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 .
Claims 1-14, 16-21 are pending.
Claims 1-14, 21 are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14 are amended.
Claim 15 is newly canceled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 4 in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 4 specifying the units in the percentages.
The rejection of claim 14 in the previous action under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3, 5, 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019221692, represented herein by US 20210189659 by Luo et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 narrowing the anionic polyelectrolyte and requiring a plasticizer.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3-6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “A bio-based adhesive composed of polyelectrolyte complexes of lignosulfonate and cationic polyelectrolytes” by Ushimaru et al is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 narrowing the anionic polyelectrolyte and requiring a plasticizer.
The rejection in the previous action of claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160280933 by Grunlan is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to claim 1 narrowing the anionic polyelectrolyte and requiring a plasticizer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5338406 by Smith et al is withdrawn due to the new requirement of plasticizer in claim 1.
Dependent claims rejected under 103 with primary references “A bio-based adhesive composed of polyelectrolyte complexes of lignosulfonate and cationic polyelectrolytes” by Ushimaru et al or WO 2019221692, represented herein by US 20210189659 by Luo et al are withdrawn for the same reasons set forth above under 102 for the primary refereneces.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050022956 by Rodriguez et al.
Rodriguez describes an anionic-cationic blend.
Regarding claim 1, the “a papermaking creping adhesive” preamble, MPEP section 2111.02 states that if "the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction." The preamble’s papermaking creping adhesive refers to a composition which is applied to a drying drum prior to wet paper application to the drum to prevent the wet paper from sticking to the drum. There is no requirement in the claim for a physical property of the composition, i.e. adhesiveness or viscosity. The intended use of the claimed composition thus does not result in a structural difference in the composition. Since Rodriguez’s composition is capable of being used as a papermaking creping adhesive, Rodriguez meets the claim.
Rodriguez describes a composition (paragraph 16) comprising an anionic polyelectrolyte of polyacrylamide (paragraph 19, 21 acrylamide-acrylic acid copolymers) and a cationic polyelectrolyte which may be polyamidoamine-epichlorohydrin, polyethylene imines, poly(diallyldimethyl ammonium chloride) or cationic polyacrylamide (paragraph 22). See paragraph 22 for full list.
Rodriguez also describes the presence of plasticizer (paragraph 43) in an embodiment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention from Rodriguez’s disclosure because he describes the aspects of the invention in embodiments.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez describes a molecular weight of 3kDa to 1,000kDa (paragraph 20) for the anionic polymers which are alkali-soluble acid-containing copolymers (paragraph 19). This overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Rodriguez describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez describes a cationic polyelectrolyte of 2kDa-1,000kDa (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez describes the amount of the anionic and cationic polymers as from 0.05-50 wt% (paragraph 39) and a weight ratio of anionic polymer to cationic polymer of between about 0.2:1 to about 2.5:1 (paragraph 35), which results in weight percents overlapping with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez does not describe the required presence of polyvinyl alcohol (see examples).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez describes sulfonic acids as comonomers in the anionic acrylamide (paragraph 20), i.e. anionic sulfonated polyacrylamide. Rodriguez describes polyamidoamine-epichlorohydrin cationic polymer (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 9, Rodriguez describes a cationic polyelectrolyte of 2kDa-1,000kDa (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez describes sulfonic acids as comonomers in the anionic acrylamide (paragraph 20), i.e. anionic sulfonated polyacrylamide.
Regarding claim 13, Rodriguez describes acrylamide-acrylic acid, wherein acrylic acid reads on “carboxylated” (paragraph 19, 21).
Regarding claim 14, Rodriguez describes acrylic acid (paragraph 19, 21), which reads on acrylate because the reference is to an anionic polyacrylamide which is “alkali-soluble” (paragraph 19, 21) and is optionally basic (paragraph 36, 37), rendering some amount of the acrylic acid an acrylate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050022956 by Rodriguez et al in view of in view of “Handbook of Plasticizers (3rd Edition)” ed. by Wypych Chapters 1, 2, and 6.
Rodriguez is described above.
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez mentions plasticizers as an additive but is silent as to specific plasticizers (paragraph 43).
Wypych is a reference which provides information to scientists to use plasticizers more effectively.
Wypych states that plasticizers are added to make material more flexible and increase elongation (Chp. 1 p.3 bullet point 2, 3). Wypych states that for polar polymers, especially those soluble in water, plasticizers containing hydroxyl groups are more acceptable (Chp.6 p.157 paragraph 2). Wypych describes polyethylene glycols as ether-ester plasticizers which contain two hydroxyl groups (Chp.2 p.33-34). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose a dihydroxy-based plasticizer including polyethylene glycol of Wypych where Rodriguez describes plasticizers broadly in order to increase flexibility and elongation in Rodriguez’s water soluble polymeric composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 12, 21 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed shear storage modulus is unlikely to result in the closest art of record, US 20050022956 by Rodriguez. Rodriguez details an aqueous composition/suspension and the shear storage moduli claimed ranges from that of pressure sensitive adhesives to stiff thermoplastics. Also the moisture level of an aqueous composition would not read on the claimed range.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the claimed sulfonated polyacrylamide is not described by US 20050022956 by Rodriguez; see paragraph 20.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed sulfonated polyacrylamide is not described by US 20050022956 by Rodriguez; see paragraph 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments p.7-9 of Remarks submitted 2/24/26 have been considered and are persuasive- applicant argues the previously applied art fails to recite the new narrower claimed aspects of claim 1. While this is convincing, new art has been found for the new combination and is set forth above in rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights