DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 20210024771 (Wang et al.) to US 20220332871 A1 (Wei et al.) to US 20150274350 ( Seyffer et al.) and further in view of US 20190390091 A1 (Gertz et al.)
Re claims 1-2, Wang teaches a [59] mineral-oil resistant coating as claimed [19-20, 29] nitrile group containing unsaturated ethylenic monomer and carboxy- group containing group [30-33] as claimed and aqueous solvent [12], [19-21] overlapping ranges of 21% to 70% [19] and content of ratio [31] is 1:1 equivalent ratio (see overlapping ranges below). See [23] to the molecular weight. Given the same copolymer, the glass transition temperature is inherent.
Wang doesn’t teach the exact % of the monomer or the content ratio.
Wei teaches overlapping ranges of at least 60% (overlapping claimed range) as claimed [11-20, 43-56] for excellent stress retention balancing softness.
Gertz teaches overlapping ranges of at least 60% (overlapping claimed range ) sum soft monomer as claimed [20-26] for effecting gel and peel strength. See Tables.
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05
Re claim 3, Wang fails to teach a recycled paper.
Seyffer teaches a similar coating with a [58] recycled paper to prevent VOCs from passing through.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the coating of Wang and add it to a side of the recycled paper of Seyffer to yield a laminate for reasons set forth above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US 20210024771 (Wang et al.) to US 20220332871 A1 (Wei et al.) to US 20150274350 ( Seyffer et al.) and further in view of US 20190390091 A1 (Gertz et al.) and further in view of US 20170204305 A1 (Houillot et al).
The combination is relied upon above.
The combination fails to disclose the content ratio as claimed.
Houillot discloses the content ratio within overlapping ranges in a similar adhesive [40-46, 86] composition for advantages of good adhesive properties.
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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection applying
the new reference. The new reference mitigates the claims. See New Rejection above.
Note the applicant’s argument :In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further Note: absent a showing of unexpected results, it is obvious to modify the conditions of a composition because they are merely the result of routine experimentation. The experimental modification of prior art in order to optimize operation conditions (e.g. ranges and percentages of weight) fails to render claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. To date, no affidavit has been submitted.
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 TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights