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 .
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (JPH1060447A) in view of Outterson (US 2,986,478).
Regarding claim 4, Ueno discloses a production method for producing a flame-proof linerboard, the method comprising applying to a first surface of a paper layer (paragraph [0024]) of the flame-proof linerboard a coating liquid containing a flame-proofing agent and a polymer having a molecular weight of 8,000 or more and 10,000,000 of less, thereby forming a flame-proof layer (claims 1 and 4; paragraphs [0014-0017], [0021] and [0024]).
Ueno fails to teach applying an overcoat agent to a surface of the flame proof layer on a side of the flame-proof layer opposite from the paper layer, thereby forming an overcoat layer.
Outterson teaches a flameproof paper wherein an overcoat agent (protective coating) is applied to its outer surface in order to provide water resistance and prevent leaching of the water-soluble salts (col. 2, lines 70-73).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flameproof paperboard in Ueno to include an overcoat agent (protective layer) applied on the surface of the flame-proof layer opposite from the paper layer as suggested by Outterson in order to provide water resistance and prevent leaching of the water-soluble salts from the flameproof layer, if so desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-13 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest the distinct feature of “the overcoat layer comprising a varnish”, as now recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Fine and further in view of Outterson have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Fine and further in view of Outterson has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Outterson have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the Ueno reference and the Outterson reference teach impregnating paper layers with flame proofing liquid, but do not teach or even suggest applying a coating liquid to a first surface of a paper layer to form a flameproof layer and then applying an overcoat agent to a surface of the flame-proof layer opposite the paper layer to form an overcoat layer”.
This argument is not deemed persuasive. As shown in the 103 rejection above, Ueno teaches applying to a first surface of a paper layer of the flame-proof linerboard a coating liquid containing a flame-proofing agent and a polymer having a molecular weight of 8,000 or more and 10,000,000 of less, thereby forming a flame-proof layer (claims 1 and 4; paragraphs [0014-0017], [0021], [0024] and [0028]). Ueno does not specifically teach applying an overcoat agent to a surface of the flame-proof layer on a side of the flame-proof layer opposite from the paper layer. However, Ueno suggests a surface treatment agent can be applied (paragraph [0022]). Outterson was merely cited to teach a flameproof paper wherein an overcoat agent (protective coating) can be applied to its outer surface in order to provide water resistance and prevent leaching of the water-soluble salts (col. 2, lines 70-73). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flameproof paperboard in Ueno to include an overcoat agent (protective layer) applied on the surface of the flame-proof layer opposite from the paper layer as suggested by Outterson in order to provide water resistance and prevent leaching of the water-soluble salts from the flameproof layer, if so desired. Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Ueno in view of Outterson.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CATHERINE A SIMONE whose telephone number is (571)272-1501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
CATHERINE A. SIMONE
Examiner
Art Unit 1781
/Catherine A. Simone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781