DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant’s arguments regarding the anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are convincing.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/13/2026, regarding the obviousness rejections over the prior art have been carefully considered but they are not convincing.
Applicant asserts that the inventors discovered unexpected synergy when spraying a composition including polymers having a net anionic charge in an amount of from about 0.05 lb/ton to about 20 lb/ton to a paper sheet comprising a cationic polymer, and cites the examples as demonstrating the purported synergy.
Whether the 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. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding the purported evidence of unexpected results, it is noted that the examples provided employ only a few different cationic polymers added in a few specific amounts in the wet end and an anionic GPAM polymer added in a few specific amounts by spraying on a formed paper sheet prior to a press section. The examples provided are not commensurate in scope with the claims, which embody using a broadly claimed amount of any cationic polymer or amphoteric polymer with a net cationic charge and a broadly claimed amount of an anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups or a combination thereof, wherein any percentage of the amino groups, amide groups or a combination thereof are functionalized with an aldehyde, which is in some embodiments glyoxal.
The purported synergism can only be shown over the narrow group of specific polymers and specific amounts used in the examples.
The rejections over the cited prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained and modified to address the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 32, 34-35 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm et al (US 20170037574) and as evidenced by Auhorn et al (US 6083348).
Claims 1-2: Grimm discloses a method for enhancing the strength of a paper sheet (Title, [0010]-[0011]). The method comprises in some embodiments:
forming an aqueous cellulosic papermaking furnish comprising pulp and water and traditional wet end additives (e.g.- retention aids, strength additives such as starches [cationic starch is mentioned], sizing agents, and the like) in any conventional manner generally known to those skilled in the art;
draining the furnish to form a sheet and drying the sheet ([0081]-[0083]);
after the formation of the sheet, adding a composition comprising aldehyde-functionalized polymers having net anionic charge by spraying them on the wet web just prior to the press section ([0083]-[0084]).
Grimm discloses adding the composition to the paper sheet in an amount from about 0.05 lb/ton to about 20 lb/ton, based on dry fiber ([0011], [0077]).
In some embodiments, the anionic aldehyde-functionalized polymers comprise an anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof, wherein at least a portion of the amino groups and/or the amide groups are functionalized with an aldehyde ([0042]-[0047], [0056], [0069]).
Conventional cationic additives to the papermaking furnish include polyethyleneimines, polymers containing vinylamine units and/or poly(diallyldimethylammonium chlorides), cationic fixing agents, cationic drainage aids, cationic retention aids and cationic flocculants alone or as a mixture with one another may be used as process chemicals. Particularly suitable retention aids and flocculants are, for example, cationic polyacrylamides having a high molar mass (0005-[0006]). (also see Auhorn et al, Abs; col 2, lines 49-53 and 59-65 for further evidence).
Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the furnish of Grimm et al comprising cationic polymers as typical additives well known in the art, drain water from the furnish to form a sheet, and add to the formed sheet a claimed amount of a composition comprising disclosed aldehyde-functionalized polymers having net anionic charge by spraying them on the wet web just prior to the press section, with a reasonable expectation of success in enhancing the strength of the paper sheet.
Claim 3: As known in the papermaking art, from 0.005 to 1.0% by weight (0.1 to 20 lb/ton), based on dry paper, of retention aids, drainage aids or flocculants is metered into the main papermaking stock in conventional manner (see Auhorn, col 2, lines 37-44 for evidence). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a claimed amount of cationic polymers to the wet end of the papermaking process as a conventional amount of cationic additives for retention aids, drainage aids or flocculants.
Claim 4: The anionic aldehyde-functionalized polymers comprise at least about 15 mole percent of the amino groups, amide groups, or both the amino or amide groups that are functionalized with one or more aldehydes ([0011], [0044]). The amount significantly overlays the claimed range.
Claim 5:The anionic aldehyde-functionalized polymers are mono-reacted and di-reacted in various embodiments with the aldehyde at a ratio of mono-reacted to di-reacted of from0at least 1.5:1 to about 50:1 ([0042]-[0047]).
Claim 6: The anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof can be a copolymer and comprises an acrylamide monomer [0061]. Grimm et al discloses generally that anionic and nonionic monomers are used to form the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or amino and amide groups [0069]. Disclosed non-ionic monomers [0057] are the same as the claimed monomers.
Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include claimed non-ionic monomers in the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or amino and amide as suitable monomers disclosed by Grimm et al.
Claim 7: In some embodiments, the aldehyde used to form the aldehyde-functionalized polymer is glyoxal [0053]. As noted previously, the polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof can be a copolymer and comprises an acrylamide monomer Therefore, in said embodiments, the functionalized polymer is a glyoxalated polyacrylamide or, at least, it would have been obvious to select acrylamide as the non-ionic monomer an anionic monomer to form the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof and functionalize the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof with glyoxal, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Grimm et al discloses suitable monomers for cationic polymers include allylamine, diallylamine and diallyldimethylammonium chloride ([0057], [0059]). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include acrylamide and a claimed monomer as common cationic monomers used in the art for cationic polyacrylamide additives in papermaking furnish (also see Auhorn et al, col 2, line 59 to col 3, line 13 for evidence).
Claim 9: Cationic starch is recited as a conventional additive to the furnish ([0005], [0082]-[0084]).
Claim 32: Grimm et al discloses a headbox used in examples [0096]. A headbox is a well-known component of the wet end of typical papermaking processes. In examples, Grimm et al forms paper by draining water from a furnish in a headbox ([0096]-[0097]).
Claim 34: The anionic glyoxalated acrylamide polymers are applied by spraying to a formed ply (or sheet) [0096], which is downstream of the headbox.
Claims 35 and 39: As discussed with regard to Claim 1 and Claim 7, Grimm et al embodies or at least suggests a method for enhancing the strength of a paper sheet. The method comprises forming an aqueous cellulosic papermaking furnish comprising pulp and water and traditional wet end additives (e.g.- retention aids, strength additives such as starches [cationic starch is mentioned], sizing agents, and the like) in any conventional manner generally known to those skilled in the art. Therefore, adding a wet end composition comprising an effective amount of traditional wet end additives, including a cationic or amphoteric polymer with a net positive charge to a furnish comprising pulp and water in the wet end of the papermaking process would have been obvious to form the furnish. The method further comprises draining the furnish to form a paper sheet from the pulp and spraying an effective amount of a composition comprising aldehyde-functionalized polymers having net anionic charge such as an anionic glyoxalated polyacrylamide onto the paper sheet prior to the press section ([0082]-[0084], [0096]).
Anionic glyoxalated polyacrylamide comprises the anionic polymer as claimed wherein the amino groups and/or the amide groups are functionalized with glyoxal.
Alternatively, in some embodiments, the aldehyde used to form the aldehyde-functionalized polymer is glyoxal [0053]. As noted previously, the polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof can be a copolymer and comprises an acrylamide monomer Therefore, in said embodiments, the functionalized polymer is an anionic glyoxalated polyacrylamide or, at least, it would have been obvious to select acrylamide as the non-ionic monomer an anionic monomer to form the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof and functionalize the anionic polymer comprising amino groups, amide groups, or a combination thereof with glyoxal, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 40: As known in the papermaking art, from 0.005 to 1.0% by weight (0.1 to 20 lb/ton), based on dry paper, of retention aids, drainage aids or flocculants is metered into the main papermaking stock in conventional manner (see Auhorn, col 2, lines 37-44 for evidence). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a claimed amount of cationic polymers to the wet end of the papermaking process as a conventional amount of cationic additives for retention aids, drainage aids or flocculants.
Claim 41: The anionic glyoxal-functionalized polymers comprise at least about 15 mole percent of the amino groups, amide groups, or both the amino or amide groups that are functionalized with one or more glyoxal ([0011], [0044]). The amount significantly overlays the claimed range.
Claim 42:The anionic glyoxal-functionalized polymers are mono-reacted and di-reacted in various embodiments with the aldehyde (glyoxal) at a ratio of mono-reacted to di-reacted of from at least 1.5:1 to about 50:1 ([0042]-[0047]).
Claim 43: Grimm et al discloses suitable monomers for cationic polymers include allylamine, diallylamine and diallyldimethylammonium chloride ([0057], [0059]). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include acrylamide and a claimed monomer as common cationic monomers used in the art for cationic polyacrylamide additives in papermaking furnish (also see Auhorn et al, col 2, line 59 to col 3, line 13 for evidence).
Claim 44: Cationic starch is recited as a conventional additive to the furnish ([0005], [0082]-[0084]).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm et al in view of Lu et al (US 2014/0262091).
The disclosure of Grimm et al is used as above. Grimm et al discloses an example wherein the anionic glyoxalated acrylamide polymers are applied through a spray boom to the underside of a top ply prior to meshing with a bottom ply [0096] (therefore a paper comprising a top ply and a bottom ply are implicitly disclosed). Grimm et al does not disclose applying the anionic glyoxalated acrylamide polymers,. Grimm et al also does not disclose that the paper comprises a filler ply between the top ply and the bottom ply. However, Lu et al discloses a method for enhancing the strength of a paper sheet (Abstract, [0010-0017].). In an exemplary embodiment, the method comprises spraying an effective amount of a composition onto the fibrous web, which can be wet or mostly dry (paper sheet) ([0078], Claims 17-18). The composition comprises an anionic aldehyde-functionalized polymer resin comprising a polymer produced by reacting a polymer including one or more hydroxyl, amine, or amide groups with one or more aldehydes. In an exemplary embodiment, the anionic polymeric aldehyde-functionalized polymer resin is a gloxylated polyacrylamide ([0032]-[0033], [0062]-[0063], [0066]).
The paper sheet comprises one-ply, two-ply, or three or more plies [0045]. Fillers are disclosed as part of the furnish [0050]. Therefore, a paper comprising a top ply, a bottom ply, and a filler ply disposed between the top ply and the bottom ply is embodied. The composition can be selectively present on one surface or in one layer of a multilayered web. In multi-layered webs, each individual layer may be independently treated or untreated with the strength system and other chemical treatments of the present disclosure. In an exemplary embodiment, the strength system is predominantly applied to one layer in a multilayer web. Alternatively, at least one layer is treated with significantly less strength system than other layers. For example, an inner layer can serve as a treated layer.") [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat a multi-layer paper comprising a top ply, a bottom ply, and a filler ply disposed between the top ply and the bottom ply with the composition comprising aldehyde-functionalized polymers having net anionic charge of Grimm et al in view of Lu et al by applying the composition to any surface of any inner layer or outer layer, such as the claimed surface(s), with a reasonable expectation of enhancing the strength of the treated paper.
Since Lu et al discloses that the three ply paper can be treated with the composition on the top or bottom of any layer as functionally equivalent options, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the underside of a top ply prior to meshing with a bottom ply with a reasonable expectation of enhancing the strength of the treated paper.
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 DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-8244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM (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.
/DENNIS R CORDRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748