DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/18/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-17 are amended and 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the covering panels of VAN GIEL are not applicable to the sheet-like products of the present invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that VAN GIEL is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, VAN GIEL teaches a coated [0055] laminate composite [0019] that is made of layered cellulose filler [0039 and 0040] and thermoplastic [abstract and 0033]. The present invention is also a laminate made from cellulose and polymer coating.
Applicant argues that prior art, VAN GIEL, does not teach a first coating layer and a second coating layer applied on the first surface of the substrate by curtain coating.
Examiner understands the term coating and layer to be synonymous. VAN GIEL teaches the use of multiple layers including a wear layer and top coat [0061].
Applicant argues that the polyvinyl alcohol of the prior art, VAN GIEL, is neither biobased or biodegradable.
VAN GIEL teaches the use of polymer fiber as reinforcing fiber and natural fiber as an alternative. VAN GIEL is silent to the origin of the polyvinyl alcohol used.
ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the production of a similar laminated multilayer sheet with coatings and fibers [0042]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the use of a biodegradable PVA to form a film coating [0026 and 0141]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the advantage of a biodegradable polymer is the ability to recover, vaporize or dump the material to environment without major negative effects. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the biodegradable PVA of ESPINOSA DURAN into the method of VAN GIEL to produce an effect coating layer film. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability and disposal as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN.
Applicant argues that prior art, VAN GIEL, does not incentivize user to pick a combination where the melting points of the polymer would be different.
In response to applicant's argument that prior art does not incentivize user to pick a specific combination, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner notes the prior art teaches a list of possible materials used with no statement against the use of any particular combination. This does not teach away from the use of a specific combination. The suggestion that a material may be used for a primary purpose is incentive to use the material regardless of the secondary intended purpose of the instant claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that prior art does not incentivize user to pick a combination where the degree of crystallinity of the polymer would be different.
In response to applicant's argument that prior art does not incentivize user to pick a specific combination, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner notes the prior art teaches a list of possible materials used with no statement against the use of any particular combination. This does not teach away from the use of a specific combination. The suggestion that a material may be used for a primary purpose is incentive to use the material regardless of the secondary intended purpose of the instant claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN GIEL (US 20200199886 A1) in view of ESPINOSA DURAN (US 20200308370 A1) as evidenced by Fiber Yarn (https://www.fiber-yarn.com/info/will-polyester-yarn-melt-100616593.html) and Pub Chem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Polyvinyl%20acetate#section=Physical-Description).
For claim 1, VAN GIEL teaches the production of a laminate sheet with multiple layers [0052]. VAN GIEL teaches the laminate sheet has a large shape [0021] with a substrate made from cellulose fiber [0040]. This teaches the limitations of “A sheet-like product, selected from paper, or board, comprising - a substrate comprising cellulosic fibres and having a first surface”. VAN GIEL teaches the sheet is with multiple substrate layers [0052] with the use of a curtain coater [0125] with the final layer as the top coat [0055]. VAN GIEL teaches the multilayer sheet has water resistant properties providing a barrier [0018]. This teaches the limitations of “wherein at least a first coating layer and a second coating layer are applied on the first surface of the substrate by curtain coating to form a barrier coating, the second coating layer forming the surface of the sheet- like product”.
Regarding the layer melting point limitations, VAN GIEL teaches the sheet is with multiple substrate layers [0052] and a top layer made of polyester [0055]. Polyester has a melting point of 250°C as evidenced by Fiber Yarn (https://www.fiber-yarn.com/info/will-polyester-yarn-melt-100616593.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
391
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
VAN GIEL also teaches the substrate is made of synthetic material. The synthetic material is used synonymously with thermoplastic material [0031]. VAN GIEL teaches polyvinyl acetate as a usable thermoplastic material for the substrate [0080]. Polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) has a melting point of 50°C as evidenced by Pub Chem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Polyvinyl%20acetate#section=Physical-Description).
PNG
media_image2.png
257
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
VAN GIEL teaches that PVAc is used as the inner layer (substrate) and polyester (PE) is used as the top layer. This configuration has an outer layer with a higher melting point than the inner layer. This teaches the melting point limitation of instant claim of “wherein - the first coating layer comprises a first polymer having a first crystallization degree and a first melting point, and- the second coating layer comprises a second polymer having a second crystallization degree and a second melting point” and “wherein the second crystallization degree and/or the second melting point of the second polymer is higher than the first crystallization degree and/or the first melting point of the first polymer”.
Regarding the crystallinity of the instant application, VAN GIEL teaches a controlled crystallinity is desirable [0034]. VAN GIEL is silent to the use of polymer with different degree of crystallinity. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the production of a similar laminated multilayer sheet with coatings and fibers [0042]. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches that the crystallinity of the sheet layers is controlled to affect the mechanical and gas-barrier properties of the layer as needed [0124]. The crystallinity of the sheet is controlled by incorporating flaky magnetic platelets additive into specific layers [0125 and 0152]. This product is then treated with magnetic induction heating that only affects the layer with the magnetic platelets. The layer with magnetic platelets is then cooled slowly to give the layer a higher crystallinity than the others [0125]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein - the first coating layer comprises a first polymer having a first crystallization degree and a first melting point, and- the second coating layer comprises a second polymer having a second crystallization degree and a second melting point” and “wherein the second crystallization degree and/or the second melting point of the second polymer is higher than the first crystallization degree and/or the first melting point of the first polymer”. The examiner understands the “and/or” language allows the user examiner to choose either both or one of the listed options. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner uses the “or” option. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of VAN GIEL to include the variable heating to increase the mechanical and gas barrier properties as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of increased mechanical and gas barrier properties as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN.
VAN GIEL teaches the use of polymer fiber as reinforcing fiber and natural fiber as an alternative. VAN GIEL is silent to the origin of the polyvinyl alcohol used.
ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the production of a similar laminated multilayer sheet with coatings and fibers [0042]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the use of a biodegradable PVA to form a film coating [0026 and 0141]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the advantage of a biodegradable polymer is the ability to recover, vaporize or dump the material to environment without major negative effects. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the biodegradable PVA of ESPINOSA DURAN into the method of VAN GIEL to produce an effect coating layer film. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability and disposal as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN.
This teaches the limitation of “and wherein the first polymer is a biobased and/or biodegradable polymer”.
For claim 2, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the internal layers are made of thermoplastics including biodegradable PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) [0026]. PHA is a polyester. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first polymer is selected from biodegradable polyesters, selected from polybutylene succinate, poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate), polyhydroxyalkanoates, polycaprolactones, polylactides, and any of their mixtures and copolymers”.
For claim 3, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the layers are made of thermoplastic including biodegradable PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate) [0026]. PHA is a polyester. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first polymer is a polyhydroxyalkanoate, selected from polyhydroxybutyrate, polyhydroxyvalerate, polyhydroxy hexanoate and any of their copolymers”.
For claim 4, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches an embodiment where one sheet is made of thin coatings of thermoplastic films and the final coating incorporates magnetic platelets additive [0125]. This product is then treated with magnetic induction heating that only affects the layer with the magnetic platelets. The layer with magnetic platelets is then cooled slowly to give the layer a higher crystallinity than the others [0125]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the crystallization degree of the second polymer is higher than the crystallization degree of the first polymer”.
For claim 5, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the top layer is made of polyesters [0055]. The examiner notes polyesters are polyolefins. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second polymer is selected from the [[a]] group consisting of polyesters, selected from polybutylene succinate, poly(butylene succinate-co- adipate), polyhydroxyalkanoates, polylactide or polycaprolactone; polyethyleneterephtalate; polyolefins; styrene acrylate copolymers, styrene butadiene copolymers, ethylene acrylic and methacrylic acid copolymers, poly(glycolic acid); butyl vinyl alcohol; polyvinyl alcohol; ethylene vinyl acetate; and chitosan”.
For claim 7, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of an adhesive layer between the first and second layers [0112]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the sheet-like product comprises at least one precoat layer, arranged between the surface of the substrate and the first coating layer of the barrier coating”.
For claim 8, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of an adhesive layer between the first and second layers [0112]. The adhesive layer can be a thermoplastic [0111]. The thermoplastic can be polyvinyl alcohol [0033]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the precoat layer comprises a natural or synthetic polymer,; a cellulose derivative; and/or polyvinyl alcohol”.
For claim 10, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of a filler as a discrete phase between the substrate and additional layers [0052]. VAN GIEL also teaches the filler material is an inorganic mineral [0039]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the precoat layer comprises inorganic mineral particles”.
For claim 11, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of filler within the additional laminated substrate layers [0052]. The additional substrates are coatings. Inorganic mineral particles are used as filler in these additional layers [0039]. VAN GIEL teaches the filler can be completely inorganic mineral particles [0041]. The filler is present in the substrate in an amount between 10 to 50 wt% based on the total weight of the substrate [0044]. This range is within the limitation of “wherein the first coating layer and/or the second coating layer comprises inorganic mineral particles”.
For claim 12, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of a filler as a discrete phase between the substrate and additional layers [0052]. VANGIEL also teaches the filler material is an inorganic mineral, talc [0039]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the inorganic mineral particles are selected from kaolin, talc, mica, calcium carbonate and any mixture thereof”.
For claim 13, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL also teaches the use of glass fiber as a reinforcement layer anywhere between the top layer and the bottom substrate (laminate) layers [0082]. This placement includes between the first additional substrate coating layer and the second coating layer. This teaches the limitation of “one or more intermediate layers are arranged between the first coating layer and the second coating layer”.
For claim 14, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL does not teach the use of a crystallization promoter. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the use of magnetic particles to control and increase the crystallinity of the polymer layers [0135]. This includes the second coating layer. The examiner understands this increase and production of crystals to be the same function as a crystallization promoter making the magnetic particles a crystallization promoter. This teaches the limitation of “the second coating layer comprises a crystallization promoter”.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN GIEL (US 20200199886 A1) and ESPINOSA DURAN (US 20200308370 A1) in view of SUNDHOLM (US 20180142418 A1) as evidenced by Fiber Yarn (https://www.fiber-yarn.com/info/will-polyester-yarn-melt-100616593.html) and Pub Chem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Polyvinyl%20acetate#section=Physical-Description).
For claim 6, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL does not teach the coat weight of the layers. SUNDHOLM teaches the production of a multilayer barrier paper with a polymer barrier [0031] on a paper substrate [abstract]. SUNDHOLM teaches the coating layers are applied to a weight in the range of 6-9 gsm [0038]. This range is within the range for the first layer and abuts the range of the second layer. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first coating layer has a coat weight in a range of 3 - 15 g/m2, and/or the second coating layer has a coat weight in a range of 0.5 - 6 g/m2”. SUNDHOLM teaches that applications at this weight are thin and still thick enough to impart barrier properties [0038]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of VAN GIEL with the application method of SUNDHOLM to produce a laminate sheet. One would be motivated by the added advantage of enabling barrier properties with little material use.
For claim 9, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. VAN GIEL does not teach the coat weight. SUNDHOLM teaches the production of a multilayer barrier paper with a polymer barrier [0031] on a paper substrate [abstract]. SUNDHOLM teaches the precoating layer is applied to a weight of 10 gsm [0093]. This range is within the range of the instant claim range. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the precoat layer has a coat weight of 0.3 - 15 g/m2”. SUNDHOLM teaches that applications at this weight are thin and still thick enough to impart barrier properties [0038]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of VAN GIEL with the application method of SUNDHOLM to produce a laminate sheet. One would be motivated by the added advantage of enabling barrier properties with little material use.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN GIEL (US 20200199886 A1) in view of ESPINOSA DURAN (US 20200308370 A1), SUNDHOLM (US 20180142418 A1), and PIHKO (US 20190226146 A1) as evidenced by Fiber Yarn (https://www.fiber-yarn.com/info/will-polyester-yarn-melt-100616593.html) and Pub Chem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Polyvinyl%20acetate#section=Physical-Description).
For claim 15, VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the sheet-like product according to claim 1, as above. The examiner notes that VAN GIEL and ESPINOSA DURAN teach the methods of production [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for making a sheet-like product selected from paper or board according to claim 1,”. VAN GIEL teaches the production of a laminate sheet with multiple layers [0052]. VAN GIEL teaches the multilayer sheet has water resistant properties providing a barrier [0018]. VAN GIEL teaches the laminate sheet has a large shape [0021] with a substrate made from cellulose fiber [0040]. VAN GIEL teaches the sheet has multiple substrate layers [0052]. This teaches the limitations of “the method comprising:- forming a barrier coating comprising at least a first coating layer and a second coating layer on a first surface of a substrate comprising cellulosic fibres by applying the first coating layer and the second coating layer simultaneously”.
VAN GIEL teaches only the top coat is applied by curtain coating [0125]. VAN GIEL does not teach the application of multiple layers by curtain coating. SUNDHOLM teaches the production of a multilayer barrier paper with a polymer barrier [0031] on a paper substrate [abstract]. SUNDHOLM teaches that the polymer layers are applied by curtain coating without any drying between layers [0033]. This teaches the limitation of “on the first surface of the substrate without an intermediate drying between the first coating layer and the second coating layer”. SUNDHOLM teaches that applications at the weight achieved from curtain coating are thin and still thick enough to impart barrier properties [0038]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of VAN GIEL with the application method of SUNDHOLM to produce a laminate sheet. One would be motivated by the added advantage of enabling barrier properties with little material use.
