickness range overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges of caliper/thickness of 0.1 to 20 mils of claim 1. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Farrell teaches using suitable crepe paper for its absorbent layer (para [0068]-0070] [0084]). However, Farrell does not specifically teach its absorbent paper layer having the specific porosity in the manner as instantly claimed.
Gonzalo relates to pulp and paper production and teaches the use of the new fibers from agricultural residues in a paper for cardboard production (page 184, abstract, page 185, right column, third para). Gonzalo teaches various paper material made from various agricultural residues are known as suitable material for paper for cardboard production (page 189, right column, last para). Gonzalo teaches that the property showing the greatest differences was the (Gurley) porosity, ranging from 25 mL/min (asparagus) to 1300 mL/min (broad bean) (page 187, Table 4, right column, second para, page 191, left column, first para). Gonzalo teaches Gurley porosity of those paper material from various agricultural residues shows the greatest difference between the different materials tested, having the lowest value in the case of paper sheets from asparagus and the highest for broad beans (page 191, left column, first para). It is noted that the porosity measurement used in Gonzalo is in unit of mL/min (page 187, Table 4, right column). Gonzalo teaches paper produced from bell prepper having porosity of 900 mL/min, of which if calculated into second per 100 mL, the porosity of such paper is about 6.67 seconds per 100 mL (i.e., (60 second/900 ml) * 100)), which porosity falls within the instantly claimed range of less than 25 seconds per 100 mL of claim 1. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Farrell, to select suitable paper material for its absorbent paper layer, such as those paper produced from agricultural residues of bell prepper as taught by Gonzalo having porosity of 900 mL/min (of which if calculated, the porosity of such paper is about 6.67 seconds per 100 mL (i.e., (60 second/900 ml) * 100)), meeting the claimed porosity limitations as discussed above), because Gonzalo teaches such paper produced from agricultural residues of bell prepper is among known suitable material for paper/cardboard production (page 184, abstract, page 185, right column, third para). One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable materials for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Farrell does not specifically teach its nonabsorbent paper layer having the specific porosity as instantly claimed.
In the same field of composite laminate for packaging/food packaging, Jho teaches paper packaging composite includes an oil and grease resistant paper layer of (OGR paper layer, para [0002] [0058] [0111]). Jho teaches it is known in the art that suitable base papers are those having porosity of equal or great than 100 seconds per 100 mL (i.e., Gurley porosity unit is seconds per 100 mL) (para [0114]), which porosity overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 30 seconds per 100 mL of claim 1. 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Farrell, to select suitable paper material for its nonabsorbent paper layer, such as those base paper material taught by Jho having porosity of greater than 100 seconds per 100 mL (meeting the claimed porosity limitations as discussed above), because Jho teaches it is known in the art that those base papers having porosity of equal or great than 100 seconds per 100 mL are suitable for making oil and grease resistant paper for used in packaging/food packaging (para [0002] [0058] [0111]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory paper laminated that is the same as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable materials for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
As discussed above, Farrell teaches the inclusion of adhesive applied between the absorbent and nonabsorbent layers to form a laminate (including adhesive, embossing, surface bonding, and see para [0077]). Farrell does not specifically teach the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids, as instantly claimed.
In the same field of laminated paper for packaging applications, Bunch teaches a laminated paper wrap includes the adhesive arranged in suitable various cellular patterns defining a plurality of voids/air pockets (see Fig. 2 below, col. 3, lines 1-17). Bunch teaches the inclusion of adhesive arranged in suitable various cellular patterns defining a plurality of voids/air pockets provides increased insulating property and reduces the air permeability of the laminate (col. 3, lines 1-17, rectangular grid patterns, and other geometric patterns all may be suitable).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified laminate of Farrell in view the teachings of Bunch, to provide the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids/air pockets as taught by Bunch, to provide a laminate with increased insulating property and reduces the air permeability as taught by Bunch (col. 3, lines 1-17).
Regarding claims 7-8 and claims 22-24, modified Farrell teaches the inclusion of the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids (as taught by Bunch). Bunch teaches various suitable patterns includes rectangular grid patterns and other geometric patterns all may be suitable (col. 3, lines 1-17). Modified Farrell does not specifically teach the adhesive is applied in the specific pattern with the specific interconnected cells pattern having the specific cell size and specific shape as instantly claimed, in claims 7-8 and claims 22-24.
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the specific cell size and shape forming the adhesive bonding pattern (a result effective variable that affects the bonding strength, insulating property, the air permeability, etc.), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust specific cell size and shape through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., bonding strength, insulating property, the air permeability) of the laminate once produced. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Farrell teaches its composite laminate including the adhesive applied is proven to be safe for high temperature application, i.e., above 400°F (para [0042] [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable adhesive, such as those having a melting temperature above 400°F, for bonding the absorbent paper layer and the nonabsorbent high-density paper layer of the laminate of Farrell, depending on the intended application of the laminate. One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable materials for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 10, and 29-30, Farrell teaches its adhesive meets food packaging standard and meets the ASTM 6400 biodegradability standard, and the absorbent crepe paper layer, the nonabsorbent paper layer and the adhesive are PFAS free (para [0034]-[0035] [0042]), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 25, as discussed above, modified Farrell teaches the inclusion of the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids having the configuration as taught by Bunch. Bunch teaches each void (void 32, see Fig. 1 of Bunch below) is defined by the nonabsorbent paper layer on a first side (12), the absorbent crepe paper layer on a second side (16), and a wall formed by the adhesive between the absorbent crepe paper layer and the nonabsorbent paper layer such that oil or grease may be received and fill the plurality of voids (32) through the absorbent crepe paper layer (col. 2, lines 25-39, col. 3, lines 1-10).
PNG
media_image3.png
184
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified laminate of Farrell in view the teachings of Bunch, to provide the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids/air pockets having the configuration as taught by Bunch (discussed above, meeting the claimed limitations), to provide a laminate with increased insulating property and reduces the air permeability as taught by Bunch (col. 3, lines 1-17), which would have predictably arrived at a laminate that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 26, as discussed above, modified Farrell teaches the inclusion of the adhesive arranged in a cellular pattern defining a plurality of voids having the configuration as taught by Bunch (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and it is considered the adhesive is
visible through the absorbent crepe layer (Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 1-15). Bunch does not specifically teach a specific pattern of which adhesive is arranged to form text or an image at a central portion with the cellular pattern surrounding the text or the image, as instantly claimed. In this regard, it is noted that Bunch teaches various suitable patterns includes rectangular grid patterns and other geometric patterns all may be suitable (col. 3, lines 1-17).
However, absent persuasive evidence that the particular pattern shape/configuration of the claimed pattern of which adhesive is arranged was significant, the shape/configuration of the pattern of which adhesive is arranged is considered as a mere variation of design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape/configuration of the pattern of which adhesive is arranged to meet the design needs for the intended laminate, and such variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 27-28, modified Farrell does not specifically teach the amount of adhesive applied as instantly claimed, in claims 27-28.
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the specific amount of the adhesive applied (a result effective variable that affects the bonding strength, insulating property, the air permeability, etc.), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of adhesive through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., bonding strength, insulating property, the air permeability) of the laminate once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, in claims 27-28. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached on 5712728935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights