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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II is a method of using a drainage aid and the other groups are to similar scopes of drainage aids and does not provide a burdensome search. This is not found persuasive because a different consideration is needed for the use of a drainage aid in a particular industry such as papermaking when compared against a composition that can be used in many different industries such as the cosmetic industry for example. The Dependent claims directed to entry positions within the papermaking process would be vastly different than just finding a drainage aide that is common in many different fields of endeavor.
There are additional traversal of the non-selected which are found moot as to the claims being withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 14- 20 are 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.
Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite as it is unclear as to what the wt% values are in reference to.
The claim requires SLES to be present in the amount of 1-70 wt %, but it is not clear as if that is compared to the composition or the pulp it is being added to.
For purposes of continued examination the Examiner is considering the wt% to be based on the composition being added to the pulp as a pulp that is made up of 70% surfactant does not seem feasible in the pulp and paper industry. Clarification is required.
Claims 15-20 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 14.
Claim 17 is rejected as indefinite as the claim further requires adding one or more drainage aids at one or more points along the fiber line of a papermaking process.
It is unclear also if the SLES of claim 14 is the drainage aid (as it is referred to as a drainage aid in the instant specification) or if it is requiring the SLES of claim 14 and an additional drainage aid to be added.
For purpose of continued examination, the Examiner is considering the SLES to be the drainage aid in question and the limitations of claim 17 are directed to where it is applied.
Additionally the claim recites the limitation "the fiber line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the brown washing stage, O2 stage, and/or bleaching stage" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to provide clarity for the interpretation of a couple of the claims.
Claim 14 includes the actively claimed addition of SLES to a pulp and a list of optional components. For purposes of continued Examination, the optional limitations will not be addressed.
This will include limitations that further limit the optional limitations, such as the amount of the hydrotrope, deformer, and other optional components of Claims 14-16.
Additionally claim 19 states that the aid is added at an extraction step and then lists what types of extraction steps can be included. This is presented as an optional limitations as the step E can be E, Eo, Ep, or Eop. These different types of steps are defined by the instant specification and therefore no 112 is presented, but they are listed as optional or example types of extraction and not actively requirement one of those extractions to be present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nicholson US Patent Publication 2019/0078258.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 20, Nicholson teaches a method for treating pulp (see abstract), comprising adding SLES [0016 and 0032] to make a treated pulp [0038] wherein the SLES is added either with or separately with optional components (list of other potential additions are presented in [0038-0037] and they must be entered either with or without other components), wherein the amount of SLES added is shown in Table 3 (Formulation D has 0.16 kg/MT of SLES with 3.2 and 1.2 kg/MT of other additives making for the SLES to be 3.5% of the additive compositions).
Regarding claim 17, Nicholson remain as applied above and further teaches that the drainage aids are added at one or more points along the fiber line [0034-0037] in the papermaking process.
Regarding claim 18, Nicholson remain as applied above and further teaches that the addition takes place prior to oxygen delignification [0034-0036] but then further provides and example of the Brown stock pulp being treated with the composition in the oxygen delignification stage [0038] and in example 3 that teaches the addition of the surfactants in a poorly mixed oxygen delignification step [0048-0049]. While there is an overall teaching of having the surfactant present prior to oxygen delignification, there are examples of the surfactant being added during an oxygenation stage which is sufficient to read on an anticipation of the claims [0048-0049].
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson US Patent Publication 2019/0078258 in view of Maciaszek, USP 4,107,073.
Claim 18 is alternatively rejected as below with further limitations provide by claim 19.
Regarding claims 18-19, Nicholson teaches that the composition should be added prior to oxygen delignification but could be entered in partial mixed examples, but is silent on the specific use of adding the aid during an extraction step.
In the same field of endeavor of adding drainage aids to a papermaking process (see abstract), Maciaszek teaches that the drainage aid can be added can be a brown wash aid (see column 3 line 46) or that it can be used in the caustic extraction stages (as shown in Example 1) for the benefit of controlling the properties of the final product in a known and conventional manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize Maciaszek’s use of adding the drainage aid to an extraction stage of the papermaking process in the Nicholson method for the benefit of providing a drainage aid to a known useful part (downstream bleaching) of the method in a known and conventional manner to control the physical properties of the final product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights