DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/14/2025 has been entered and considered. Claims 10-13, 15, 18, 21, and 24-27 are cancelled. Claims 1-9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art GUPTA does not suggest adding lignin to a layer that contains “highly refined cellulose” and GUPTA does not teach the use of highly refined cellulose.
The examiner notes no amendments are filed.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that GUPTA teaches an embodiment with a single layer made from added lignin, PLA, and nanocellulose (highly refined cellulose) [0034].
HAMERS teaches a) forming a first wet web by applying a first pulp suspension comprising highly refined cellulose fibers on a first wire [0076]. HAMERS teaches using mechanical processes that include grinding/defibrillating (refining) the cellulose fibers to produce the aqueous fiber suspension [0052]. HAMERS defines a heavily refined cellulose fiber as having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) as an example of pulp [0053]. HAMER further teaches the addition of strength agents [0067]. GUPTA teaches a multi-layer bioplastic article comprised of lignin, polylactic acid (PLA) [abstract], and natural fiber [0034]. GUPTA uses lignin as a strength additive that increases the mechanical strength [0038] of the layer. GUPTA teaches embodiments with a single layer made from added lignin, PLA, and nanocellulose (highly refined cellulose) [0034]. GUPTA teaches the lignin used can be commercially available lignin and originates separately from the natural fiber/PLA [0038]. GUPTA teaches the addition of lignin in a layer at between 16 and 50 wt% [0038]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein one of said first pulp suspension and said second pulp suspension comprises added lignin at a concentration in a range of 0.1-50 wt%, based on a total dry weight of said pulp suspension wherein the lignin is added to said pulp suspension”. GUPTA teaches the advantage of the combination of natural fiber with added lignin is the increased layer tensile strength and displacement under stress [0035]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the added lignin from GUPTA for the strength additive taught by HAMER to produce a stronger composite. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the added advantage of an increase in strength and tensile strength from added lignin based on the art of GUPTA.
HAMERS does not suggest the use of strength additive being harmful to the final composition and GUPTA does not teach away from the use of highly refined cellulose.
Applicant argues that the use of PLA without added lignin does not teach an embodiment of a web layer of highly refined cellulose without added lignin.
Regarding the second fibrous suspension without the additional lignin, HAMERS teaches the use of strength additive as an example of a paper auxiliary. HAMER teaches alternative paper auxiliary can be used instead. HAMER teaches this alternative configuration is also possible in the second fibrous suspension [0079]. This allows for a configuration with a second fibrous suspension without added lignin as a strength additive.
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.
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 1-9, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMERS (WO 2019076703 A1) in view of BACKFOLK (US 2019024318 A1) and GUPTA (US 2002152630 A1).
For claim 1, HAMERS teaches a method for manufacturing a multilayer paper [0001]. The examiner understands film to be comparable to film as defined in the instant claim language (comprising multiple webs). The paper comprising highly refined cellulose fibers [0053], the method comprising the steps of:
HAMERS teaches a) forming a first wet web by applying a first pulp suspension comprising highly refined cellulose fibers on a first wire [0076]; Though HAMERS defines a heavily refined cellulose fiber as having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) [0053], HAMERS further teaches that, “The dewatering ability of the first aqueous fiber suspension is determined by the degree of beating achieved.”[0052]. The degree of beating is proportional to the degree of freeness expected. This would mean a higher degree or refining would result in greater dewatering ability. HAMERS teaches the use of Schopper-Riegler (SR) value to determine a degree of freeness. HAMERS does not specify the standard ISO 5267-1. BACKFOLK teaches a similar method of producing a highly refined cellulose to a Schopper-Riegler value of 85 [0022], as determined by standard ISO 5267-1 [0022], for later use to make a paper [0026]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to use the known technique of BACKFOLK to improve the method of quantifying/validating the resulting freeness from the beating method presented by HAMERS. One would be motivated by the improved repeatability afforded by the repeated method.
