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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 10/27/2027 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Examiner has failed to consider unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the application has not been filed as a national stage application. Therefore, unity of invention is not necessary. This is a domestic application and has been treated as such.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the coat weight” in line 1. It appears that the claim should recite “a coat weight” in line 1 because claim 1 discloses a first coating and a second coating and not a coat weight.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the dry weight ratio” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a dry weight ratio” in line 2 because claim 1 discloses the coating compositions comprising starch and pigment and not a dry weight ratio.
Claim 7 recites “the dry weight” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “a dry weight” in line 2.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,457) in view of Lindstrom (WO2020/070306).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 9-13, Yanagisawa et al. teach a single layer matte finished coated paper (col. 2, lines 5-10, col. 7, lines 25-60, col. 9, lines 10-20, 30-40) having a basis weight (grammage) of 30-400 g/m2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 120 to 185 g/m2 when measured according to ISO 536:2019 (col. 5, lines 30-35). Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein the paper comprises a first surface that is coated with a first coating composition comprising starch and pigment (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 2, lines 10-30, col. 5, lines 18-25, col. 7, lines 25-60) and a second surface that is coated with a second coating composition comprising starch and pigment (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 2, lines 10-30, col. 5, lines 18-25, col. 7, lines 25-60).
Yanagisawa et al. do disclose wherein the paper comprises bleached hardwood fibers and bleached softwood fibers in a dry weight ratio from 95:5 to 82:18. However, Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein the paper can comprise 10% NBKP (softwood needle bleached kraft pulp) and 90% LBKP (hardwood leaf bleached kraft pulp) (col. 5, lines 35-45, col. 9, lines 10-20) or 5% NBKP and 95% LBKP (col. 5, lines 35-45, col. 9, lines 30-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of bleached hardwood fibers and bleached softwood fibers of Yanagisawa et al. because Yanagisawa et al. open to including varying amount of bleached hardwood fibers and bleached softwood fibers in the paper (col. 5, lines 35-45, col. 9, lines 10-20, 30-40).
Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach wherein the paper is a white kraftliner having a Bendtsen roughness of less than 300 ml/min on at least one of the surfaces when measured according to ISO 8791-2:2013. However, Lindstrom teaches a single layer kraft paper (page 2, lines 20-28) which is bleached and having a brightness of at least 78% (white) (page 9, lines 24-27) having a grammage of 50-140 g/m2 (page 3, lines 10-11), a Bendtsen roughness of 250-700 ml/min which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 300 ml/min (page 2, lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Bendtsen roughness of Lindstrom to the paper of Yanagisawa et al. in order to provide a smooth surface for improved printing quality (Lindstrom et al., page 1, lines 5-10, page 2, lines 20-28).
Yanagisawa et al. and Lindstrom do not disclose wherein the kraftliner has a specific formation of less than 0.7 √g/m when measured according to SCAN-P 92:09; a compressive strength index in the cross direction of at least 21 Nm/g when measured according to ISO 9895:2008; and a geometric tensile stiffness index of at least 5.2 kNm/g when measured according to ISO 1924-3:2005. However, Lindstrom et al. do teach wherein the kraft paper has a bending resistance index in the CD of 70-110 Nm6/kg3 (page 8, lines 5-10), a strain at break in the cross direction of 6.0-10.0% (page 9, lines 9-12) and a geometric tensile energy absorption index of 2.4-2.8 J/g (page 9, lines 13-14). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in specific formation, compressive strength index and geometric tensile stiffness index involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the specific formation, compressive strength index and geometric tensile stiffness index of the kraftliner of Yanagisawa et al., as modified by Lindstrom et al., in order to prevent rupture (Lindstrom et al., page 9, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 2, Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach wherein the kraftliner has a brightness of at least 80% when measured according to ISO2470-1:2016. However, Lindstrom teaches a single layer kraft paper (page 2, lines 20-28) which is bleached and having a brightness of at least 78% or at least 80% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 80% when measured according to ISO 2470-1:2016 (page 9, lines 24-27) having a grammage of 50-140 g/m2 (page 3, lines 10-11), a Bendtsen roughness of 250-700 ml/min (page 2, lines 20-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brightness of Yanagisawa et al. as that of Lindstrom in order to provide a bright paper (Lindstrom, page 9, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein the coat weight of each of the first and second coating composition is 2-20 g/m2 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 1 to 5 g/m2 (col. 6, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 6, Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein the first coating composition comprising starch and pigment (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 2, lines 10-30, col. 5, lines 18-25, col. 7, lines 25-60) and a second surface that is coated with a second coating composition comprising starch and pigment (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 2, lines 10-30, col. 5, lines 18-25, col. 7, lines 25-60).
Yanagisawa et al. do not disclose wherein the dry weight ratio of starch to pigment in the coating composition is from 30:100 to 50:100. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of starch and pigment in the coating compositions of Yanagisawa et al. in order to provide a sufficient degree of gloss (Yanagisawa et al., col. 2, lines 15-30, col. 3, lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 7, Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein the coating compositions further comprise latex (col. 4, lines 30-35, col. 5, lines 18-25).
Yanagisawa et al. do not disclose wherein the coating compositions comprise latex in such an amount that the dry weight ratio of latex to pigment is form 5:100 to 15:100. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of latex and pigment in the coating compositions of Yanagisawa et al. in order to a sufficient degree of gloss (Yanagisawa et al., col. 2, lines 15-30, col. 3, lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 8, Yanagisawa et al. teach wherein said pigment comprises calcium carbonate pigment (col. 2, lines 20-29).
Regarding claim 14, Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach wherein the kraftliner has a density of 810-920 kg/m3 when measured according to ISO 534:2011. However, Lindstrom teaches a single layer kraft paper (page 2, lines 20-28) which is bleached and having a brightness of at least 78% (white) (page 9, lines 24-27) having a grammage of 50-140 g/m2 (page 3, lines 10-11), a Bendtsen roughness of 250-700 ml/min (page 2, lines 20-28) and a density of 630-870 kg/m3 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 810-920 kg/m3 when measured according to ISO 534:2011 (page 3, lines 5-10).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the density of Yanagisawa et al. to that of Lindstrom in order to increase the bending resistance in both directions of the paper (Lindstrom, page 1, lines 15-23).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,457) in view of Lindstrom (WO2020/070306), in further view of Khorrami et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0123187).
Yanagisawa et al. and Lindstrom are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 15, Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach wherein the kraftliner has a thickness of 115-220 µm when measured according to ISO 2144:2015. However, Khorrami et al. teach a kraftliner (page 6, paragraph [0062]) comprising kraft fibers (page 6, paragraph [0062]); a coating composition on the kraft liner comprising pigment (page 1, paragraphs [0011], [0012], page 6, paragraph [0062]), wherein the kraft liner has a thickness of about 0.025 mm to about 0.5 mm (about 25 to about 500 µm) (page 6, paragraph [0064]). Khorrami et al. also teach wherein the coated liner may reach a desired thickness (page 7, paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of Yanagisawa et al. to that of Khorrami et al. in order to provide a desired thickness (Khorrami et al., page 7, paragraph [0072]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,457) in view of Lindstrom (WO2020/070306), in further view of Nordstrom (EP3202979).
Yanagisawa et al. and Lindstrom are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach wherein the kraftliner has an ash content from 3.5 to 8.0% by weight when measured according to ISO 2144:2015. However, Nordstrom teaches a kraft paper which is bleached (paragraph [0007]) having a Bendtsen roughness below 300 ml/min (paragraph [0007]) and an ash content of 1-7% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 3.5 to 8.0% by weight when measured according to ISO 2144:2015 (paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ash content of Yanagisawa et al. to that of Nordstrom in order to provide a kraft paper without an increased thickness, a decreased surface roughness and increased bending resistance (Nordstrom, paragraph [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 2/4/2026