DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/13/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 18 are amended. Claims 17 and 21-27 are cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 limitation of “drying the wet MFC film to provide a dry MFC film comprising greater than 60%, by weight, MFC” and that prior art SUZUKI teaches away from the amended limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of remarks, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -16 and 18-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CLARK (US 20140311695 A1).
Regarding the final MFC content, SUZUKI teaches grafted cellulose nanofiber are added directly or as a dispersion to the thermoplastic resin in the range of 0.1 to 50 mass % [0054]. SUZUKI does not teach a higher content of cellulose nanofiber. Examiner understands that the risk of negative effect does not directly teach away from the use of grafted cellulose nanofiber from the composition at levels near 50%. CLARK teaches a similar production of a non-woven article with microfiber binder and coating [abstract and 0040]. CLARK also teaches the formation of a nonwoven web layer made from microfiber cellulosic binder [0037]. CLARK teaches the nonwoven web is at least 50 weight percent and/or not more than 75 weight percent binder microfiber [0032]. This range overlaps the range taught by SUZUKI and the instant claim range of “drying the wet MFC film to provide a dry MFC film comprising greater than 60%, by weight, MFC”. CLARK teaches the invention is used in clear tank linings and the binder microfiber content improves strength/uniformity [0165 and 0019]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the microfiber content of CLARK into the SUZUKI product to produce a clear film or web. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the proven clarity and improved strength as taught by CLARK.
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 1-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (Machine translation of JP 2011068707A) in view of KOSLOW (US 20080054107 A1) and CLARK (US 20140311695 A1).
For claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a method to produce a film [abstract] onto a substrate [0308]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of casting an MFC film on a substrate (52)”. SUZUKI also teaches the film uses a microfibrillated cellulose with a solids content of 5% [0388]. This is within the range of the instant claim of “dispersion comprising: providing an MFC dispersion having a solids content of about 2.5-25 % by weight”. SUZUKI also teaches the extruder used to form the film has a variable shear rate. The shear rate ranges from 10 s-1 to 100 s-1 [0263] and the viscosity also ranges between 10 to 1000 Pas [0261]. The examiner understands that the viscosity is a function of the material and shear rate of the extruder. With the same material and extrusion shear rate the resulting viscosity would be expected to be the same as well. Both of these ranges encompass the range of the instant claim of “and a viscosity which is above about 4 Pas at a shear rate of 20 s-1 exposing the MFC dispersion to a first shearing, which provides a shear rate of above 10 s-1”. See 2144.05.
"[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). However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id. See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[a] disclosure of millions of compounds does not render obvious a claim to three compounds, particularly when that disclosure indicates a preference leading away from the claimed compounds.")
SUZUKI teaches the process has three major steps that being the introduction of MFC into a mixer/screw extruder to form a film that distributes the MFC in a lateral motion (screw) with a shear rate between 5/sec and 1000/sec [0263] from a hopper (vessel) [0255]. The extruded material is mixed in a static mixer [0432] and then introduced to a casting die that further extrudes the material through shear stress [0265]. This teaches the limitation of “introducing the MFC dispersion into a film forming device (4); in the film forming device (4), laterally distributing (41) the MFC dispersion; in the film forming device (4), subsequent to the laterally distributing (41), exposing the distributed MFC dispersion to a second shearing step (42)”.
SUZUKI does not teach a third shearing step with a higher shearing rate. KOSLOW teaches a similar process of producing micron sized cellulose by shearing in a series of refiners [0030 and 0031]. KOSLOW teaches the first refiner operates at the lowest shear rate, a second refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the first and a third refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the second refiner [0030]. KOSLOW teaches that the system has a piping network between the refiners [Fig 2]. KOSLOW teaches the multistage increasing refine rate is more efficient than standard fibrillation processes [0021]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time to modify the process of SUZUKI to include the additional stepwise increase in shear rate to produce a fibrillated cellulose. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased efficiency as taught by KOSLOW. SUZUKI in view of KOSLOW teaches an increasing shear rate in subsequent steps. A SUZUKI third shear step, as taught by KOSLOW [0030], would be higher than the first and second, higher than 100 s-1[0263]. This teaches the instant claim of “providing a shear rate of above 100 s-1; in the film forming device (4), subsequent to the second shearing step (42)”. KOSLOW also teaches a piping network (element 34) between the shear steps [Fig 2]. The examiner understands this would decelerate the suspension moving from the refiners. This teaches “decelerating (43) the distributed MFC dispersion, such that the shear rate is reduced in the film forming device (4), subsequent to the decelerating step (43)”. KOSLOW teaches a third shear step [0030]. A SUZUKI third shear step, as taught by KOSLOW [0030], would be higher than the first and second, higher than 100 s-1[0263]. This teaches the limitation of “exposing the MFC dispersion to a third shearing step (44), providing a shear rate of above 100 s-1”. SUZUKI teaches that after the final shear the microfibrillated cellulose is deposited onto a moving belt support [0212]. The examiner understands the belt is a substrate. This teaches the limitation of “and simultaneously with, or subsequent to, the third shearing step (44), depositing the MFC dispersion on the substrate, while moving the substrate relative to the film forming device, such that a wet MFC film is formed on the substrate”.
Regarding the final MFC content, SUZUKI teaches grafted cellulose nanofiber are added directly or as a dispersion to the thermoplastic resin in the range of 0.1 to 50 mass % [0054]. SUZUKI does not teach a higher content of cellulose nanofiber. Examiner understands that the risk of negative effect does not directly teach away from the use of grafted cellulose nanofiber from the composition at levels near 50%. CLARK teaches a similar production of a non-woven article with microfiber binder and coating [abstract and 0040]. CLARK also teaches the formation of a nonwoven web layer made from microfiber cellulosic binder [0037]. CLARK teaches the nonwoven web is at least 50 weight percent and/or not more than 75 weight percent binder microfiber [0032]. This range overlaps the range taught by SUZUKI and the instant claim range of “drying the wet MFC film to provide a dry MFC film comprising greater than 60%, by weight, MFC”. CLARK teaches the invention is used in clear tank linings and the binder microfiber content improves strength/uniformity [0165 and 0019]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the microfiber content of CLARK into the SUZUKI product to produce a clear film or web. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the proven clarity and improved strength as taught by CLARK.
For claim 2, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the process uses a pump [0062] to move fiber to and from a refiner (vessel) [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising feeding the MFC dispersion from a vessel (1) through a feeding pipe (3) towards the film forming device using a pump (2)”. In another embodiment SUZUKI teaches the use of a screw extruder (element 1) to transfer and move the MFC dispersion [Fig 1]. SUZUKI teaches the shear rate of the extruder is more than 10/second [0263]. SUZUKI teaches that multiple passes are made through the refiner [0062]. The examiner understands piping is needed to connect pumping and the refiner. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising feeding the MFC dispersion from a vessel (1) through a feeding pipe (3) towards the film forming device using a pump (2), whereby the MFC dispersion is exposed to a shear rate of at least 10 s-1 in the feeding pipe (3)”.
For claim 3, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the use of a dispersing machine to disperse the material [0222]. SUZUKI also teaches a homogenizer is used as the dispersion machine [0228]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first shearing step is provided with a rotating screen, a dispersing homogenizer, a static mixer, a mesh filter, or a combination thereof”.
For claim 4, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the casting die is used to extrude the film material (third/final shear) and has a lip [0265]. This teaches the lip channel limitation of “wherein the third shearing step is provided with a narrow flow channel, a lip channel, a channel formed by the substrate and a coating blade, a channel formed by the substrate and a coating bar, a channel formed by the substrate and a coating rod, a channel formed by the substrate and a slot die lip, or a combination thereof”.
For claim 5, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the use of a mixing device (element 3) [Fig 1 and 0256]. SUZUKI teaches a conical screw type mixer can be used [0257]. This teaches the rotatable rod inside a chamber limitation of “wherein the second shearing step is provided with a rotatable rod inside a chamber of the film forming device, with a narrow flow channel inside a slot die of the film forming device that accelerates the MFC dispersion flow into movement, or with a gap between the movable substrate and an object in the film forming device”.
For claim 6, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI does not teach a third shearing step with a higher shearing rate. KOSLOW teaches a similar process of producing micron sized cellulose by shearing in a series of refiners [0030 and 0031]. KOSLOW teaches the first refiner operates at the lowest shear rate, a second refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the first and a third refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the second refiner [0030]. KOSLOW teaches that the system has a piping network between the refiners [Fig 2]. KOSLOW teaches the multistage increasing refine rate is more efficient than standard fibrillation processes [0021]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time to modify the process of SUZUKI to include the additional stepwise increase in shear rate to produce a fibrillated cellulose. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased efficiency as taught by KOSLOW. SUZUKI in view of KOSLOW teaches an increasing shear rate in subsequent steps. A SUZUKI third shear step, as taught by KOSLOW [0030], would be higher than the first and second, higher than 100 s-1[0263]. This teaches the instant claim of “providing a shear rate of above 100 s-1; in the film forming device (4), subsequent to the second shearing step (42)”. KOSLOW also teaches a piping network (element 34) between the shear steps [Fig 2]. The examiner understands this would decelerate the suspension moving from the refiners. This teaches “decelerating (43) the distributed MFC dispersion, such that the shear rate is reduced in the film forming device (4), subsequent to the decelerating step (43)”. KOSLOW teaches a third shear step [0030]. A SUZUKI third shear step, as taught by KOSLOW [0030], would be higher than the first and second, higher than 100 s-1[0263]. SUZUKI also. The range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein said decelerating the distributed MFC dispersion comprises reducing shear in the MFC dispersion to below about 20 % of an average shear provided in the second shearing step” (equivalent to teaches a second shear rate between 1 s-1 and 200 s-1, 20% of between 5/sec and 1000/sec [0263]).
For claim 7, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the extruder is under vacuum [0255]. To maintain this vacuum no outer atmosphere is allowed in. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one of the shearing steps, are performed under closed conditions, whereby ambient air is prevented from contacting the MFC dispersion”.
For claim 8, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the film is extruded onto a belt support, dried on the belt support, peeled from the support and dried further [0390]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the substrate is an endless belt, and wherein drying the wet MFC film comprises passing the wet MFC film through a drying zone to dry the wet MFC film and subsequently separating the dry MFC film from the substrate”.
For claim 9, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the support substrate is made of stainless steel [0390]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the substrate is formed of a metal or polymer material”.
For claim 12, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the viscosity during extrusion is from 1 to 10,000 Pas [0261] and the shear rate during extrusion is 100/sec [0263]. The viscosity range is within the range of the instant claim and the shear rate matches the instant claim of “wherein the viscosity of the MFC dispersion is greater than 1.1 Pas at a shear rate of 100 s-1”.
For claim 13, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches a dispersion machine (homogenizer) [0228] to mix (shear step). Then the dispersion is filtered at a temperature of 45 to 55°C [0231]. SUZUKI then teaches the die casting (final shear) is performed at 30°C [0390]. SUZUKI does not teach the dispersion step temperature conditions within the range of the instant claim. KOSLOW teaches a similar process of producing micron sized cellulose by shearing in a series of refiners [0030 and 0031]. KOSLOW teaches the use of refiners to mix the microfibrillated dispersion [0029]. KOSLOW also teaches the process is completed at below 80°C [0032]. These values are all within range of the instant claim of “wherein the shearing steps are performed at a temperature of the MFC dispersion of 25-95 deg C”. KOSLOW teaches the temperature of the refiner is normal [0032]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time to modify the process of SUZUKI to mix the resulting dispersion at the KOSLOW temperature to produce a fibrillated cellulose. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the standard temperature as taught by KOSLOW.
For claim 14, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. KOSLOW teaches an embodiment where the stream of MFC from the final refiner is recirculated and distributed into four channels lateral (elements 32, 24, 26, 28, and 30) [Fig 2]. This refinement can be completed before the film forming and the second shear step as taught by SUZUKI [0221]. This teaches the limitation of “when further comprising: pre-distributing the MFC dispersion by dividing the MFC dispersion into at least two flow channels, wherein said at least two flow channels have openings into the film forming device upstream of the second shearing step (42), said openings being laterally spaced from each other”.
For claim 15, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the extruder shear rate is between 10/sec to 100/sec [0263]. This range encompasses the instant claim range. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the values within the range to produce the fibrillated cellulose with a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of SUZUKI. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one of the shearing steps provides a shear rate of about 10 s-1 to about 20 s-1”. 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).
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%)
For claim 18, SUZUKI teaches a system to produce a film [abstract] onto a substrate [0308]. This teaches the limitation of “A system for casting an MFC film on a substrate”. SUZUKI teaches the use of refiner before a screw extruder that acts as vessel [0079 and 0221]. SUZUKI also teaches the film uses a microfibrillated cellulose with a solids content of 5% [0388]. This teaches the limitation of “a vessel, configured to hold an MFC dispersion having a solids content of 2.5- 25 % by weight”. SUZUKI also teaches the extruder used to form the film has a variable shear rate. The shear rate ranges from 10 s-1 to 100 s-1 [0263] and the viscosity also ranges between 10 to 1000 Pas [0261]. The examiner understands that the viscosity is a function of the material and shear rate of the extruder. With the same material and extrusion shear rate the resulting viscosity would be expected to be the same as well. Both of these ranges encompass the range of the instant claim of “and a viscosity which is above about 4 Pas at a shear rate of 20 s-1”. SUZUKI teaches the process uses a pump [0062] to move fiber to and from a refiner (vessel) [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “a pump, connected to the vessel and configured to receive the MFC dispersion from the vessel”. SUZUKI teaches the introduction of MFC into a mixer/screw extruder to mix the film material that distributes the MFC in a lateral motion (screw) with a shear rate between 5/sec and 1000/sec [0263] from a hopper (vessel) [0255]. The extruded sheet is then introduced to a casting die or that further extrudes the material through shear stress [0265]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “and a film forming device, comprising: a distribution section, configured to laterally distribute the MFC dispersion, a second shearing section, configured to expose the distributed MFC dispersion to a shear rate of above 100 s-1”. SUZUKI teaches piping connecting the screw extruder and the subsequent equipment, a static mixer [Fig 2]. The examiner understands this would decelerate the material. This teaches the limitation of “subsequent to the second shearing section, configured to decelerate the distributed MFC dispersion, such that the shear rate is reduced”.
SUZUKI does not specify the shear of the final die cast or a third shearing step with a higher shearing rate. KOSLOW teaches a similar process of producing micron sized cellulose by shearing in a series of refiners [0030 and 0031]. KOSLOW teaches the first refiner operates at the lowest shear rate, a second refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the first and a third refiner operates at a shear rate higher than the second refiner [0030]. KOSLOW teaches that the system has a piping network between the refiners [Fig 2]. KOSLOW teaches the multistage increasing refine rate is more efficient than standard fibrillation processes [0021]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time to modify the process of SUZUKI to include the additional stepwise increase in shear rate to produce a fibrillated cellulose. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased efficiency as taught by KOSLOW. SUZUKI in view of KOSLOW teaches an increasing shear rate in subsequent steps. A SUZUKI third shear step, as taught by KOSLOW [0030], would be higher than the first and second, higher than 100 s-1[0263]. This teaches the instant claim of “a third shearing section (44), configured to expose the distributed MFC dispersion to a shear rate of above 100 s-1”.
SUZUKI teaches that after the final shear the microfibrillated cellulose is deposited onto a moving belt support [0212]. The examiner understands the belt is a substrate. This teaches the limitation of “and a deposition section (45), configured to deposit the MFC dispersion on the substrate, while moving the substrate relative to the film forming device- such that a wet MFC film is formed on the substrate”.
Regarding the final MFC content, SUZUKI teaches grafted cellulose nanofiber are added directly or as a dispersion to the thermoplastic resin in the range of 0.1 to 50 mass % [0054]. SUZUKI does not teach a higher content of cellulose nanofiber. Examiner understands that the risk of negative effect does not directly teach away from the use of grafted cellulose nanofiber from the composition at levels near 50%. CLARK teaches a similar production of a non-woven article with microfiber binder and coating [abstract and 0040]. CLARK also teaches the formation of a nonwoven web layer made from microfiber cellulosic binder [0037]. CLARK teaches the nonwoven web is at least 50 weight percent and/or not more than 75 weight percent binder microfiber [0032]. This range overlaps the range taught by SUZUKI and the instant claim range of “drying the wet MFC film to provide a dry MFC film comprising greater than 60%, by weight, MFC”. CLARK teaches the invention is used in clear tank linings and the binder microfiber content improves strength/uniformity [0165 and 0019]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the microfiber content of CLARK into the SUZUKI product to produce a clear film or web. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the proven clarity and improved strength as taught by CLARK.
For claim 19, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the system as claimed in claim 18, as above. KOSLOW teaches an embodiment where the stream of MFC from the final refiner is recirculated and distributed into four channels lateral (elements 32, 24, 26, 28, and 30) [Fig 2]. This refinement can be completed before the film forming and the second shear step, static mixer (distribution) as taught by SUZUKI [0221]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a pre-distribution section, comprising a manifold having an input channel connected to the first shearing section (9) and at least two output channels (402a, 402b, 402c), which are connected to the distribution section (41), wherein openings form the output channels into the distribution section are laterally spaced from each other”.
For claim 20, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the system as claimed in claim 18, as above. SUZUKI teaches the screw extruder has a variable shear rate ranging from 10 to 100/sec [0263]. This range encompasses the instant claim range. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to try the values within the range to produce the fibrillated cellulose with a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of SUZUKI. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one of the shearing sections is configured to provide a shear rate of about 10 s-1 to about 20 s-1”. See 2144.05(I).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (Machine translation of JP 2011068707A), KOSLOW (US 20080054107 A1) and CLARK (US 20140311695 A1) in view of ZEIGENBEIN (US 20200223178 A1).
For claim 10, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the MFC dispersion is deposited on a roller belt made of a flexible steel [0269]. The dispersion is then dried in a drying zone while on the flexible roll system [0391]. SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK do not teach the MFC film being cooled and wound onto a substrate. ZIEGENBEIN teaches the production of a microfibrillated cellulose dispersion (synonymous with nano-fibrillated cellulose) [0025] that is used as a coating on a paper [abstract and 0001]. ZIEGENBEIN teaches the MFC is used in a composition with similar composition to SUZUKI [abstract]. ZEIGENBEIN teaches the coated paper (coating and substrate) is wound onto a core [0036]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the substrate is a flexible web, and wherein the method further comprises passing the deposited MFC dispersion through a drying zone to dry the MFC film and subsequently forming a coil of the flexible web coated with the dried MFC film”. ZEIGENBEIN teaches the use of coatings in the method as taught improves printability and surface structure of the sheet [0038]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to use the coating technique taught by ZEIGENBEIN on the similar coated product taught by SUZUKI. One would be motivated to combine the arts based on the common product and the improved benefit of improved surface performance as taught by ZEIGENBEIN.
For claim 11, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, CLARK and ZEIGENBEIN teach the method as claimed in claim 10, as above. SUZUKI does not teach a cellulose based material web. ZEIGENBEIN teaches the web is cellulose based [0027]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the web is formed of a cellulose based material, such as paper or paperboard sheet, a polymer film, a textile sheet, a nonwoven sheet, a polymer membrane1 or a ceramic substrate”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (Machine translation of JP 2011068707A), KOSLOW (US 20080054107 A1) and CLARK (US 20140311695 A1) in view of LI (US 20080295854 A1).
For claim 16, SUZUKI, KOSLOW, and CLARK teach the method as claimed in claim 1, as above. SUZUKI teaches the sheet is stretched in multiple directions including a lateral width direction [0283]. This definition does not match the lateral direction of the instant claim but the orientation is equivalent. SUZUKI machine direction is synonymous with the instant claim lateral direction. This teaches “wherein a film longitudinal direction is defined as a direction parallel with a direction in which the substrate is moving relative to the film forming device”. The direction perpendicular to the SUZUKI machine direction is the SUZUKI lateral direction [0283]. SUZUKI teaches the sheet is stretched in the width direction [0283]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a film width direction is defined as a direction perpendicular to the film longitudinal direction”. SUZUKI does not define an edge distance or zone. SUZUKI teaches the dope (deposit) is cast uniformly [0390]. The examiner understands this to define a uniform sheet. This means the entire sheet is uniform where the edge is no different in thickness than the rest of the film. This teaches the limitation of “wherein an average film thickness is defined as an average thickness of the film across an entire film width, wherein a side edge thickness is defined as an average thickness of the film edge portion, along the film width direction, and wherein the side edge thickness differs from the average film thickness by less than 20 % of the average film thickness”. SUZUKI nor KOSLOW teach the width direction distance. LI teaches a similar banded region (film) made of highly refined microfibrils [0303] that is applied to a substrate [abstract]. LI further teaches the banded region extends in a longitudinal direction edge to edge [0102]. LI teaches the edges extend by a distance of 6 to 7mm [0102]. This range is within the limitation of “wherein a film edge portion extends in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction by a distance of 0.5-10 mm from an outermost edge of the film”. LI teaches the add-on material of the banded region provides reduced permeability for the wrapper (substrate) [0102]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the banded design of LI into the SUZUKI product to produce a clear film on web. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the reduced permeability as taught by LI.
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 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