DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 07/27/2023 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 2-7, 9, 11-15 have been amended. Claims 16-18 are new.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
All claims depending therefrom are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1).
For claim 1, KRAPSCH teaches a method of increasing strength in paper [ABSTRACT]. KRAPSCH teaches the method starts with pulping an aqueous cellulose [0023]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of producing a paper on a paper machine, comprising the steps of: a) providing a pulp, such as a mixture of hardwood pulp and softwood pulp”. KRAPSCH teaches cationic glyoxylated polyacrylamide is used as a dry and/or wet strength additive [0262] and adding the GPAM strength agent to the cellulose [0172]. This teaches the limitation of “b) adding cationic glyoxylated polyacrylamide (G-PAM) to the pulp”. KRAPSCH also teaches the formation of web with the use of a flowbox [0196]. The examiner understands a flowbox to be a headbox. This teaches the limitation of “c) forming a web from the pulp in a forming section comprising a head box”. KRAPSCH teaches the web is then pressed in a press section [0196]. This teaches “d) pressing the web in a press section” of the instant claim. KRAPSCH teaches the drying of the web in a drying section [0197] and calendering in a calender [0197]. This teaches the limitations of “e) drying the web in a drying section; and f) optionally calendering the web in a calender”.
For claim 2, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the pulp is refined [0189]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the pulp is refined”.
For claim 6, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1 as above. KRAPSCH teaches the material is refined only before the strength additive [0189]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp is not subjected to refining after the cationic G-PAM addition”.
For claim 7, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KAPSCH teaches the use of multiple cellulose reactive polymer in combination [0269]. KAPSCH teaches that anionic polymer is used in solution with GPAM [0271]. The polymer are added after refining and apart from one another [0296]. The examiner understands this allows for the anionic polymer to be added before the GPAM. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising adding an anionic polymer, such as anionic polyacrylamide (A-PAM), to the pulp before the cationic G-PAM is added”.
For claim 9, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1 as above. KRAPSCH teaches adding rosin as a sizing agent to the pulp [0187]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising adding at least one hydrophobic size, such as rosin size and/or AKD, to the pulp”.
For claim 17, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 7, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the anionic polymer used is polyacrylamide [0246]. This teaches the instant claim limitation of “wherein the anionic polymer is polyacrylamide (A- PAM)”.
For claim 18 KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 9, as above. KRAPSCH teaches adding rosin as a sizing agent to the pulp [0187]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one hydrophobic size is a rosin size and/or AKD”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1).
For claim 3, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the pulping is done at a pH of 5-12 [0164]. This is before GPAM addition. This range overlaps the instant claim “wherein the pH of the pulp is in the range of 4.8-5.5 when the cationic G-PAM is added”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)
For claim 4, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the pulp has a consistency of 3 to 6% [0161]. This overlaps the instant claim limitation range “wherein the consistency of the pulp is in the range of 1.5-3.0 % when the cationic G-PAM is added”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 5, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the GPAM is added at 0.5 to 2 kg per ton dry fiber [0221]. This overlaps the range of the instant claim limitation “wherein cationic G-PAM is added in a total amount of 1.5-3.0 kg/tonne dry fiber”. See 2144.05(I).
For claim 8 KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 7, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the pulping is done at a pH of 5-12 [0164]. This is when the anionic polymer is added. This range encompasses the instant claim “wherein the pH of the pulp is in the range of 6.5-8.0 when the anionic polymer is added”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
For claim 10, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 9, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the pulping is done at a pH of 5-12 [0164]. This is during pulping just before the sizing agent is added. KRAPSCH teaches that any point before step (i) has thick stock [0205]. This stock consistency is at least 2.5% [0205]. These ranges overlaps with the range of the instant claim “wherein the pH of the pulp is in the range of 4.8-5.5 and the consistency of the pulp is in the range of 1.5-3.0 % when the at least one hydrophobic size is added”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 12, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches that thick stock is diluted to thin stock after step (i) [0205]. This is just before web formation with the headbox [0206]. KRAPSCH also teaches the thin stock is has a consistency of less than 2.0% [0205]. This range encompasses the instant claim limitation “wherein consistency of the pulp in the head box is 0.20-0.60%”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1) in view of VALKEALAAKSO (US 20200291581 A1).
For claim 11, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the addition of clay into solution [0187]. KRAPSH does not specify the amount of filler used. VALKEALAAKSO teaches a similar process to make paper with GPAM [0091] and clay [0075]. VALKEALAAKSO also teaches an ash content of at least 5% [0075]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim limitation “further comprising adding clay to the pulp in such an amount that the ash content of the paper is in the range of 2.0-5.5 %, such as 3.0-5.0 %”. See MPEP 2144.05(I). It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the ash content of VALKEALAAKSO into the clay composition of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated based on the common strength additive use and clay use.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1) in view of SOYAMA (US 9889411 B2).
For claim 13, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the use of calender but not the conditions of the calender [0197]. SOYAMA teaches a similar process of using cellulose [column 7 line 37] to form a calendered sheet [column 8 line 47]. SOYAMA teaches the paper is calendered in a soft-nip calender [column 8 line 49] at a temperature of 160°C [column 8 line 47]. This temperature value is within range of the instant claim “wherein the calender is a soft nip calender operated at a line load of 60-170 kN/m, and/or a temperature of 100-200 °C”. SOYAMA teaches the paper made in the process has improved strength due to thermal welding for the hot pressing [column 8 line 38]. The examiner understands the line load of the instant claim is an optional limitation and the claim limitations are satisfied if any one of the options are met. This temperature meets the limitations required of the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the calender load and temperature of SOYAMA into the calender process of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated based on the common calender use and the advantage of improved strength properties as taught by SOYAMA.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1) in view of VIRTANEN (US 20200080264 A1).
For claim 14, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH teaches the basis weight (grammage) of the resulting paper is 185.8 g/m2 [Table 7]. KRAPSCH does not specify the test method used to measure this value. VIRTANEN teaches the use of a polyacrylamide [0045] in cellulose [0014] to produce a sheet. VIRTANEN also teaches the basis weight is between 70 and 350 g/m2 [0049] according to ISO 536 [TABLE 1]. The examiner understands the 2019 designation shows the year of revision which does not change the methodology. This value overlaps the range of the instant claim “wherein the grammage measured according to ISO 536:2019 of the paper is at least 100 g/m2 and/or the density measured according to ISO 534:2011 of the paper is at least 600 kg/m3”. See 2144.05(I). VIRTANEN teaches the additives helped to improve the strength while maintaining recyclability [0055]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the grammage and test method of VIRTANEN into the process of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated based on the common strength additive use and the advantage of improved mechanical properties as taught by VIRTANEN.
For claim 16, KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 2, as above. KRAPSCH does not teach the refinement quality. VIRTANEN teaches the use of a polyacrylamide [0045] in cellulose [0014] to produce a sheet. VIRTANEN teaches the paper can also be low refined with a Schopper-Riegler freeness according to ISO 5267-1:1999 of at least 30° SR [0014]. This value abuts the range of the instant claim “wherein the pulp is refined such that the Schopper-Riegler number measured according to ISO 5267-1:1999 of the pulp in the head box is 20-30”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
VIRTANEN teaches the additives helped to improve the strength while maintaining recyclability [0055]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the grammage and test method of VIRTANEN into the process of KRAPSCH. One would be motivated based on the common strength additive use and the advantage of improved mechanical properties as taught by VIRTANEN.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAPSCH (US 20140284011 A1) in view of SAUKKONEN (US 20200173109 A1).
For claim 15 KRAPSCH teaches the method of claim 1, as above. KRAPSCH does not teach the formation quality. SAUKKONEN teaches the use of wet strength agents [0020] and calendering [abstract] to produce a paper web similar to KRAPSCH. SAUKKONEN also teaches the formation quality of the paper is measured using SCAN-P 92:09 at below 0.60 g/m [0028]. This value is within range of the instant claim “wherein the specific formation number measured according to SCAN-P 92:09 of the paper is below 1.00 g/m”. SAUKKONEN teaches the formation provides densification and evenly distribution [0076]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of KRAPSCH according to the formation method of SAUKKONEN. One would be motivated based on the advantage of improved density and even web distribution as taught by SAUKKONEN.
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 on (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