DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 02/18/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-20 are non-elected. Claims 1-12 are elected for prosecution.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ODERMATT ET AL (Z-Profile of Styrene Acrylate and Urea Formaldehyde Resin in Foils, measured by Py-GC/MS).
For claim 1, ODERMATT teaches a method of validating impregnation of paper sections in a direction parallel to the paper and throughout the Z direction [p.277]. ODERMATT also teaches multiple sheet (A and B) are sectioned into multiple parts (series) [p. 280]. This teaches the limitation of “method of preparing paper, the method comprising the steps of: applying a paper additive to a first sheet of paper using an initial production technique; sectioning the first sheet of paper into a first section and a second section, wherein the first sheet of paper has a top surface defined in an X-Y plane, wherein a Z axis is perpendicular to the X-Y plane, and wherein the first section and the second section are defined at different positions along the Z axis”. ODERMATT teaches the method can be used to track and control the distribution of paper additive to make repeatable quality [p. 280-281 Reproduction and Conclusions]. This teaches the limitation of “measuring a paper additive concentration in the first section and in the second section; and adjusting the initial production technique to a subsequent production technique to influence a paper additive concentration profile along the Z axis”.
For claim 2, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches the addition of material to a second paper with the same method [p.280]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: applying the paper additive to a second sheet of paper using the initial production technique, where the same initial production technique is used for the first sheet of paper and the second sheet of paper; and measuring a selected paper property of the second sheet of paper, wherein the paper additive influences the selected paper property”.
For claim 4, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches the use of a microtome to divide the sheet perpendicular to the Z axis [p. 278 Paper sectioning]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: attaching the first sheet of paper to a microtome, wherein the microtome is configured to slice the first sheet of paper perpendicular to the Z axis”.
For claim 7, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches the impregnation of Urea Formaldehyde [Summary]. The examiner notes urea formaldehyde has nitrogen content. ODERMATT detects and measures the content of the additive. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the paper additive comprises nitrogen, wherein measuring the paper additive concentration comprises measuring a nitrogen concentration in the first section, and determining the paper additive concentration in the first section based on the nitrogen concentration of the first section and a percentage of a paper additive molecular weight from nitrogen”.
For claim 8, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 7, as above. ODERMATT teaches the use of filament pyrolyzing system for measurement [p. 279]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the nitrogen concentration is measured using pyro- chemiluminescence”.
For claim 9, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 7, as above. ODERMATT teaches the use of a calibration method prior to testing with different amounts of additive and different additives that uses the same pyrolysis system as the normal testing [p. 279]. ODERMATT further compares this calibration (paper A) to other sheets (B) [Fig 4]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein measuring the paper additive concentration further comprises: producing a reference sheet of paper using a reference production technique, wherein the reference production technique is the same as the initial production technique with the exception that the reference production technique is free of a paper additive addition step, such that the reference sheet of paper is free of the paper additive; measuring the nitrogen concentration in the reference sheet of paper; determining a paper additive induced nitrogen concentration in the first section by reducing the nitrogen concentration measured in the first section to account for the nitrogen concentration measured in the reference sheet of paper; and determining the paper additive concentration based on the paper additive induced nitrogen concentration in the first section”.
For claim 10, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches reproducing the application and measurement (sheets A through H) [p.280-281 Reproducibility]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising: repeating the method of claim 1, with the exception of applying the paper additive to a subsequent sheet of paper using the subsequent production technique, wherein the paper additive concentration is measured in the subsequent sheet of paper; and comparing the first sheet of paper to the subsequent sheet of paper to inform adjustments to an improved paper production technique”.
For claim 11, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches the creation of twenty sections using the microtome [p. 278]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: sectioning the first sheet of paper comprises sectioning the first sheet of paper into more than two sections”.
For claim 12, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 1, as above. ODERMATT teaches additives are impregnated into the sheet [Summary] and shows examples where the urea formaldehyde is present on both outer surfaces of the sheet [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: applying the paper additive to the first sheet of paper comprises applying the paper additive to a surface of the first sheet of paper”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODERMATT ET AL (Z-Profile of Styrene Acrylate and Urea Formaldehyde Resin in Foils, measured by Py-GC/MS) in view of SIQUEIRA ET AL (Polyamidoamine Epichlorohydrin-based Papers: Mechanisms of Wet Strength Development and Paper Repulping).
For claim 3, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 2, as above. ODERMATT teaches the impregnation of styrene acrylate and urea formaldehyde [Summary]. SIQUEIRA teaches urea formaldehyde is a strengthening agent in papermaking [p. 7]. SIQUEIRA teaches wet strength agents also retain strength when dry [p. 7]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the selected paper property is strength, and wherein the paper additive is a paper strength additive”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to use the urea formaldehyde of SIQUEIRA in the method of ODERMATT as a paper strength additive. One would be motivated based on the retained strength of Urea formaldehyde as taught by SIQUEIRA.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODERMATT ET AL (Z-Profile of Styrene Acrylate and Urea Formaldehyde Resin in Foils, measured by Py-GC/MS) in view of VICAR (US 20080041069 A1).
For claim 5, ODERMATT teaches the method of claim 4, as above. ODERMATT teaches the use of a microtome to divide the sheet perpendicular to the Z axis [p. 278 Paper sectioning]. ODERMATT does not specify the style of microtome used. VICAR teaches a method for using a microtome [abstract]. VICAR further teaches the microtome used is a cryostat microtome that uses fluid to cool the system and the material tested [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the microtome is a cryostat microtome, and wherein attaching the first sheet of paper to the cryostat microtome comprises freezing an attachment fluid positioned between the cryostat microtome and the first sheet of paper”. VICAR teaches the advantage of providing a separate cooling fluid supply to each of the cooling chamber and the sample cooling means is that the temperature of the chamber and the sample cooling means can be controlled independently [0024]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to use the cooling liquid of VICAR in the method of ODERMATT. One would be motivated based on the improved control as taught by VICAR.
For claim 6, ODERMATT and VICAR teach the method of claim 5, as above. VICAR teaches a freezing plate is used to cool the sample (tissue) [0009 and 0028]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the attachment fluid comprises a tissue freezing medium”.
Conclusion
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