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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Independent claim 1 has been amended to now limit the application of the sealing solution in liquid form and at a temperature of 15 °C to 35 °C to a first surface of a cellulosic substrate. Dependent claim 35 amended to recite analogous limitations for a contacting step.
Independent claim 34 is amended to incorporate the limitation from claim 35 that the sealing solution is free from modified starch. (Applicant arguments/remarks 05/11/2025 p.8).
1) After providing a synopsis of the primary reference used to reject claim 1 under U.S.C. § 103, van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) as to what it discloses pertaining to the limitations of claim 1, and emphasizing that its adhesive composition is a solid gel which is heated above its softening point and is applied to a substrate as an adhesive, the applicant further argues that the adhesive composition of van Delden is still a non-liquid within the range of 15 °C to 35 °C (paragraph [0040] the softening point of the adhesive composition of the invention is typically higher than 40 °C). Therefore, a selection or modification of van Delden’s adhesive composition would require it to soften at a temperature which is below its range. Therefore, there can be no conclusion of obviousness for the van Delden reference alone or in combination with various secondary references.
The applicant summarizes by stating that either: (1) van Delden's adhesive composition is applied at a temperature that meets the limitation of the application step, but which fails to meet the liquid form limitation in the application step, or (2) van Delden's adhesive composition is applied at a sufficiently high temperature to be in liquid form in the application step, but which fails to meet the temperature limitation of the application step. In either case, van Delden does not meet all recited limitations of claim 1 (Applicant arguments/remarks 05/11/2025 pp. 8-11).
The examiner is providing new grounds of rejection as necessitated by these amendments.
2) The applicant has amended independent claim 34 to add the limitation of the sealing solution to be free from modified starch. Applicant argues that this absence of the presence of modified starch would remove the possibility of van Delden as a reference since the presence of van Delden’s thermoreversible gelling starch, which is a modified starch which is an essential component according to van Delden’s principle of operation would preclude using van Delden as a reference since it would change van Delden’s principle of operation and thus is not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. (Applicant arguments/remarks 05/11/2025 pp. 11-12).
The examiner is providing new grounds of rejection as necessitated by these amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 19-24 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) in view of Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023.
Regarding Claim 1, van Delden discloses a method for sealing a cellulosic article (paragraphs [0078] [0087] adhering first substrate to second substrate, where substrates may be polar such as paper, cardboard or wood, where these are inherently cellulosic), the method comprising:
applying a sealing solution to a first surface of a cellulosic substrate (paragraph [0078]), the sealing solution comprising:
(i) water in an amount of at least 60 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraphs [0060] [0079] preferably 30-70 wt. %),
and
(iii) a solid polyol plasticizer (paragraph [0057] including plasticizers based on polyglycols and sorbitol which is a polyol – see instant application specification – paragraph [0014]) in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0058] plasticizer content in the adhesive composition may be 0.1-50 wt. %, preferably 1-40 wt. %, more preferably 3-30 wt. % based on the total weight of the adhesive composition); and
contacting a second surface of a cellulosic substrate with the sealing solution on the first surface to form a seal between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0080] connecting the first and the second substrate using the adhesive composition wherein the adhesive composition is in liquid form).
But while van Delden teaches ranges of starch based on the sealing solution (paragraphs [0030] [0048] [0055] can be gelling starch and bonding starch concentration of the bonding starch is preferably 5-80 wt. %, more preferably 10-75 wt. %, even more preferably 30-70 wt. %; concentration of the thermoreversible gelling starch in the adhesive composition is preferably 1-60wt. %, more preferably 2-40 wt. %, even more preferably 3-35 wt. % both based on the total weight of the adhesive composition
however, van Delden does not explicitly teach that the, ii) starch is in an amount in a range of 1 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the sealing solution.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a starch amount in a range of 1 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the sealing solution since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to use this range for the purpose of optimizing the adhesion of the sealing solution because starch is considered to be the main bonding polymer in an adhesive composition based on starches (paragraph [0068]).
However, van Delden does not disclose that the step of applying a sealing solution to a first surface of a cellulosic substrate is in liquid form.at a temperature of 15 °C to 35 °C
In the same field of endeavor, Kumar teaches a method for sealing a water-soluble film by applying a sealing solution (ti, abs) which comprises water in an amount of at least 60 wt. % based on the sealing solution (Col. 7 ll. 8-10 water concentration rages of about 85 wt. % to about 95 wt. % or about 90 wt. % to about 95 wt. % in the sealing solution can be effective), with the other constituents similar to van Delden present include starch as compatibilizing agent (Col. 12 ll. 22-23, 26-28 which can include a range of 1 wt. % to 20 wt. % as indicated by a remainder subtracted after the other constituents of water and polyol) and a solid polyol plasticizer (Fig. 2 Col. 15 ll. 32-42 amount ranging from 2 wt. % to about 15 wt. % which is encompassed by 0.5 % wt. % to 20 wt. %, as recited), and where the sealing solution is applied on water-soluble films (Fig. 1 Col. 14 ll. 58-65 two surfaces – 12, 22 seal – 32 two films – 10, 20 and surfaces 12, 22 water-soluble packet – 100).
Moreover, this sealing solution can be in liquid form, as a viable option (Col.5 ll 13-20; Col. 6 ll. 50-56 solvent can be a liquid at room temperature or seal-forming temperatures; solvent can be a liquid or solid in its natural state at typical sealing temperatures) where the temperature range of 15 °C to 35 °C is a possible range (Col. 13 ll. 32-35 disclosed sealing solution can be used to seal to the water-soluble film surface with or without the application of heat and/or pressure for example according to conventional film processing techniques). Thus, Kumar teaches that room temperature sealing is an option which is typically about 20 °C and is, therefore, encompassed by the recited range of 15 °C to 35 °C.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of van Delden with the teachings of Kumar whereby a method for sealing a cellulosic article comprsing a sealing solution that comprises water, starch and a solid polyol plasticizer and used in contacting a second surface of a cellulosic substrate with the sealing solution on the first surface forming a seal between the first and second d surfaces, as disclosed by van Delden,
would also include applying this sealing solution in liquid form at a temperature of 15 °C to 35 °C in a method for sealing a water-soluble film by applying an aqueous sealing solution, as taught by Kumar which has a similar set of components as van Delden as meeting the claim 1 limitations.
The one with ordinary skill in the art would consider this advantageous because sealing at lower temperatures prevents possible damage from higher temperatures, an aqueous solution is comparatively low cost (water) and when applied at appropriate levels can result in strong seals (Col. 1 43-47; Col. 2 ll. 6-12).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the water is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 80 wt.% to 98 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0060] adhesive composition may have a water content of 20-80 wt. %, preferably 30-70 wt. %, based on the total weight of the adhesive composition).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the starch is selected from the group consisting of unmodified starch, modified starch, and combinations thereof (paragraphs [0030] [0036] where a thermoreversible gelling starch is a modified starch).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but neither van Delden nor Kumar discloses that the starch is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 1 wt.% to 15 wt.% based on the sealing solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a starch amount in a range of 1 wt. % to 15 wt. % based on the sealing solution since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art where one would have been motivated to use this range for the purpose of optimizing the adhesion of the sealing solution because starch is considered to be the main bonding polymer in an adhesive composition based on starches (paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the solid polyol plasticizer is selected from the group consisting of isosorbide, erythritol, threitol, arabitol, xylitol, ribitol, mannitol, sorbitol, galactitol, fucitol, iditol, inositol, volemitol, isomalt, maltitol, lactitol, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0058] adhesive composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the solid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 7.5 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0058] the content of the plasticizer in the adhesive composition may be 0.1-50 wt. % preferably 1-40 wt. %, more preferably 3-30 wt. % based on the total weight of the adhesive composition – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that the starch is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 40 wt.% to 95 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution; and the solid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a starch amount in a range of 40 wt.% to 95 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution; and
the solid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art One would have been motivated to use this range for the purpose of optimizing the sealing performance of the sealing solution
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but neither van Delden nor Kumar teach that the weight ratio of starch to solid polyol plasticizer in the sealing solution is in a range of 0.1 to 40.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a weight ratio of starch to solid polyol plasticizer in the sealing solution that is in a range of 0.1 to 40 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been motivated to use this range obtained from routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the method.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the sealing solution further comprises (iv) a liquid polyol plasticizer (paragraph [0057] the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; adhesive composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).) in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 30 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0058] the content of the plasticizer in the adhesive composition may be 0.1-50 wt. % preferably 1-40 wt. %, more preferably 3-30 wt. % based on the total weight of the adhesive composition – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and van Delden further discloses that the liquid polyol plasticizer is selected from the group consisting of glycerin, partially alkylated glycerin, partially alkanoated glycerin, diglycerin, triglycerin, 1,2-ethanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, 1,2- butanediol, 1,3-butanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 2,3-butanediol, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0057] the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; adhesive composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and van Delden further discloses that: the solid polyol plasticizer comprises sorbitol; and the liquid polyol plasticizer comprises glycerin (paragraph [0057] the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; adhesive composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 10, but neither van Delden nor Kumar teach wherein;
the starch is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 40 wt.% to 98 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution;
the solid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 2 wt.% to 60 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution; and
the liquid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 30 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of the starch, the solid polyol plasticizer, and the liquid polyol plasticizer based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been motivated to use this range obtained from routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the method.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 10, but neither van Delden nor Kumar teach wherein:
a weight ratio of starch to solid polyol plasticizer in the sealing solution is in a range of 0.1 to 40; and
a weight ratio of solid polyol plasticizer to liquid polyol plasticizer in the sealing solution is in a range of 0.1 to 20.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the weight ratio of starch to solid polyol plasticizer, and the weight ratio of solid polyol plasticizer to liquid polyol plasticizer by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the method.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that: the cellulosic substrate is selected from the group of paper, corrugated board, cardboard, wood, and fabric (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the sealing solution further comprises a filler in an amount in a range of 0.01 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0070] the adhesive composition may for example comprise one or more additive selected from the group consisting of anti-foaming agents, tackifiers, rheology modifier, filler, anti-oxidants, water resistance modulators and preservatives) but it does not teach that filler is in an amount in a range of range of 0.01 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the sealing solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize filler amount in the solution by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the method.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that in its method that: after applying the sealing solution to the first surface of the cellulosic substrate, drying the cellulosic substrate thereby removing at least some of the water from the sealing solution (claim 1, aqueous adhesive composition comprising a thermoreversible gelling starch, a bonding starch and a plasticizer, wherein the adhesive composition is thermoreversible, wherein the adhesive composition loses its thermoreversibility when the adhesive composition is set by drying).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses contacting the second surface with the first surface comprises at least one of applying pressure to the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0041] two substrates are held together by pressing them against each other) and applying heat to the first surface and the second surface to form the seal (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but neither van Delden nor Kumar disclose that the second surface comprises a second sealing solution thereon to be contacted with the first surface when forming the seal. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have applied the sealing solution to the second surface in order to increase the bond strength, (paragraph [0109] this is suggested by increasing the amount of adhesive by using a different winding rod)
It would also be obvious to try this technique (MPEP § 2143 I (E) “obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and van Delden further discloses that the first surface and the second surface are from the same cellulosic substrate (paragraphs [0102] [0117] where one Kraft paper is glued and placed on top of another Kraft paper and adhered, paper loops are formed from strips).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and van Delden further discloses that the first surface and the second surface are from different cellulosic substrates (paragraphs [0078] [0103] where two different types of Kraft paper are described as one smooth and shiny and the other matt).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and van Delden further discloses wherein the sealing solution comprises the water in an amount in a range of 60 wt.% to 85 wt.% based on the sealing solution. (paragraphs [0060] [0079] preferably 30-70 wt. % – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) and Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023 as applied to claim 1 above and further with evidence provided by You (US 2020/0222291 A1) and Suzuki (US 2015/0150806 A1) both IDS 06/23/2023.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and van Delden further discloses that the solid polyol plasticizer contains 4 to 16 carbon atoms and is solid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35°C (paragraph [0057].and there is evidence from You where Sorbitol is described as having 6 carbon atoms (paragraph [0063]) and from Suzuki where Sorbitol has a melting point above 35° C and is therefore a solid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35° C (paragraph [0045] – 97 to 112 °C – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) and Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023 as applied to claim 10 above and further with evidence provided by Shigematsu (US 2005/0284337 A1) IDS 06/23/2023 and Burgan (US 2019/055498 A1) IDS 06/23/2023.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and van Delden further discloses that the solid polyol plasticizer (paragraph [0057].the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).contains 4 to 16 carbon atoms and is solid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35°C and there is evidence from Shigematsu (paragraphs [0029]-[0030] where Glycerin is a liquid at room temperature with a boiling point of 290 C and is therefore a liquid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35 C) and from Burgan (paragraph [0031] where Glycerin has 3 carbon atoms i.e. propane -1,2,3-triol (C3H8O3)).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) and Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rabnawaz (WO2020/041409 A1) IDS 06/23/2023.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the cellulosic substrate is in the form of a food-service article selected from the group consisting of a drinking cup, a food plate, and a food wrapper.
Rabnawaz discloses a method for forming a cellulosic substrate in the form of a food-service article selected from the group consisting of a drinking cup, a food plate, and a food wrapper (paragraph [0026] the cellulosic substrate is in the form of a food-service article selected from the group consisting of a drinking cup, a food plate, and a food wrapper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cellulosic substrate in the form of a food-service article because paper is a common material used for food service articles (paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the cellulosic substrate is in the form of a packaging box.
However, Rabnawaz further teaches in its method the cellulosic substrate is in the form of a packaging box (paragraph [0027] the cellulosic substrate is in the form of a packaging box (e.g. corrugated boxes, cardboard boxes))
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) and Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023 as applied to claim 1 above and with evidence provided by Burgan (US 2019/055498 A1), You (US 2020/0222291 A1) IDS 06/23/2023 and Suzuki (US 2015/0150806 A1) IDS 06/23/2023.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and van Delden further discloses that the sealing solution comprises the water in an amount in a range of 60 wt.% to 85 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraphs [0060] [0079] preferably 30-70 wt. – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03);
van Delden further discloses that the sealing solution further comprises (iv) a liquid polyol plasticizer in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 30 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0057] including plasticizers based on polyglycols and sorbitol which is a polyol – see instant application specification – paragraph [0014]) in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0058] plasticizer content in the adhesive composition may be 0.1-50 wt. %, preferably 1-40 wt. %, more preferably 3-30 wt. % based on the total weight of the adhesive composition);;
the liquid polyol plasticizer contains 2 to 4 carbon atoms and is liquid over a range of temperatures from 15°C to 35*C (paragraph [0057] the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose) and there is evidence from Shigematsu (paragraphs [0029]-[0030] where Glycerin is a liquid at room temperature with a boiling point of 290 C and is therefore a liquid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35 C) where glycerin contains 3 carbon atoms as evidenced from Burgan (paragraph [0031] where Glycerin has 3 carbon atoms i.e. propane -1,2,3-triol (C3H8O3))
the solid polyol plasticizer contains 4 to 16 carbon atoms and is solid over a range of temperatures from 15°C to 35°C (paragraph [0057]. the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose and there is evidence from You where Sorbitol is described as having 6 carbon atoms (paragraph [0063]) and from Suzuki where Sorbitol has a melting point above 35° C and is therefore a solid over a range of temperatures from 15 to 35° C (paragraph [0045] – 97 to 112 °C – where overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness MPEP § 2131.03).
While van Delden does not teach that:
the starch is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 40 wt.% to 98 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution and
the solid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 2 wt.% to 60 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution; and
the liquid polyol plasticizer is present in the sealing solution in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 30 wt.% based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution;
however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of the starch, the solid polyol plasticizer, and the liquid polyol plasticizer based on the combined amount of starch and all polyol plasticizers in the sealing solution since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and one would have been motivated to use this range obtained from routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the method.
Moreover, Kumar teaches in at least one embodiment the limitation of a step of contacting the second surface of the cellulosic substrate with the sealing solution on the first surface to form the seal between the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 1 Col. 15 ll. 13-18 the sealing solution being applied additionally or alternatively to the first surface – 12 and the second surface – 22 prior to contacting the two surfaces – 12, 22 and forming the seal – 32) and
that this sealing solution can be in liquid form, as a viable option (Col.5 ll 13-20; Col. 6 ll. 50-56 solvent can be a liquid at room temperature or seal-forming temperatures; solvent can be a liquid or solid in its natural state at typical sealing temperatures) where the temperature range of 15 °C to 35 °C is a possible range (Col. 13 ll. 32-35 disclosed sealing solution can be used to seal to the water-soluble film surface with or without the application of heat and/or pressure for example according to conventional film processing techniques). Thus, Kumar teaches that room temperature sealing is an option which is typically about 20 °C and is, therefore, encompassed by the recited range of 15 °C to 35 °C.
However, van Delden discloses that its main constituent a “thermoreversible gelling starch” refers to a modified starch (paragraph [0036]) and, therefore, van Delden does not disclose that it is free from a modified starch.