VAN GIEL teaches the use of polymer fiber as reinforcing fiber and natural fiber as an alternative. VAN GIEL is silent to the origin of the polyvinyl alcohol used.
ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the production of a similar laminated multilayer sheet with coatings and fibers [0042]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the use of a biodegradable PVA to form a film coating [0026 and 0141]. ESPINOSA DURAN also teaches the advantage of a biodegradable polymer is the ability to recover, vaporize or dump the material to environment without major negative effects. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the biodegradable PVA of ESPINOSA DURAN into the method of VAN GIEL to produce an effect coating layer film. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved recyclability and disposal as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first coating layer comprises a biobased and/or biodegradable”.
Regarding the layer melting point limitations, VAN GIEL teaches the sheet is with multiple substrate layers [0052] and a top layer made of polyester [0055]. Polyester has a melting point of 250°C as evidenced by Fiber Yarn (https://www.fiber-yarn.com/info/will-polyester-yarn-melt-100616593.html). VAN GIEL also teaches the substrate is made of synthetic material. The synthetic material is used synonymously with thermoplastic material [0031]. VAN GIEL teaches polyvinyl acetate as a usable thermoplastic material for the substrate [0080]. Polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) has a melting point of 50°C as evidenced by Pub Chem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Polyvinyl%20acetate#section=Physical-Description). VAN GIEL teaches that PVAc is used as the inner layer (substrate) and polyester (PE) is used as the top layer. This configuration has an outer layer with a higher melting point than the inner layer. This teaches the melting point limitation of instant claim.
Regarding the crystallinity of the instant application, VAN GIEL teaches a controlled crystallinity is desirable [0034]. VAN GIEL is silent to the use of polymer with different degree of crystallinity. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches the production of a similar laminated multilayer sheet with coatings and fibers [0042]. ESPINOSA DURAN teaches that the crystallinity of the sheet layers is controlled to affect the mechanical and gas-barrier properties of the layer as needed [0124]. The crystallinity of the sheet is controlled by incorporating flaky magnetic platelets additive into specific layers [0125 and 0152]. This product is then treated with magnetic induction heating that only affects the layer with the magnetic platelets. The layer with magnetic platelets is then cooled slowly to give the layer a higher crystallinity than the others [0125]. This teaches the limitation of “first polymer having a first crystallization degree and a first melting point, and the second coating layer comprises a second polymer having a second crystallization degree and a second melting point, which second crystallization degree and/or the second melting point is higher than the first crystallization degree and/or the first melting point of the first polymer, the second coating layer forming the surface of the sheet-like product”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the method of VAN GIEL to include the variable heating to increase the mechanical and gas barrier properties as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of increased mechanical and gas barrier properties as taught by ESPINOSA DURAN.
Neither VAN GIEL teach hot air impingement as a form of heating. PIHKO teaches addition of polymer film to a paper substrate [0012] like VAN GIEL. PIHKO teaches the final sheet is dried using hot air impingement system due to its higher temperature and drying rates [0034]. The air impingement system produced temperatures, 300°C, above the melting point of polyesters from the outer layers of VAN GIEL [0050]. In combination this teaches the limitation of “subjecting the formed barrier coating to impingement drying with hot air for increasing the temperature of the second coating layer over the second melting point”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the air impingement system of PIHKO into the system of VAN GIEL to effectively produce a multilayer laminate. One would be motivated by the fast speed of the heating as taught by PIHKO.
For claim 16, VAN GIEL, SUNDHOLM, ESPINOSA DURAN, and PIHKO teach the method of claim 15, as above. VAN GIEL teaches the use of an adhesive layer between the first and second layers [0112]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the method further comprises a step of applying at least one precoat layer on the surface of the substrate before forming the barrier coating”.
For claim 17, VAN GIEL, SUNDHOLM, ESPINOSA DURAN, and PIHKO teach the method of claim 15, as above. VAN GIEL is silent to the use a hot air impingement system. PIHKO teaches the final sheet is dried using hot air impingement system due to its higher temperature and drying rates [0034]. The air impingement system produces temperatures of 300°C [0050]. This is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the temperature of the hot air in the impingement drying is at least 300°C.
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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748