Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 4/18/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 37, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 87, 90 and 94 are 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 8, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 37, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 87, 90 and 94 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
U.S. 20210277607 SVENDING is the closest prior art. SVENDING discloses a consolidated base sheet layer [0008]. SVENDING discloses applying a top layer comprising nanocellulose with a slot applicator [0009 and 0011]. SVENDING discloses a nanocellulose containing composition of 5 to 30% MFC which overlaps the instant claimed range [0018]. SVENDING discloses a Lc(w) of less than 0.7 mm [00133] which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or makes a prima facie case of obviousness. . SVENDING discloses a d50 less than 400 microns which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or makes a prima facie case of obviousness. SVENDING further discloses a fiber steepness of 30 to 40 which falls within the claimed range [0124]. SVENDING discloses fines greater than 300 microns of 23% but does not disclose the combination of “fines B”, the Lc(l), or FLT as claimed. SVENDING does not necessarily have the same “fines B” as the instant specification explains that s specific pulp must be used [instant spec 0217].
Double Patenting
The Examiner considered ODP over 18/514,535 but found that the ‘549 application did not claim at least fiber steepness, lc(l), lc(w), or FLT.
The Examiner considered ODP over 18/514,549 but found that the ‘549 application did not claim at least fiber steepness, d50, or FLT.
Specification
The specification is objected to as the applicant should add what lc(l), lc(w), and FLT mean in the specification. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets lc(l) as length weighted average fiber length and lc(w) as length-length weighted average fiber length. The Examiner understands FLT as FLT index which measures tensile (see e.g. U.S. 2020/0263358 [0094])
PNG
media_image1.png
658
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant should put what lc(l) and Lc(w) stand for in the claim. The Examiner has interpreted these as per above.
The applicant should put the meaning of FLT in the claim.
In line 10 of claim 1 there should be a space before “mm”.
In line 7 of claim 2 there should be a space before “mm”.
Applicant should add a “.” after “wt” and before the %.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 37, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 87, 90 and 94 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 2 recite the broad recitation 0.2 wt% to 6 wt%, and the claims also recite 0.5 to 3% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1, 2, and 33 contains the trademark/trade name “malvern”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a fiber length analyzer and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 1 and 2 claim “FLT”. The Examiner understands FLT as FLT index which measures tensile (see e.g. U.S. 2020/0263358 [0094]. However, it is not clear what FLT stands for or “how” it is measured.
Claims 2, 8, 21, 25, 28, 29, 33, 37, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 87, 90 and 94 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 33, 50, 53, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 87 depend from claim 2 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the first layer”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the first layer”.
Claim 28 is not clear as the applicant already has the range of about 0.2 wt% in instant claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 29 recites the broad recitation at most about 6 wt.%, and the claim also recites at most about 3 wt.% % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claim 1 already claimed the limit of at almost about 6%.
Claim 50 recites the limitation "the layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the second layer”.
Claim 57 is not clear as the applicant already has the range of about 0.2 wt% in instant claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 58 recites the broad recitation at most about 6 wt.%, and the claim also recites at most about 3 wt.% % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, claim 2 already claimed the limit of at almost about 6%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748