HAMERS also teaches:
b) partially dewatering the first wet web to obtain a first partially dewatered web [0265];
c) forming a second wet web by applying a second pulp suspension comprising highly refined cellulose fibers, having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) [0053], as determined by standard ISO 5267-1, on a second wire [0260]. HAMER the formation on the first and second wire can happen concurrently [0260];
d) partially dewatering the second wet web to obtain a second partially dewatered web [0316];
e) joining the first and second partially dewatered web to obtain a multilayer web [0317]; and
f) further dewatering the multilayer web to obtain a multilayer film comprising highly refined cellulose fibers [0320];
HAMERS does not teach the lignin content of the webs. HAMERS does teach the addition of polymers as additives. GUPTA teaches embodiments with a single layer made from added lignin, PLA, and nanocellulose (highly refined cellulose) [0034]. The composite multi-layer article of GUPTA has a layer formed form lignin, PLA, and natural cellulose fiber that is formed by wet-laying into a mold (equivalent shaping properties to a web) [0041], dried [0061], then laminated [0042] like the process used by HAMERS. GUPTA uses lignin as a strength additive that increases the mechanical strength [0038] of the layer. GUPTA teaches the lignin used can be commercially available lignin and originates separately from the natural fiber/PLA [0038]. GUPTA teaches the addition of lignin in a layer at between 16 and 50 wt% [0038]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein one of said first pulp suspension and said second pulp suspension comprises added lignin at a concentration in a range of 0.1-50 wt%, based on a total dry weight of said pulp suspension wherein the lignin is added to said pulp suspension”. GUPTA teaches the advantage of the combination of natural fiber with added lignin is the increased layer tensile strength and displacement under stress [0035]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the added lignin from GUPTA for the strength additive taught by HAMER to produce a stronger composite. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the added advantage of an increase in strength and tensile strength from added lignin based on the art of GUPTA.
Regarding the second fibrous suspension without the additional lignin, HAMERS teaches the use of strength additive as an example of a paper auxiliary. HAMER teaches alternative paper auxiliary can be used instead. HAMER teaches this alternative configuration is also possible in the second fibrous suspension [0079]. This allows for a configuration with a second fibrous suspension without added lignin as a strength additive. Further GUPTA teaches an embodiment where one of the layers is free of lignin [0049]. This configuration matches the configuration of the instant claim limitation of “and wherein the other of said first pulp suspension and said second pulp suspension is free from added lignin”.
For claim 2, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS further teaches a dry solids content of the first pulp suspension, the second pulp suspension, or both is in a range of 0.1-0.7 wt% (0.35 wt% for both) [0433].
For claim 3, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS teaches that waste paper from a deinking process has around 60 °SR [0053] and the pulp furnish can be waste paper from a deink process alone or in a mixture with other fibers [0053]. By this HAMERS teaches the first pulp suspension, the second pulp suspension, or both comprises at least 50 wt% (up to 100 wt%) highly refined cellulose fibers, based on a total dry weight of said pulp suspension [0053].
For claim 4, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS teaches the use of wood pulps, that include fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR [0053]. BACKFOLK teaches the standard ISO 5267-1 may be used to determine freeness expressed in °SR as above. HAMER in view of BACKFOLK teaches the first pulp suspension, the second pulp suspension, or both is formed from a cellulose furnish having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value in the range of 65-99, as determined by standard ISO 5267-1.
For claim 5, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS is silent to the use of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC). BACKFOLK teaches the use of MFC the highly refined cellulose fibers comprise microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [0021 and 0022].
For claim 6, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 5, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the first pulp suspension, the second pulp suspension, or both comprises 50-99 wt% MFC, based on the total dry weight of said pulp suspension [0031].
For claim 7, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS in view of BACKFOLK teaches the first pulp suspension, the second pulp suspension, or both comprises less than 50 wt% of unrefined or slightly refined cellulose fibers having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value below 30, as determined by standard ISO 5267-1, based on a total dry weight of said pulp suspension. HAMERS teaches that waste paper from a deinking process has around 60 °SR [0053] and the pulp furnish can be waste paper from a deink process alone or in a mixture with other fibers [0053]. A furnish with only waste paper has 0% unrefined fibers, that is fibers with less than 60°SR. This is within the range of less than 50 wt% of unrefined or slightly refined cellulose fibers and the range of below 30 Schopper-Riegler (SR) value.
For claim 8, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above, a basis weight of the first wet web, the second wet web, or both based on a total dry weight of said wet web, is less than 50 g/m2 (20 to 400 gsm) [0091]. This range overlaps the instant claim. See eMPEP 2144.05. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to understand that the range of 20-50 gsm would be reasonable.
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)
For claim 9, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above, wherein a dry solids content of the first partially dewatered web and the second partially dewatered web prior to the joining step is in a range of 1.5-8 wt% (between 0.1% by weight and 6% by weight) [0265].
For claim 14, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above, wherein a basis weight of the multilayer web based on a total dry weight of the multilayer web is in a range of 10-100 g/m2 (80 to 160 g/m2) [0091]. This range overlaps the instant claim. See eMPEP 2144.05. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to understand that the range of 80-100 gsm would be reasonable.
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)
For claim 16, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. GUPTA teaches the lignin in a layer is between 16 and 50 wt% [0038]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein said one of the first and second pulp suspensions comprise lignin at a concentration in a range of 1-30 wt%, based on dry weight”.
For claim 17, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 16, as above. GUPTA teaches the lignin is alkaline lignin [0038]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the lignin is Kraft lignin”.
For claim 19, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above, wherein the multilayer film comprising added lignin has a lower transmittance for UV light than the same multilayer film without added lignin. BACKFOLK teaches the film has MFC that with some low quantity of lignin [0036] and the film would have good barrier properties against light [0026] while being translucent. The good barrier properties of the this the film with little lignin would have lower transmittance.
For claim 23, HAMERS teaches a method for manufacturing a multilayer paper [0001]. The examiner understands film to be comparable to film as defined in the instant claim language (comprising multiple webs). The paper comprising highly refined cellulose fibers [0053], wherein said film comprising:
Though HAMERS defines a heavily refined cellulose fiber as having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) [0053], HAMERS further teaches that, “The dewatering ability of the first aqueous fiber suspension is determined by the degree of beating achieved.”[0052]. The degree of beating is proportional to the degree of freeness expected. This would mean a higher degree or refining would result in greater dewatering ability. HAMERS teaches the use of Schopper-Riegler (SR) value to determine a degree of freeness. HAMERS does not specify the standard ISO 5267-1. BACKFOLK teaches a similar method of producing a highly refined cellulose to a Schopper-Riegler value of 85 [0022], as determined by standard ISO 5267-1 [0022], for later use to make a paper [0026]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to use the known technique of BACKFOLK to improve the method of quantifying/validating the resulting freeness from the beating method presented by HAMERS. One would be motivated by the improved repeatability afforded by the repeated method. By this HAMER in view of BACKFOLK teaches “a first layer comprising highly refined cellulose fibers having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher, as determined by standard ISO 5267-1, and a second layer comprising highly refined cellulose fibers having a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value of 65 or higher, as determined by standard ISO 5267-1”.
HAMERS does not teach the lignin content of the webs. HAMERS does teach the addition of polymers as additives. GUPTA teaches a multi-layer bioplastic article comprised of lignin, polylactic acid (PLA) [abstract], and natural fiber [0034]. The multi-layer article of GUPTA has a layer formed form lignin, PLA, and natural cellulose fiber that is formed by wet-laying into a mold (equivalent shaping properties to a web) [0041], dried [0061], then laminated [0042] like the process used by HAMERS. GUPTA uses lignin as a strength additive that increases the mechanical strength [0038] of the layer. GUPTA teaches the lignin used can be commercially available lignin and originates separately from the natural fiber/PLA [0038]. GUPTA teaches the addition of lignin in a layer at between 16 and 50 wt% [0038]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein one of said first layer and said second layer comprises lignin at a concentration in a range of 0.1-50 wt%, based on a total dry weight of said layer, and wherein the lignin has been added to a pulp suspension provided for forming said layer”. GUPTA teaches the advantage of the combination of natural fiber with added lignin is the increased layer tensile strength and displacement under stress [0035]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to modify the structure of HAMERS with an addition of lignin into a layer to increase the mechanical strength as taught by GUPTA. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the added advantage of an increase in strength and tensile strength based on the art of GUPTA.
GUPTA teaches an embodiment where one of the layers is free of lignin [0049]. This configuration matches the configuration of the instant claim limitation of “and wherein the other of said first pulp suspension and said second pulp suspension is free from added lignin”.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMERS (WO 2019076703 A1), BACKFOLK (US 2019024318 A1), GUPTA (US 2002152630 A1), and LEMITZ (EP 3301221 A1).
For claim 20, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA do not teach the use of a KIT test value. HAMERS teaches the use of highly refined cellulose (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) [0053]. BACKFOLK teaches the need for a good barrier including oil [0026]. LEMITZ teaches the production of a paper with a highly refined fiber 90°SR or higher [0003]. The paper has a KIT of at least 6 [0042]. This value matches the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to use the known technique of LEMITZ to improve the method of quantifying/validating the resulting barrier properties from the beating/refining method presented by HAMERS given the common high SR value of both. One would be motivated by the improved repeatability afforded by the repeated method. HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA in view of LEMITZ teach the method according to claim 1, as above, wherein a KIT value of the multilayer film is at least 6, as measured according to standard ISO 16532-2.
For claim 22, HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA teach the method according to claim 1, as above. HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA do not teach the use of a Gurley Hill value. HAMERS teaches the use of highly refined cellulose (fine ground mechanical pulp with 70-80 °SR) [0053]. BACKFOLK teaches the need for a good barrier including oil [0026]. LEMITZ teaches the production of a paper with a highly refined fiber 90°SR or higher [0003]. LEMITZ teaches a paper wherein the multilayer film has a Gurley Hill value of at least 10,000s/100ml (approximately 10,000 s/mL), as measured according to standard ISO 5636/6 [0036]. HAMERS, BACKFOLK, and GUPTA in view of LEMITZ teach the method according to claim 1, as above, wherein the multilayer film has a Gurley Hill value of at least 10,000s/100ml, as measured according to standard ISO 5636/6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748