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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-18 and 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 at line 7 recites “…taking upa predetermined….”, and it appears there is a missing space between “up” and “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 6, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “in the range of 10-12 g/m2”, and the claim also recites “more preferably lying in the range of 8-10 g/m2”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, the claim also recites “most preferably lying in the range of 1-8 g/m2” which is outside the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers the prior art teaching of coating weight range that meets any one of the recited ranges as meeting the claimed range.
Similarly, in the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “15 and 200 g/m2/day”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 15 and 180 g/m2/day, more preferably between 15 and 150 g/m2/day, still more preferably between 15 and 120/day” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, the examiner considers the features/ranges introduced by such narrower language are not required.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation "the pressing is performed by …" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what steps recited in claim 1 is intended to be referred as “the pressing step”. As best understood, applicant may have intended to refer to the step of “bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer…” of claim 1. For purpose of examination, such interpretation is applied by the examiner.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purpose of examination, the examiner considers the limitations following the phrase are not part of the claimed and are not required.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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, 4-7, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3008392 to Stappaerts in view of Lewinz et al. (US 10,507,642; “Lewinz”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 13-14, Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material for the purpose of setting a moisture vapour permeability of the packaging material (page 2, third para, i.e., applying a coating layer to a cellulose layer). It is noted that Stappaerts teaches its cellulose packaging material is suitable for using as a bread packaging material for bread bags (page 2, second para), meeting the claimed limitations of instant claim 13. Stappaerts teaches its coating layer comprises an oily compound, such as vegetable oil-based coating (page 2, third para), meeting the claimed limitations of instant claim 10.
Stappaerts teaches providing a cellulose layer with a first side and a second side (page 2, third para, page 3, second para, i.e., the cellulose layer includes a first/upper side and a second/lower side). Stappaerts teaches applying the predetermined quantity of coating layer material to the first side of the cellulose layer using a roller (page 2, third and fourth para, page 7, third para), and forming a coating layer on the first side of the cellulose layer with the predetermined quantity of coating layer material (page 2, third and fourth para).
But Stappaerts does not specifically teach coating application process in the specific manner as instantly claimed, i.e., providing a moving endless surface which comprises a grid zone with a plurality of recesses.
Lewinz teaches a coating application process using a rotating coating roller (col. 1, lines 18-24), such as an anilox roller having a surface with a plurality of cavities/recesses configured to receive, retain and transfer coating material (col. 1, lines 52-60, col. 2, lines 18-27). In particular, Lewinz teaches a coating application process includes step of providing a moving endless surface (see Fig. 2 below, the roller having moving endless surface) which comprises a grid zone with a plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 19-36, and see Fig. 3, the grid zone with a plurality of cavities/recesses 103 on the surface of the roller 101). Lewinz teaches the moving endless surface is a grid roller (col. 2, lines 19-36, the roller 101), meeting the claimed limitations of instant claim 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
796
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
482
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lewinz teaches taking up a predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone (col. 1, lines 58-60, col. 2, lines 29-49, picking up a predetermined amount of coating material, and depositing the coating material in the plurality of cells/recesses 103 of the surface of the roller). Lewinz teaches retaining the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 29-40, coating material are retained/deposited in the plurality of cells/recesses 103). Lewinz further teaches bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer and forming a coating layer (col. 1, lines 18-22 and col. 3, lines 40-46; bringing the grid zone into contact with the medium material, and forming patterned coating layer on the medium material; Lewinz teaches the suitable medium material includes cellulose material such as paper, paperboard). Lewinz teaches its coating application process provides a coating layer on suitable medium material with controlled and desired coating patterns and precise metering/amount of the coating material (col. 1, lines 18-24, col. 2, lines 54-60; col. 4, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Lewinz, to apply a coating layer to the cellulose packaging material of Stappaerts using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, in particular, to include the step of providing a moving endless surface (roller 101 having moving endless surface) which comprises a grid zone with a plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 19-36, and see Fig. 3, a plurality of recesses 103), and to include the step of taking up a predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone (col. 1, lines 58-60, col. 2, lines 29-49), and to include the step of retaining the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 29-40), and to include the step of bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer and forming a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material (col. 1, lines 18-22 and col. 3, lines 40-46), motivated by the desire to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns and precise metering/amount of the coating material as taught by Lewinz, thereby arriving at the claimed method as in claims 1, 10 and 13-14.
Regarding claim 4, Stappaerts teaches its coating layer has a suitable weight of about 1 to 10 g/m2 (page 2, third para), which weight range overlaps with the instantly claimed range, i.e., in the range of 1-8 g/m2. 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). MPEP 2144.05.
See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 4 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 5, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz.
Lewinz teaches a coating application process using a rotating coating roller (col. 1, lines 18-24). As discussed above, Lewinz teaches bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer and forming a coating layer (col. 1, lines 18-22 and col. 3, lines 40-46; bringing the grid zone into contact with the medium material). Lewinz further teaches pressing the first side of the medium substrate/cellulose layer against the grid zone of the moving endless surface of the roller (col. 3, lines 40-45), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz. Lewinz further teaches pressing and using a pressing cylinder/plate cylinder (col. 1, lines 40-60), meeting the claimed limitations. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 6 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz. Lewinz teaches a coating application process using a rotating coating roller (col. 1, lines 18-24). As discussed above, Lewinz teaches bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer and forming a coating layer (col. 1, lines 18-22 and col. 3, lines 40-46; bringing the grid zone into contact with the medium material). Lewinz further teaches interrupting the application of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material to the first side of the cellulose layer (col. 2, lines 50-62; Lewinz teaches using a blade to selectively remove coating material is considered interrupting the application of coating layer material, meeting the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 11, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz. Lewinz teaches its coating application process provides a coating layer on suitable the medium material with controlled and desired coating patterns, i.e., the coating layer is applied in a pattern (col. 1, lines 18-24, col. 2, lines 54-60; col. 4, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 15, Stappaerts teaches its coating layer has a suitable moisture vapour permeability between 60 and 200 g/m2/day (page 5, second para), which weight range overlaps with the instantly claimed range, i.e., 15 and 200 g/m2/day. 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). MPEP 2144.05. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above in rejection to claim 1, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, using a moving endless surface/a first roller with a grid zone taught by Lewinz.
Stappaerts teaches applying the predetermined quantity of coating layer material to the first side of the cellulose layer using a roller (page 2, third and fourth para, page 7, third para), and Stappaerts teaches it is desirable to form coating layer on both sides of the cellulose layer with the predetermined quantity of coating layer material (page 5, last para and page 6, first para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Lewinz, to apply a second coating layer to the second side (i.e., opposite to the first side) of cellulose packaging material of Stappaerts using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, in particular, to include the step of further providing a moving endless surface (i.e., a second roller having moving endless surface) which comprises a grid zone with a plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 19-36, and see Fig. 3, a plurality of recesses 103), and to include the step of taking up a predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone (col. 1, lines 58-60, col. 2, lines 29-49), and to include the step of retaining the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses (col. 2, lines 29-40), and to include the step of bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer and forming a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material (col. 1, lines 18-22 and col. 3, lines 40-46), motivated by the desire to simultaneously forming a further coating layer on the second side of the cellulose layer with the predetermined quantity of coating layer material with controlled and desired coating patterns and precise metering/amount of the coating material as taught by Lewinz, thereby arriving at the claimed method.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fields et al. (US 5,522,786; “Fields”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, using a roller with a grid zone taught by Lewinz. But modified Stappaerts does not teach the grid zone comprises a first grid zone part and a second grid in the manner as instantly claimed.
Fields teaches gravure rollers used in coating method, of which the roller includes a grid zone comprises a first grid zone part and a second grid zone part comprising respectively a plurality of first recesses and a plurality of second recesses (col. 1, lines 20-40, col. 2, lines 10-17, and col. 4, lines 50-64, the grid zone includes cells/recesses of two different size/volumes components, i.e., first recesses and second recesses) which take up, retain and apply respectively a first predetermined quantity of coating layer material and a second predetermined quantity of coating layer material (col. 1, lines 20-24, the plurality of cells/recesses take up and retain coating material), wherein the first predetermined quantity of coating layer material differs from the second predetermined quantity of coating layer material (col. 1, lines 20-40, col. 5, lines 20-45, different amount of coating material in different sections of cells/recesses). Fields teaches the roller includes a grid zone comprises a first grid zone part and a second grid zone part meeting the claimed limitations. Fields teaches its roller facilitate forming a uniform, continuous gradient coating on a substrate (col. 2, lines 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Fields, to provide a moving endless surface/roller as taught by Fields having the grid zone comprising a first grid zone part and a second grid (as discussed above), to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns such as a coating pattern of uniform, continuous gradient coating as taught by Fields.
Regarding claim 3, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, using a roller/moving endless surface with a grid zone taught by Lewinz. But modified Stappaerts does not teach the moving endless surface is further provided with a blank zone which applies no coating layer material to the first side of the cellulose layer.
Fields teaches gravure rollers used in coating method, of which the roller includes a grid zone comprises blank zones (col. 2, lines 10-17, col. 2, lines 41-59, the zones between the cells/recesses is considered the blank zones, meeting the claimed limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Fields, to provide a moving endless surface/roller as taught by Fields comprises blank zones (col. 2, lines 10-17, col. 2, lines 41-59), to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns such as a coating pattern of uniform, continuous gradient coating as taught by Fields.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Vaish et al. (US 2006/0263530; “Vaish”).
The limitations of claims 1, 5 and 7 are taught by Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Stappaerts does not teach the step of interrupting bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer.
Vaish teaches a coating application process using a roller with a pattern on the surface of the roller, and a coating mechanism adapted to apply a coating to the substrate in a non-continuous manner (para [0008]). Vaish teaches interrupting bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer, in that Vaish teaches its coating mechanism may be periodically moved so that the roller engages the substrate and disengage from the coating mechanism, so that the application of coating material is stopped (para [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Vaish, to include the step of interrupting bringing the grid zone into contact with the first side of the cellulose layer as taught by Vaish (para [0032]), to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Brocker et al. (US 6,412,407; “Brocker”).
The limitations of claims 1, 5 and 7 are taught by Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Stappaerts does not teach the step of interrupting application of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material to the first side of the cellulose layer is performed in the specific manner as instantly claimed, i.e., using a hopper mechanism which couples the pressing cylinder movably to a camshaft which is configured to convert a rotating movement thereof into an up and downward movement of the hopper mechanism, whereby the contact between the cellulose layer and the moving endless surface is interrupted.
Brocker teaches a rotary coating device having mechanism configured to convert a rotating movement into an up and downward movement of the hopper mechanism, in particular, Brocker teaches a rotary coating mechanisms having a cam-driven control mechanisms that couples the pressing cylinder configured in which a cam disk moves the coating member by means of a lever, the coating member is controlled and lifted, thus, the rotating movement is converted into an up and downward movement (i.e., lifting) (col. 2, lines 14-25, and col. 2, lines 45-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Brocker, to include the step of interrupting application of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material using a hopper mechanism which couples the pressing cylinder movably to a camshaft which is configured to convert a rotating movement thereof into an up and downward movement of the hopper mechanism, whereby the contact between the cellulose layer and the moving endless surface is interrupted as taught by Brocker (col. 2, lines 14-25, and col. 2, lines 45-63), to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liu et al. (CN 201410428975; “Liu”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Stappaerts in view of Lewinz as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Stappaerts teaches a method for applying a coating layer to a cellulose packaging material using the coating application process taught by Lewinz, using a roller with a grid zone taught by Lewinz. Lewinz teaches a coating application process using a rotating coating roller (col. 1, lines 18-24), such as an anilox roller having a surface with a plurality of cavities/recesses configured to receive, retain and transfer coating material (col. 1, lines 52-60, col. 2, lines 18-27).
But modified Stappaerts does not teach taking up of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone comprises taking up the coating layer material in the recesses in capillary manner.
Liu teaches anilox rollers used in printing/coating system, that the anilox roller has groove/recesses that absorb and retain ink by capillary action, enabling a controlled and stable transfer of ink/coating to the substrate, taking up of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone comprises taking up the coating layer material in the recesses in capillary manner (page 1, abstract, and page 2, first para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified method of Stappaerts in view the teachings of Liu, to provide a moving endless surface/roller as taught by Liu that includes groove/recesses that absorb and retain ink/coating by capillary action, and taking up of the predetermined quantity of coating layer material in the plurality of recesses of the grid zone comprises taking up the coating layer material in the recesses in capillary manner as taught by Liu (page 1, abstract, and page 2, first para), to form a coating layer on the cellulose packaging material with controlled and desired coating patterns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights