Detailed Action
The communications received 04/14/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended.
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
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, 3-4, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US 5,603,804) hereinafter HAN in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2021/0395951) hereinafter YAM.
As for claim 1, HAN teaches a fluting or liner (linerboard) for corrugated board comprising [Abstract]:
a pulp composition comprising at least 50 wt% a neutral sulfite semi chemical (NSSC) pulp (as the pulp can be entirely NSSC which would mean 100%) [col. 2 l. 39-45]
HAN does not teach wherein said NSSC pulp has an ash content of less than 1.6 wt%, as determined according to standard ISO 1762:2019.
YAM teaches that a semi-chemical pulp [0054] can have an ash content that is 1.0% or lower [0043]. This improves the bonding of the pulp fibers [0043].
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 content of the semi-chemical pulp of HAN which is an NSSC pulp to the amount taught by YAM which is less than 1.0% which falls within the claimed range in order to improve the bonding of the pulp fibers and thereby create a resultant stronger product. As both YAM and HAN pertain to the semi-chemical pulps and their products they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 3, the ash content is less than 1% which falls within the claimed range [see claim 1].
As for claims 4, 11, 13-16 The Examiner notes that the fluting/liner for corrugated board of claim 1 has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. the at least 50% NSSC and ash content of less than 1.6%) which would result in the claimed properties (conductivities, equilibrium moisture content, cd/md stretch value, and kinetic friction). 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 fluting/liner for corrugated board product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 12, HAN/YAM teach claim 1 and HAN further teaches that the fluting/liner can be composed of completely unrecycled pulp (as the recycled fibers are listed as an alternative, therefore they can be completely unincluded) [HAN: col. 2 l. 39-45].
As for claim 17, HAN/YAM teach claim 1 and its inclusion in a corrugated board [HAN: Abstract; claim 5].
Claim(s) 2, 5-10 and 16 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN/YAM as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Everett et al (US 2020/0063360) hereinafter EVE.
As for claim 2, HAN/YAM teach claim 1 but do not teach that the NSSC pulp underwent washing.
EVE teaches that when treating pulp [Abstract] that one manner of removing impurities is via washing [0084].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have subjected the pulp of HAN/YAM to washing in order to remove impurities such as ash as EVE teaches that washing pulp removes impurities. As both HAN/YAM and EVE pertain to pulp and their treatments they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 5, HAN/YAM teach claim 1 but fail to teach the sizing agent.
EVE teaches that when treating pulp that one additive for pulp that can improve resultant paperboard/cardboard products is internal sizing agents [0307].
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 internal sizing agents as taught by EVE to the pulp of HAN/YAM in order to improve the resultant cardboard/paperboard properties. As both HAN/YAM and EVE pertain to pulp and their treatments they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 6, HAN/YAM/EVE teach claim 5 and the use of a rozin sizing [EVE: 0307].
As for claim 7, HAN/YAM/EVE teach claim 5 teach claim 5 and that the internal sizing agent (as ageneric 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: 0305-0307].
As for claim 8, HAN/YAM teach claim 1, and in the combination of HAN/YAM/EVE utilized to improve resultant paperboard/cardboard properties via sizing addition, EVE further teaches that microparticle retention aids can be used [0419].
As for claim 9, HAN/YAM/EVE teach claim 9 and that these microparticles can be silica and/or bentonite based [EVE: 0419].
As for claim 10, HAN/YAM/EVE teach claim 8 and wherein the microparticle retention aid comprises a water soluble polymer [EVE: 0419].
As for claim 16, should the Applicant disagree with the rationale supplied above:
EVE teaches that in the production of cardboard and paperboard via pulp [Abstract; 0083] that the liner/fluting can use applied coatings to achieve a kinetic friction (dynamic friction) of at least 0.1 which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.5 in order to control the ease of movement of the fibers against each other and against other materials in which the fibers will be employed as surfaces against (i.e. metal) [EVE: 0184-186].
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 surface coating to achieve the kinetic friction of EVE in the pulp and resultant product of HAN/YAM in order to create a product which has the appropriate friction characteristics which one of ordinary skill in the art understands would influence how the
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN/YAM as applied claim 1 in further view of Clark et al (WO 2016/138554) hereinafter CLA.
As for claim 11, should Applicant disagree, HAN/YAM do not recite 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 HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM 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, HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM 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, HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM 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 HAN/YAM as applied claim 1 in further view of Witsch (US 2010/0319543) hereinafter WIT.
As for claim 15, HAN/YAM teach the claim, and should the Applicant disagree with the previously supplied rationale:
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 HAN/YAM to be the stretch value of WIT in order to allow for the creation of flutes without damaging the webs. As both HAN/YAM 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's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the newly applied prior art HAN and YAM as applied to claim 1 above. The arguments do not apply to the new combinations that now involve HAN/YAM especially as YAM includes an ash content which falls within the range of the claimed limitation and HAN includes an NSSC content which falls within the claimed range.
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 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights