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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 6/1/26. Claims 1, 3, 13, and 18 have been amended. Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebsanft WO_2022243445_A1 in view of Schlegel DE_102019114198_A1 (see machine English translation).
1. Regarding Claims 1, 3, Lebsanft discloses a paper (Title) having a cellulose layer (Abstract) comprising cellulose fibers (corresponds to claimed web) (Example 1) with a sugarcane wax (corresponds to claimed bio-based wax transparency agent) coating on one side thereof (Example 1). The Examples do not further exemplify having a second coating on the opposite side of said cellulose layer. However, Lebsanft does state that in a lesser preferred embodiment, there can be a first coating on one side of said cellulose layer, and a second coating on an opposing side (Page 28, Line 35 – Page 29, Line 6). Lebsanft discloses that excellent hydrophobicity, barrier properties, workability,
and heat-sealability (corresponds to claimed heat-sealable composition) is surprisingly maintained when a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyester, polysaccharide, polysaccharide ester, polysaccharide ether, and polysaccharide ether ester (corresponds to claimed polymer) is used in the coating (Abstract, Page 3, Lines 30-37, Page 29, Lines 24-29). Lebsanft discloses that said second coating can comprise 90% of said polymers (Page 12, Lines 7-12). This fulfills the newly added claimed limitation of instant Claim 1 since the claim states “about 90%”.
2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the preferred embodiment, of Lebsanft, by using two coatings on both sides of the cellulose layer; one in which has the afore-described sugarcane wax (corresponds to claimed bio-based wax transparency agent) coating on one side as exemplified in Example 1, and another heat-sealable layer on the other side of said cellulose layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in selecting the lesser preferred embodiment out of a desire to optimize excellent hydrophobicity, barrier properties, workability, and heat-sealability by using said heat-sealable layer having a polymer comprising polysaccharide, polysaccharide ester, polysaccharide ether, and polysaccharide ether ester (corresponds to claimed polymer). This setup would also teach the limitations of instant Claims 2 and 3.
3. However, Lebsanft does not disclose its wax being in the newly added limitation to Claim 1 of having a concentration of at least about 80% of the first coating.
4. Schlegel discloses a paper that can be made of cellulose fibers (paragraph 0024) that can have a barrier layer on it (paragraph 0029) wherein said barrier layer can be made of up to 89 wt% of wax based on vegetable oil and that what occurs when it’s set at this concentration is excellent barrier properties (paragraph 0045).
5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the concentration of the wax of the first coating, of Lebsanft, by trying it up to a concentration of 89 wt% of its coating, as disclosed by Schlegel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying this to see what degree of excellent barrier properties can be obtained.
6. Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests a basis weight of 20 g/m2 (Lebsanft Page 22, Lines 32-34).
7. Regarding Claims 9 and 12, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests using a sugarcane wax as described above which is plant-based and known to have a melting point temperature of less than 75C.
8. Regarding Claim 10, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests using a rice-based or soy-based wax too (Lebsanft Page 29, Lines 29-35).
9. Regarding Claim 11, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests using a thermoplastic starch (Lebsanft Page 31, Line 2).
10. Regarding Claim 14, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests how the second coating can have a basis weight of 9.5 g/m2 (Lebsanft Table 3).
11. Regarding Claim 15, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests does not mandate the use of any of these.
12. Regarding Claim 16, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests using Arbocel JRS fibers which are wood-based (Lebsanft Page 19, Lines 5-6).
13. Regarding Claim 17, although Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests a thickness of 90 microns (Lebsanft Examples, Tables), it still discloses that the cellulose layer can be as low as 40 microns (Lebsanft Page 23, Lines 9-18). It would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would try other thicknesses out of a desire of optimization and based on end-user specifications. Applicants have not indicated how the claimed thickness results in unexpected and surprising properties.
14. Regarding Claim 18, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel suggests using 2.9 wt% of soy wax (Lebsanft Example 2).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebsanft WO_2022243445_A1 in view of Schlegel DE_102019114198_A1 (see machine English translation), as applied to Claims 1, 3, 7-12, and 14-18, and in view of Baumlin USPA_20200385929_A1.
15. Regarding Claims 4-6, Lebsanft in view of Schlegel does not disclose the claimed cellulose fiber freeness.
16. Baumlin discloses recyclable paper using renewable materials (Title and abstract) that uses a cellulose fibrous substrate having an opacity of less than 25% (paragraphs 0003, 0030) with a Schopper freeness of above 80 (paragraph 0034). Baumlin discloses that its paper acts as a protection of the element (whether liquid or solid) that it contacts, surrounds or contains, or as a cover which allows said element to be seen through the paper due to its transparency. In particular, the paper of the invention may serve the purpose of protecting the item it contacts, surrounds, contains or covers against scratches, fingerprints, oil/water stains, oxygen and other contaminants (paragraph 0009).
17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the paper, of Lebsanft in view of Schlegel, by using the opacity and freeness, disclosed by Baumlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to have a paper that can protect the item it contacts, surrounds, contains or covers against scratches, fingerprints, oil/water stains, oxygen and other contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights