DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 08/22/2023 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 13, 14, 18, 25, 31 and 33-38 are cancelled. Claims 1-12, 15-17, 19-24, 26-30, 32, and 39 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art, MATHUR, does not teach the amended “lignocellulosic” claim limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For claim 1, PAULS teaches a method and system of manufacturing a fiber web [abstract] made from wood fibers [column 8 line 63]. This teaches the limitation of “A method comprising:- providing a web comprising fibrous material” and “providing a web comprising lignocellulosic fibrous material”.. PAULS teaches the addition of foam binder to the web [column 6 line 14]. This teaches the limitation of “applying a first binder composition in the form of a foamed composition onto the web.” PAULS teaches the material is then coated by a second binder at a concentration higher than the first binder [column 7 line 34]. This teaches the limitation of “subsequently applying a second binder composition onto the web wherein the second binder composition has a higher solids content than the first binder composition”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAULS (US 4348251).
For claim 1, PAULS teaches a method and system of manufacturing a fiber web [abstract] made from wood fibers [column 8 line 63]. This teaches the limitation of “A method comprising:- providing a web comprising fibrous material” and “providing a web comprising lignocellulosic fibrous material”.. PAULS teaches the addition of foam binder to the web [column 6 line 14]. This teaches the limitation of “applying a first binder composition in the form of a foamed composition onto the web.” PAULS teaches the material is then coated by a second binder at a concentration higher than the first binder [column 7 line 34]. This teaches the limitation of “subsequently applying a second binder composition onto the web wherein the second binder composition has a higher solids content than the first binder composition”.
For claim 2, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the fiber stock is wet layed on an endless wire [column 2 line 22]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said providing of a web comprises forming a fibrous slush on a wire to obtain a wet web”.
For claim 3, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the web is dried in an air dryer before the second application [column 4 line 26]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein:- between said applying of the first binder and said applying of the second binder, the solids content of the web is increased, by removing water by suction, by pressing and/or by heating”.
For claim 4, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the moisture content is 5% after the first drying [column 4 line 32]. This value is within the limitation of “wherein the first binder composition is applied onto a web having a solids content in the range 4 to 45 wt-%, calculated from the total weight of the web”.
For claim 5, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the first binder has a solids content between 15 and 20% by weight [column 4 line 14]. This is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein said first binder composition has a solids content of from 0.1 to 20 wt-%”.
For claim 6, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the composition of the first binder includes 20% solids [column 4 line 4]. The solids composition shows a portion of the binder is solid (particulate). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first binder composition comprises a binder that is at least partly in a particulate form”.
For claim 8, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the composition of the first binder is water-based [column 4 line 27]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first binder composition comprises a binder that is at least partly in the form of an aqueous dispersion”.
For claim 9, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. PAULS teaches the binder is activated and cured on the first dryer can after application [column 4 line 23]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the first binder composition is retained in a surface part of the wet web”.
For claim 12, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the binders can be starches [column 6 line 62]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said first binder composition comprises polyvinylamine and/or starch”.
For claim 15, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the web is moved to a transfer wire then treated with the first binder [column 3 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said applying of the first binder composition is carried out in a wire section of a paperboard manufacturing process”.
For claim 16, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. PAULS teaches the first application is to one side of the web and the immediate suction to the other side by vacuum [column 3 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said applying of the first binder composition comprises applying the first binder composition onto one side of the wet web and providing suction from an opposite side of the wet web to make the first binder composition penetrate into the wet web”.
For claim 20, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the use of a foam applicator in the foam binder application [column4 line 7]. PAULS also teaches the first binder application has a solids content of between 15 and 20% [column 4 line 16]. This range abuts the instant claim range of “wherein said applying of the first binder composition is carried out as a foamed composition by a foam applicator or a foam coater, said applying of the first binder composition is carried out in a wire section of a paperboard manufacturing process, and the first binder composition is applied onto a web having a solids content in the range 8 to 15 wt-%”.
For claim 22, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the second binder is applied as an emulsion [column 6 line 56] and has a higher concentration than the first application [column 7 line 34]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said second binder composition is applied in a non-foamed form and has a higher solids content than the first binder composition”.
For claim 23, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the first second concentration can be the same [column 7 line 34] at between 15 and 20% by weight [column 7 line 47]. This is within the range of the instant range of “wherein said second binder composition has a solids content of at least 5 wt-%”.
For claim 28, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the first binder composition is applied at between 15 and 20% by weight [column 7 line 47] and the second binder has a solids composition greater than the first (equivalent to greater than at least 15%) [column 7 line 34]. This teaches the instant limitation of “said second binder composition has a solids content of at least 10 wt-%”.
For claim 30, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the process is completed in a paperboard manufacturing process [column 7 line 23]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim, “wherein said method is carried out in the course of a paper or paperboard manufacturing process”.
For claim 32, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the method of claim 1 and the resulting paperboard of the method. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim, “a paperboard product obtained by the method according to preceding claim 1”.
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.
Claims 10, 17, 19, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAULS (US 4348251) in view of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI (US 20200331231 A1).
For claim 10, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. PAULS does not teach the depth of the drawn liquid to the other side. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches a method of producing a recyclable [0011] multilayer web with multiple binder applications [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the first binder is applied a first web [Fig 2B]. A vacuum is used to dry (remove liquid from) the multilayer web [0071]. The binder/foaming agents are water-based [0059] and are applied before the multilayer web formation [Fig 2A]. The examiner understands that the liquid binder would be drawn into the web by the vacuum during the drying process when all liquids are drawn through the web. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein at least a part of the first binder composition penetrates into the wet web to a depth of at least 10% of the total thickness of the wet web”. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the purpose of the invention is to improve the recyclability and manufacturing of recyclable packaging materials [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of PAULS with the binder composition of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI to produce a recyclable paper or paperboard. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability as shown by KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI.
For claim 17, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the addition of multiple webs. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches a method of producing a multilayer web with multiple binder applications [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the first binder is applied a first web and then combined with a second web that was also treated with binder [Fig 2A]. The resulting multilayer web is then dried [Fig 2A]. The examiner understands the language of “optional” leaves the claim limitation that follows as unnecessary to meet the entirety of the claimed limitations. This meets the claim limitation of “wherein after applying a first binder composition on a surface of the web, said web is combined with other webs, one or more of which have been optionally also treated with the first binder composition, to form a multi-ply structure, and subsequently water is removed from the multi-ply structure”. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the purpose of the invention is to improve the recyclability and manufacturing of recyclable packaging materials [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of PAULS with the binder composition of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI to produce a recyclable paper or paperboard. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability as shown by KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI.
For claim 19, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the addition of multiple webs. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches a method of producing a multilayer web with multiple binder applications [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the first binder is applied a first web and then combined with a second web that was also treated with binder [Fig 2A]. The resulting multilayer web is then dried [Fig 2A]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein:- the method is for manufacturing of a multi-ply paperboard product, and - said applying of the first binder composition is carried out separately onto one or more wet webs, which are then combined with each other and/or with further wet webs to form a multi-ply board, and any application of the first binder composition is carried out before said combining of the webs”. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the purpose of the invention is to improve the recyclability and manufacturing of recyclable packaging materials [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of PAULS with the binder composition of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI to produce a recyclable paper or paperboard. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability as shown by KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI.
For claim 21, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the use of different binders. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches a method of producing a multilayer web with multiple binder applications [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the first binder is applied a first web and then combined with a second web that was also treated with binder [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the second furnish can be different from the first to achieve the required layer strength [0103]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said second binder composition has a different composition from that of the first binder composition by comprising a different binder or binders”. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the purpose of the invention is to improve the recyclability and manufacturing of recyclable packaging materials [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of PAULS with the binder composition of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI to produce a recyclable paper or paperboard. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability as shown by KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI.
For claim 26, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the addition of multiple webs. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches a method of producing a multilayer web with multiple binder applications [Fig 2A]. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the web is dried and the binder can be applied to the whole web to infiltrate the desired layers [0054]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method is for manufacturing of a multi-ply paperboard product, and the second binder composition is applied on a surface of a dried multi-ply board which comprises one or more plies treated with the first binder composition”. KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI teaches the purpose of the invention is to improve the recyclability and manufacturing of recyclable packaging materials [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of PAULS with the binder composition of KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI to produce a recyclable paper or paperboard. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability as shown by KINNUNEN-RAUDASKOSKI.
Claims 7 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAULS (US 4348251) in view of MALLYA (US 20190376234 A1).
For claim 7, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the use of microstructure cellulose. MALLYA teaches a method of producing a lightweight foamed paperboard [0100]. MALLYA also teaches the use of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) with a diameter of 3nm to about 2µm [0081]. The MFC is a micro structured cellulose and the range of its diameter overlaps the instant claim of “wherein the first binder composition comprises nanostructured cellulose or microstructured cellulose, having an average fibre diameter smaller than 1pm”. See MPEP 2144.05(I). MALLYA teaches that the inclusion of MFC in a foam improves mechanical properties compared to foamed papers without MFC [0007]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of MATHUR with the composition of MALLYA to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by MALLYA.
For claim 24, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the use of starch as binder [column 6 line 62]. PAULS is silent to the cationic starch. MALLYA teaches a method of producing a lightweight foamed paperboard [0100]. MALLYA also teaches that cationic starch is used as an additive to improve ionic bonding which improves mechanical properties in structures with cellulose fiber [0088]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said second binder composition comprises a cationic starch”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of MALLYA to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by MALLYA.
Claims 11 and 27, 29, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAULS (US 4348251) in view of HAMERS (US 20190271115 A1).
For claim 11, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the use of gelatinized starch. HAMERS teaches a composition and method for using a paper sizing composition [abstract]. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating/binder in papermaking [0125]. The starch used by HAMERS is also gelatinized [0241]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein said first binder composition comprises starch, at least a part of said starch being in a gelatinized form, and optionally comprising a dry strength resin”. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating binder improves the paper surface strength and bonding [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of HAMERS to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by HAMERS.
For claim 27, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS does not teach the use of a size press. HAMERS teaches a composition and method for using a paper sizing composition [abstract]. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating/binder in papermaking [0125]. The starch used by HAMERS is also gelatinized [0241] and applied by a metering size-press suited for a higher solids (higher consistency) [0275]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein said applying of the second binder composition is carried out by a size press suitable for high-consistency surface sizing”. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating binder improves the paper surface strength and bonding [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of HAMERS to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by HAMERS.
Regarding the starch application method, PAULS does not teach the use of a size press. HAMERS teaches a composition and method for using a paper sizing composition [abstract]. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating/binder in papermaking [0125]. The starch used by HAMERS is also gelatinized [0241] and applied by a metering size-press suited for a higher solids (higher consistency) [0275]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein said applying of the second binder composition is carried out by a size press suitable for high-consistency surface sizing”. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating binder improves the paper surface strength and bonding [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of HAMERS to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by HAMERS.
Regarding the web dryness, PAULS teaches the web has a moisture content of less than 5% after the first binder application (equivalent to a dryness of 95%) [column 4 line 32]. This range is within the instant claim range of “and said applying of the second binder composition is carried out on a web having a dryness in the range 85 to 100%”.
For claim 29, PAULS teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. PAULS teaches the use of a foam applicator in the foam binder application [column4 line 7]. PAULS also teaches the first and second binder application has a solids content of between 15 and 20% [column 4 line 16]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein: said applying of the first binder composition is carried out as a foamed composition by a foam applicator or a foam coater, said applying of the first binder composition is carried out in a wire section of a paperboard manufacturing process the first binder composition is applied onto a web having a solids content in the range 8 to 15 wt- %, said second binder composition has a solids content of at least 10 wt-%”. The first range abuts and the second range is within that of the instant claim range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the web dryness, PAULS teaches the web has a moisture content of less than 5% after the first binder application (equivalent to a dryness of 95%) [column 4 line 32]. This range is within the instant claim range of “and said applying of the second binder composition is carried out on a web having a dryness in the range 85 to 100%”. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the application method, PAULS does not teach the use of a size press. HAMERS teaches a composition and method for using a paper sizing composition [abstract]. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating/binder in papermaking [0125]. The starch used by HAMERS is also gelatinized [0241] and applied by a metering size-press suited for a higher solids (higher consistency) [0275]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein said applying of the second binder composition is carried out by a size press suitable for high-consistency surface sizing”. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating binder improves the paper surface strength and bonding [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of HAMERS to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by HAMERS.
For claim 39, PAULS teaches a method and system of manufacturing a fiber web [abstract] made from wood fibers [column 8 line 63]. This teaches the limitation of “A method comprising:- providing a web comprising fibrous material” and “providing a web comprising lignocellulosic fibrous material”.. PAULS teaches the addition of foam binder to the web [column 6 line 14]. This teaches the limitation of “applying a first binder composition in the form of a foamed composition onto the web.” PAULS teaches the material is then coated by a second binder at a concentration higher than the first binder [column 7 line 34]. This teaches the limitation of “subsequently applying a second binder composition onto the web wherein the second binder composition has a higher solids content than the first binder composition”.
PAULS does not teach the use of a size press. HAMERS teaches a composition and method for using a paper sizing composition [abstract]. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating/binder in papermaking [0125]. The starch used by HAMERS is also gelatinized [0241] and applied by a metering size-press suited for a higher solids (higher consistency) [0275]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein said applying of the second binder composition is carried out by a size press suitable for high-consistency surface sizing”. HAMERS teaches the use of starch as a coating binder improves the paper surface strength and bonding [0011]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the composition of PAULS with the composition of HAMERS to improve the strength of the final paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improvement of the mechanical properties taught by HAMERS.
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