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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 9/18/2025, have been fully considered and have overcome the rejections over the cited prior art as formulated for the following reasons.
The reference Gerstenhaber fails to disclose a cationic polyacrylamide, but instead discloses a polyamine as a dispersant. Dixit et al discloses forming the web of the paper composition using conventional papermaking equipment followed by applying the formulation to the formed web. The prior art also does not disclose adding a pulp-based composition as claimed into the wet end of a paper pulping machine or process.
The outstanding rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, an amended rejection is presented over the cited prior art.
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 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, 3-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixit et al (US 2004/0005341).
Claims 1 and 4-5: Dixit et al discloses a paper composition comprising a web of cellulosic pulp fibers (reads on a pulp based composition) and a solution comprising an inventive formulation applied to the web that imparts oil and grease resistant properties and release properties to the paper composition (Abs, [0036]-[0037]). In disclosed embodiments, the formulation comprises:
an alkyl ketene dimer (AKD) [0038];
an aqueous fatty acid melamine and paraffin wax emulsion (reads on a petroleum wax based aqueous emulsion) [0039]-[0040]; and
a polyvinyl alcohol [0039], preferably an intermediately hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol (which comprises a vinyl acetate-vinyl alcohol polymer and is a food-safe coating formulation) [0042]-[0045].
Dixit et al does not disclose a retention aid. However, it is noted that the claims recite “0 weight % to 0.5 weight % of a retention aid” and therefore do not require a retention aid to be present.
Dixit et al discloses that the paper composition can be formed into a shaped article using any means known in the art ([0028], [0063]). Shaped articles include food receptacles [0063], therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composition and its ingredients are food safe.
Dixit et al discloses that the paper composition comprises a wet end sizing such as alkyl ketene dimer (AKD) incorporated into a paper composition in an amount of about 0.1% to 3.0%, by weight of the paper composition [0049], the remaining percentage attributed to the web. The disclosed range overlays the claimed range. To the web is applied about 0.5% to about 10% of the formulation to form an oil and grease resistant material (paper composition) without the use of fluorocarbons ([0002], [0050], [0054]). The formulation comprises an amount of fatty acid melamine wax component (comprising the fatty acid melamine wax and paraffin wax emulsion) from about 5% by weight to about 80% by weight of the formulation [0048]. By calculation, the fatty acid melamine wax and paraffin wax emulsion comprises from about 0.025% by weight to about 8% by weight based on the weight of the formulation and substrate or other underlying material which forms the paper composition. The disclosed range overlays the claimed range. The paper composition comprises from about 90% by weight to about 99.5% by weight web based on the weight of the formulation and substrate or other underlying material which forms the paper composition [0050]. The disclosed range lies within the claimed range.
Dixit et al discloses that the amount of the formulation applied to the substrate such as a fibrous web or sheet is adjusted to accommodate the particular product being treated to provide the desired level of oil and grease resistance [0050]. The amount of intermediately hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol preferably ranges from about 20% by weight to about 95% based on the weight of the formulation [0048]. When the formulation is applied to the web in an amount of about 0.5% to about 10% of the formulation, the obtained paper composition will contain between about 0.1% and about 9.5% of the intermediately hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol based on the weight of the formulation and substrate or other underlying material which forms the paper composition. The disclosed range overlays the claimed range.
While the specific amount of petroleum wax based aqueous emulsion is not disclosed. The relative percentages of intermediately hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol and the fatty acid melamine wax components (petroleum wax based aqueous emulsion) are also adjusted to accommodate the particular product being treated, the particular application method, and/or the desired end result to be achieved by treating the product with the formulation [0048]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the amounts of paraffin wax based emulsion and the components in the paper composition to obtain desired properties of the particular article produced.
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 select claimed amounts of a pulp, an AKD sizing component, a food safe coating formulation containing a petroleum wax emulsion and an intermediately hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol, and to form an article therefrom as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable paper composition for forming shaped articles as disclosed by Dixit et al.
Claims 3 and 8-9: Dixit et al discloses that the paper composition can be formed as a shaped article using any means known in the art ([0028], [0063]). Shaped articles include food receptacles [0063], therefore the composition and its ingredients are food safe. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form or mold the composition of Claim 1 into a food-shaped article as an intended use for the composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Dixit et al is the nearest prior art. Dixit et al discloses forming the web of the paper composition using conventional papermaking equipment followed by applying the formulation to the formed web. The prior art fails disclose or reasonably suggest adding a pulp-based composition as claimed into the wet end of a paper pulping machine or process.
Conclusion
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