Detailed Action
The communications received 10/13/2023 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-23 and 27-29 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13-23, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turtola (US 2021/0274831 cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 02/12/2025) hereinafter TUR in view of Korbonen et al (US 2005/0011624) hereinafter KOR and Nyman et al (US 2024/0200271) hereinafter NYM.
As for claim 1, TUR teaches A method for manufacturing a barrier film (release base paper which can help to resist against the absorption of silicone and low air permeance therefore barrier) [Abstract; 0001; 0016], comprising the steps of:
- providing an aqueous suspension comprising at least 70 weight-% highly refined cellulose pulp (at least 70% refined softwood pulp) [0010; 0019] based on a total dry weight of the aqueous suspension, wherein said highly refined cellulose pulp has a Schopper-Riegler value of 70-95 'SR (at least 60 to at most 80) [0019], and wherein said highly refined cellulose pulp has a content of fibers having a length >0.2 mm of at least 10 million fibers per gram based on a dry weight (as a long fiber pulp) [Abstract];
- forming a wet web from said aqueous suspension (via Fourdrinier) [0043];
- dewatering, or drying, or dewatering and drying said wet web to form a substrate having a first side and an opposite, second side;
- calendering said substrate in at least calender nip in a first calendering step [0013; 0043];
- providing said substrate with at least one first layer of:
a) a water-based solution or dispersion comprising a polymer selected from a group consisting of: a polyvinyl alcohol, a modified polyvinyl alcohol, a polysaccharide (starch), or a modified polysaccharide (starch derivatives cellulose derivatives) [0026], or and combinations thereof, or
b) a water-based emulsion comprising a latex [0026], or
c) a combination of a) and b),
on said first side in a first coating step to form a coated substrate [0028],
wherein each first layer has a coat weight of 0.5-5 gsm (at least 0.4 to at most 4 gsm which overlaps the claimed range) [0028], calculated as a dry weight, and wherein a total coat weight on the first side is equal to or less than 8 gsm calculated as a dry weight (as coating material that makes up at least 20% by weight of the overall coating composition therefore 2-20 gsm which overlaps the claimed range) [0029], and
- drying said coated substrate after said first calendering step and said first coating step so as to form said barrier film [0028],
wherein said barrier film has a thickness of less than 50 microns (low thickness) [0012].
TUR fails to teach the 50 microns of thickness, that the calendaring includes a soft nip, and does not teach a moisture before the calendaring.
KOR teaches that when running a pulp through a paper machine in which the paper is going to have an additional layer, that one acceptable moisture before the first calendaring step which can include a first soft nip step is 5-20% [Abstract; 0025]. This manner of calendaring aids in achieving a paper that does not lose bulk and aids in preventing re-roughing of the web surface [0010-12].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the soft nip and the moisture content before any calendaring steps of the calendaring of KOR into the calendaring steps of TUR in order to produce a paper that does not lose bulk and to aid in preventing re-roughing of the web surface of TUR. As both KOR and TUR pertain to papers with coatings they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
TUR/KOR fail to teach the 50 microns of thickness.
NYM teaches a coated paper formed of refined softwood in which the thickness is 35-45 microns as this range of thickness achieves an efficient use of coating polymer which improves the recyclability of the produced paper [Abstract; 0190; 0233].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the thickness of NYM as the thickness of the paper of TUR/KOR in order to achieve an efficient use of coating polymer which makes recycling of the paper easier. As both TUR/KOR and NYM pertain to refined softwood based paper they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and that the calendaring step is performed before the first coating step [TUR:0052]
As for claim 3, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and although TUR gives an example wherein the calendaring step is performed before the first coating step, it is not mentioned as a requirement [0052]. KOR further teaches that it is known to perform a coating before calendaring (immediately after pre-calendaring) which is done to even out the surface structure of the base paper [0029].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated before calendaring in order to even out the surface structure of the base paper.
As for claim 4, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and KOR further teaches that advantageously a soft calendar which includes a nip with a hard surface and a soft one, it is understood that passing the paper through the nip results in the first and second surface contacts [0028].
As for claim 5, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and as there is a pre-calendaring step in which the first calendaring is performed to obtain the benefits of KOR, it is understood that the sequential calendaring would include the soft calendar [KOR: 0028; 0031].
As for claim 6, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and that there is a second calendaring step after said first coating step (as it is understood that KOR would include an additional calendaring in order to achieve its benefits) which include soft calendars [KOR: 0030-31], it is understood that the drying would occur after the calendaring [TUR: 0028]
As for claim 7, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and the Gurley achieved is at least 60000 s/100 mL (although only the s unit is listed, it is understood that as the same measurement method is used that the units would be the same as claimed) [TUR: 0017].
As for claim 8, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and wherein said substrate is provided with at least one first layer of a water-based solution or dispersion comprising polyvinyl alcohol in the first coating step (as the coating composition can include polyvinyl alcohol, the second and first coating compositions can be identical) [TUR: 0025; 0038].
As for claim 10, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and wherein there is a second coating that can be identical to the first coating and applied at a gsm of 0.5-5 with its own corresponding drying step [TUR: 0025; 0032-33]
As for claim 11, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 10 and wherein said substrate is provided with at least one second layer of a water-based solution or dispersion comprising polyvinyl alcohol in the second coating step [0038].
As for claim 13, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 10 and it is understood that TUR envisions that “at least one side is coated” [Abstract] which therefore means that both sides of the paper can be coated. Therefore the second coating can be the coating applied to the opposite side of the paper and as the final coating (topmost coating of TUR) to fully seal the paper must be performed after the initial coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would be incentivized to have applied the initial coating to both sides of the paper at once and therefore would have found this limitation to have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention.
As for claim 14, TUR/KOR/NYM teach 10 and that the substrate obtained after dewatering, or drying, or both would have a density of at least 0.90 g/cm^3 which is at least 900 kg/m^3 which overlaps the claimed range [TUR: 0012].
As for claim 15, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and wherein a basis weight of said substrate obtained in the step of dewatering, or drying, or both is at most 40 g/m^2 which falls within the claimed range [TUR: 0010].
As for claim 16, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and KOR further teaches that the calendaring effect can be improved by applying a pre-moisturizing (as it occurs in the pre-calendar) [0013].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a pre-moisturizing in order to improve the calendaring effect.
As for claim 17, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and KOR further teaches that one acceptable linear load of each nip to acceptably produce a coated paper is 50-500 kN/m which overlaps the claimed value [Abstract].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated using the linear load of KOR in order to achieve the production of the coated paper as required by the combination.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ 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)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
As for claim 18, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and KOR further teaches that one acceptable calendaring temperature to acceptably produce a coated paper is at least 200 degrees Celsius which overlaps the claimed value [Abstract].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated using the linear load of KOR in order to achieve the production of the coated paper as required by the combination.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ 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)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
As for claim 19, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and TUR teaches that the Cobb-Unger values is at most 0.9 g/meters squared which falls within the claimed range [0010].
As for claim 20, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and it is understood that as the highly refined pulp is a long-fiber pulp that it would have at least 50% longer fibers which would be understood to have a length weighted mean fibril area (as it is understood that the area refers to the ratio of these fibers relative to fibers of other areas) [Abstract].
As for claim 21, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 and wherein the wet web is a single layered web made with a headbox (as a paper) [Abstract].
As for claim 22, TUR/KOR/NYM teach claim 1 further comprising laminating said barrier film with at least one additional polymer layer so as to form a barrier film laminate (as a two layered coating) [0001].
As for claim 23, TUR/KOR/NYM teach 22 and KOR further teaches comprising laminating with an additional base paper/paper layer in order to produce a quality packaging product with good barrier properties [Abstract; 0055; 0058].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an additional paperboard/paper layer via lamination in order to produce a quality packaging product with good barrier properties.
As for claim 27, this is the barrier film product of TUR/KOR/NYM as applied to claim 1.
As for claim 28, this is the barrier film product of TUR/KOR/NYM as applied to claim 22.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TUR/KOR/NYM as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Backfolk et al (US 2019/0352854) hereinafter BAC.
As for claims 9 and 12, TUR/KOR//NYM teach claims 1 and 10 but fail to teach the styrene-acrylate latex in the provision of at least one first layer of a water based emulsion.
BAC teaches the production of a barrier in which one acceptable use of latex which creates an improved barrier property and formation is a styrene acrylate latex [Abstract; 0026-27].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the styrene acrylate of BAC in the dispersion forming layers of TUR/KOR/NYM to improve formability and barrier properties. As both BAC and TUR/KOR/NYM pertain to similar substrates, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/ELISA H VERA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748