But Kumar has at least one embodiment whereby the sealing solution is free from modified starch, where modified starches are on a list of optional ingredients including film formers (Col. 13 ll. 17-22) and compatibilizers (Col. 12 ll. 2-12).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the disclosures of van Delden and Kumar, such that all the components of the composition of the sealing solution of van Delden including: the water in a range of 60% to 85%, a liquid polyol plasticizer in a range of 0.5 wt. % to 30 wt. % with the liquid and solid polyol plasticizer limitations and the starch in a range of 40 wt. % to 98 wt. % would also include, as found in Kumar, that the sealing solution is free of modified starch. which has a similar set of components as van Delden as meeting the claim 1 limitations.
This would be obvious and advantageous to one with ordinary skill in the art because the presence of modified starch is an option depending on what the substrate sealing requirements are for the particular sealing solution formulation (Col. 12 l. 57-Col. 13 l. 30; (e.g. environmental and human consumption concerns).
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of van Delden and Kumar disclose all the limitations of claim 35, and van Delden further discloses that: the solid polyol plasticizer comprises sorbitol; and the liquid polyol plasticizer comprises glycerin (paragraph [0057] the adhesive composition may comprise one or more plasticizers; adhesive composition may further comprise one or more plasticizers common plasticizers include glycerine, glycols, sorbitol, glucose and sugar, in particular sucrose).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Delden (US 2016/0168430 A1) with evidence provided by Kumar (US 10,604,318 B2) both IDS 06/23/2023
Regarding Claim 34, van Delden discloses a method for sealing a cellulosic article (paragraphs [0078] [0087] adhering first substrate to second substrate, where substrates may be polar such as paper, cardboard or wood, where these are inherently cellulosic), the method comprising:
applying a sealing solution to a first surface of a cellulosic substrate (paragraph [0078]), the sealing solution comprising:
(i) water in an amount of at least 60 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraphs [0060] [0079] preferably 30-70 wt. %),
and
(iii) a solid polyol plasticizer (paragraph [0057] including plasticizers based on polyglycols and sorbitol which is a polyol – see instant application specification – paragraph [0014]) in an amount in a range of 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the sealing solution (paragraph [0058] plasticizer content in the adhesive composition may be 0.1-50 wt. %, preferably 1-40 wt. %, more preferably 3-30 wt. % based on the total weight of the adhesive composition);
and van Delden further discloses contacting a second surface of a cellulosic substrate with the sealing solution on the first surface to form a seal between the first surface and the second surface (paragraph [0080] connecting the first and the second substrate using the adhesive composition wherein the adhesive composition is in liquid form).
But while van Delden teaches ranges of starch based on the sealing solution (paragraphs [0030] [0048] [0055] can be gelling starch and bonding starch concentration of the bonding starch is preferably 5-80 wt. %, more preferably 10-75 wt. %, even more preferably 30-70 wt. %; concentration of the thermoreversible gelling starch in the adhesive composition is preferably 1-60wt. %, more preferably 2-40 wt. %, even more preferably 3-35 wt. % both based on the total weight of the adhesive composition
however, van Delden does not explicitly teach that the, ii) starch is in an amount in a range of 1 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the sealing solution.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a starch amount in a range of 1 wt. % to 20 wt. % based on the sealing solution since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to use this range for the purpose of optimizing the adhesion of the sealing solution because starch is considered to be the main bonding polymer in an adhesive composition based on starches (paragraph [0068]).
However, van Delden discloses that its main constituent a “thermoreversible gelling starch” refers to a modified starch (paragraph [0036]) and, therefore, van Delden does not disclose that it is free from a modified starch as is recited by the claim.
But Kumar has at least one embodiment whereby the sealing solution is free from modified starch, where modified starches are on a list of optional ingredients including film formers (Col. 13 ll. 17-22) and compatibilizers (Col. 12 ll. 2-12).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined the disclosures of van Delden and Kumar, such that all the components of the composition of the sealing solution of van Delden including: the water in a range of 60% to 85%, a liquid polyol plasticizer in a range of 0.5 wt. % to 30 wt. % with the liquid and solid polyol plasticizer limitations and the starch in a range of 40 wt. % to 98 wt. % would also include, as found in Kumar, that the sealing solution is free of modified starch, which has a similar set of components as van Delden as meeting the claim 1 limitations.
This would be obvious and advantageous to one with ordinary skill in the art because the presence of modified starch is an option depending on what the substrate sealing requirements are for the particular sealing solution formulation (Col. 12 l. 57-Col. 13 l. 30; (e.g. environmental and human consumption concerns).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights