Detailed Action
The communications received 09/10/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-17 are pending. This is a new non-final in light of Applicant’s arguments filed 09/10/2025.
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 § 112
The amendments supplied 09/10/2025 have overcome the rejection under 112(b) of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett et al (US 2020/0063360 already of record) hereinafter EVE in view of Hussain (US 2021/0404118) hereinafter HUS and Nordstrom (US 2023/0056642 already of record) hereinafter NOR.
As for claim 1, EVE teaches a fluting or liner (a liner produced from sulfite pulp) [0083; 0660] for corrugated board comprising a neutral sulfite semi chemical (NSSC) pulp (sulfite pulp which is has pH adjusted to a neutral range of 6.5-7.5) [0057], however, EVE does not teach the ash content and it is unclear that the sulphite pulp is necessarily NSSC pulp. EVE further teaches using recycled pulp [0060; 0078].
HUS teaches the production of liners (linerboard and fluting) in which some acceptable sulphite pulps included in recyclable products include NSSC as a constituent [Abstract; 0005; 0261-262].
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/used NSSC pulp as a constituent of EVE in order to utilize a component that is recyclable. As both EVE and HUS pertain to sulphite pulps and production of liners, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
EVE/HUS do not teach the ash content.
NOR teaches a sulfite pulp used to produce a liner (oxygen barrier) in which components like ash are reduced in order to remove compounds that give rise to taint and/or odor in the final package [Abstract; 0066]. An acceptable range of ash to reduce this effect is a content less than 1% which falls within the claimed range [0066].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduced the ash of EVE/HUS such that it achieves the ash content of NOR in order to reduce the resultant taint and/or odor in the final package. As both EVE/HUS and NOR pertain to the sulfite pulps they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination. It is understood that the ash content would be substantially the same should it be measured to the ISO standard.
As for claim 2, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and in addition it is understood that part of the ash reduction would be performed via washing as EVE teaches that impurities are removed via washing [0084].
As for claim 3, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and wherein said ash content is less than 1% which falls within the claimed range [see claim 1].
As for claim 4, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and the Examiner notes that the NSSC has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. ash content) which would result in the claimed property (conductivity). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the NSSC product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 5, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and further comprising at least one internal sizing agent [EVE: 0307].
As for claim 6, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 5 and wherein the at least one internal sizing agent is a rosin sizing [EVE: 0307; 0536].
As for claim 7, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 5 and that the internal sizing agent (as a generic additive) is added in the amounts of 0.5-20% which overlaps the claimed range of 0.0055- 0.66% ( assumption of US ton in which 1 kg = 0.00110231 ton, 0.5 * 0.00110231 / 1 to 6 * 0.00110231 / 1) [EVE: 0305].
As for claim 8, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and further comprising a microparticle retention aid system [EVE: 0419].
As for claim 9, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 8 and wherein the microparticles can be silica and/or bentonite based [EVE: 0419].
As for claim 10, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 8 and wherein the microparticle retention aid comprises a water soluble polymer [EVE: 0419].
As for claim 12, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and wherein the fluting/liner can be composed entirely of recycled fibers which is 100 % which falls within the claimed range [EVE: 0642; 0645].
As for claim 13, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and the Examiner notes that the NSSC has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. ash content) which would result in the claimed property (conductivity). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the NSSC product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 14, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and wherein said fluting/liner has an equilibrium moisture content of less than 5% by weight [EVE: 0556], this is understood to include the case in which the iso standard of at 50% relative humidity is taken into account.
As for claim 16, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and further that the liner/fluting can have a kinetic friction (dynamic friction) of at least 0.1 which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.5 [EVE: 0184-186].
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 17, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and its inclusion in a corrugated board [EVE: 0577].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EVE/HUS/NOR as applied claim 1 in further view of Clark et al (WO 2016/138554) hereinafter CLA.
As for claim 11, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 and but does not teach wherein at least one side of the fluting/liner has a Cobb value below 40 gsm.
CLA teaches a paperboard liner [Abstract] in which a preferable cobb value is less than 40 gsm which is the claimed range, this is understood to contribute to the characteristics of dimensional stability and tensile strength [pg. 7 – l. 30 – pg. 8].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the liner of EVE/HUS/NOR to achieve a cobb value of less than 40 gsm in order to aid in the imbuing of the liner with dimensional stability and tensile strength.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EVE/HUS/NOR as applied claim 1 in further view of Cyr et al (US 2006/0142535) hereinafter CYR.
As for claim 4, should the Applicant disagree with the with previously supplied rationale above, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 but fail to explicitly teach a conductivity of less than 5 mS/cm.
CYR teaches that a particularly useful strength additive for sulfite pulp [0097] can only be added when the conductivity of hot water extracts of pulp are in the range of greater than 1.5 mS/cm which overlaps the claimed range [0097-98].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pulp of EVE/HUS/NOR such that it has the hot water extract conductivity of the pulp of CYR in order to allow for the incorporation of an advantageous strength additive. As both EVE/HUS/NOR and CYR pertain to sulfite pulps they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their 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 13, should the Applicant disagree with the with previously supplied rationale above, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1 but fail to explicitly teach a conductivity of less than 15 mS/cm.
CYR teaches that a particularly useful strength additive for sulfite pulp [0097] can only be added when the conductivity of hot water extracts of pulp are in the range of greater than 1.5 mS/cm which overlaps the claimed range [0097-98].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pulp of EVE/HUS/NOR such that it has the hot water extract conductivity of the pulp of CYR in order to allow for the incorporation of an advantageous strength additive. As both EVE/HUS/NOR and CYR pertain to sulfite pulps they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their 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)].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EVE/HUS/NOR as applied claim 1 in further view of Witsch (US 2010/0319543) hereinafter WIT.
As for claim 15, EVE/HUS/NOR teach claim 1, but does not teach the stretch value, wherein said fluting/liner has a cd/md stretch value
WIT teaches an md/cd stretch value that is applicable for fluting (flutable fiber webs) [Title; Abstract] of 0.5-5 which would be a cd/md stretch value of 0.20-2 which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 1.8 [0040], this stretch value allows for the creation of flutes without damage to the web [0017].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the stretch value of EVE/HUS/NOR to be the stretch value of WIT in order to allow for the creation of flutes without damaging the webs. As both EVE/HUS/NOR and WIT pertain to fluting, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their 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)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the pulp of Everett and Nordstrom would fail to be an NSSC pulp. The Examiner in light of the clarifications provided by the remarks filed 09/10/2025 agrees, therefore newly found prior art Hussain et al (US 2021/040118) is included to teach a rationale for utilizing NSSC pulp in the liner.
Applicant's other arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Nordstrom provides suitable ranges for the ash content, that not all pulps need to have the same characteristics, and that Nordstrom does not explicitly explain how the ash would be reduced in a pulp that a combination including Everett and Nordstrom would not arrive to the reduction of ash to the claimed content.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees. The key to the understanding of how Nordstrom and Everett would be combined lies in the motivation of Nordstrom. In Nordstrom, ash is clearly taught as a contaminating compound which would be reduced in order to reduce the occurrence of taint and/or odor in the final package [Abstract; 0066]. Everett teaches that contamination in a pulp is removed via washing [0084]. Therefore although there may be unexpected benefits to ash removal that the Applicant has found, they do not define the range which may be achieved for other specific purposes. In response to applicant's argument that the ash range has the unique effect of requiring less wet-end chemicals, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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