DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/16/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-16 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 13 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.
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, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “at least 50 weight-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 70 weight-%, more preferably 100 weight-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least 40 weight-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 50 weight-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “added to the fiber stock after the thickening step and before a wire section”, and the claim also recites “preferably before a dilution step” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “polymerizing 5-75 mol-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 20-75mol-%, more preferably 30-70 mol-%, even more preferably 40-70 mol-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “25-95 mol-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 25-80 mol-%, more preferably 30-70 mol-%, even more preferably 40-70 mol-%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “1.7-7.0 mPas”, and the claim also recites “preferably 2.5-6.0 mPas, more preferably 3.0-5.0 mPas” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “0.2-1.5 kg/ton”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.3-1.2 kg/ton, more preferably 0.4-1 kg/ton, even more preferably 0.5-0.8 kg/ton” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “in two or more dosage locations”, and the claim also recites “preferably in different amounts in each dosage location” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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.
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) 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEIVANDT (US 20040170749 A1) in view of BROTHERSON (US 20140262090 A1).
For claim 1, NEIVANDT teaches a method of starch as a clarifying agent to remove suspended materials from aqueous dispersions [abstract]. The examiner understands the use of clarifying agent IS the same as removing a substance. NEIVANDT also teaches the dispersion used is a furnish of cellulose fiber (fibre stock) for making paper [0003]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for reducing starch content of an aqueous phase- which is removed from a fibre stock preparation in a manufacturing process of paper, board, tissue or the like”. NEIVANDT also teaches the furnish (cellulose fiber stock) is made from broke cellulose fiber [0031]. NEIVANDT teaches the inclusion of starch in the papermaking furnish [0029]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “where [[a]]the fibre stock comprising cellulosic fibres originating from recycled fibre material and/or broke as well as starch dispersed in an aqueous phase”. The Examiner understands the use of “and/or” language allows the Examiner to meet the limitation of one option to satisfy the entire claim limitation. NEIVANDT teaches that the starch is mixed with cationic polyacrylamide [0019]. NEIVANDT does not teach the polymer composition. BROTHERSON teaches a similar solution of starch and polymer used in paper production [0129]. BROTHERSON also teaches the stock is reduced from the original concentration after starch/polymer addition [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the fibre stock preparation comprises comprising a thickening step, is thickened from a first concentration to a second concentration by removing a part of the aqueous phase from the fibre stock,”. BROTHERSON further teaches that the polymer used is a copolymer of acrylamide in the form of methacrylamide [0129] at about 20 to about 80 mol% [0085]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “characterized in that wherein a cationic polymer obtained by copolymerization of (meth)acrylamide and at least 25 mol-% of solely cationic monomer(s)”. BROTHERSON further teaches the polymer has a viscosity of about 0.1 cPs to about 10 cPs (equivalent to about 0.1 mPas to about 10 mPas) [0150]. This value is overlapping the range of the instant claim of “having a standard viscosity SV of at least 1.7 mPas is added to the fibre stock at the latest at the thickening step in order to associate the starch with the cellulosic fibres of the fibre stock”. See MPEP 2144.05(I). BROTHERSON teaches the instant claim improves the drainage process in paper making [0078] making the entire process more efficient [0003]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the polymer usage of BROTHERSON into the process of NEIVANDT to further improve the drainage of the papermaking process. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the improved drainage and efficiency as taught by BROTHERSON.
For claim 2, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the use of recycled pulp [0069 and 0077]. The examiner notes the language of “or combination thereof” allows the use of just one component or the combination of the components. This teaches the equivalent to 100% recycled pulp. This is value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the cellulosic fibres of the fibre stock comprise[[s]] at least 50 weight-%, preferably at least 70 weight-%, more preferably 100 weight-%, of recycled fibre material, calculated from total amount of fibres, as dry”.
For claim 4, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches that the starch and copolymer are added at different locations and combinations including the high consistency chest [0077]. The examiner notes this is after thickening and before the web forming. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one additional dose of the cationic copolymer is added to the fibre stock after the thickening step and before a wire section, preferably before a dilution step, where the fibre stock is diluted from the second concentration to a third concentration of <2 weight-%”. The examiner notes the use of language of “preferably” means that the teaching of one of the limitation’s options to meet the entire claim.
For claim 6, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the addition of the polymer before the headbox (thickening step) [0007]. BROTHERSON further teaches that the polymer used is a copolymer of acrylamide in the form of methacrylamide [0129] at about 20 to about 80 mol% [0085]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein the cationic copolymer added to the fibre stock prior to the thickening step is obtained by polymerising 5 - 75 mol-%, preferably 20 - 75 mol-%, more preferably 30 - 70 mol-%, even more preferably 40 - 70 mol-%, of (meth)acrylamide”. BROTHERSON also teaches the addition of cationic [0035] starch dialdehyde [0129] at about 20 to about 40 mol % [0086]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “and 25 - 95 mol-%, preferably 25 - 80 mol-%, more preferably 30 - 70 mol-%, even more preferably 30 - 60 mol-% of cationic monomers”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 7 NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the use of dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate [0086]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein any of the preceding claims 1 6, characterised in that the cationic monomer(s) are selected from 2- (dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate (ADAM), [2-(acryloyloxy)ethyl] trimethylammonium chloride (ADAM-Cl), 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate benzylchloride, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate dimethylsulphate, 2-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate (MADAM), [2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl] trimethylammonium chloride (MADAM-Cl), 2-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate dimethylsulphate, [3-(acrylamido)propyl] trimethylammonium chloride (APTAC), or [3- (methacrylamido)propyl] trimethylammonium chloride (MAPTAC)”.
For claim 8, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches emulsion polymerization [0146]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cationic copolymer is obtained by solution polymerisation, suspension polymerisation, dispersion polymerisation, emulsion polymerisation or gel polymerization”.
For claim 9, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON further teaches the polymer has a viscosity of about 4 cPs (equivalent to about 4 mPas) [0150]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the standard viscosity of the cationic copolymer has the standard viscosity is in a range of 1.7 - 7.0 mPas, preferably 2.5 - 6.0 mPas, more preferably 3.0 - 5.0 mPas”.
For claim 10, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the amount of 1 lb per ton of papermaking furnish (equivalent to 0.45 kg per ton) [0078]. This value is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the cationic copolymer is added in an amount of 0.2 - 1.5 kg/ton, preferably 0.3 - 1.2 kg/ton, more preferably 0.4 - 1 kg/ton, even more preferably 0.5 - 0.8 kg/ton”.
For claim 11, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the use of coagulant only if needed [0080]. The examiner notes this use of “if needed” language teaches the coagulant is not needed. This teaches the instant limitation of "wherein the addition of the cationic copolymer the method is free of addition steps of synthetic organic coagulant or inorganic coagulant”.
For claim 13, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches that the starch and copolymer are added at different locations and combinations [0077]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cationic copolymer is added to the fibre stock in two or more dosage locations, preferably in different amounts in each dosage location”.
For claim 14, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches that the starch and copolymer are added at different locations and combinations including the high consistency chest [0077]. The examiner notes this is after thickening and before the web forming. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cationic polymer is added at least one additional dosage location, situated after the thickening step and before a wire section of a web forming machine”.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEIVANDT (US 20040170749 A1), and BROTHERSON (US 20140262090 A1) in view of REINICKE (US 20100084103 A1).
For claim 5, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. BROTHERSON teaches the furnish is diluted but into a low consistency (low density) [0077]. But does not specify the consistency. REINICKE teaches a similar combination of cationic starch and polymer [0024].REINICKE teaches the use of the mixture aids in fibre retention and the colloidal removal which make the process more efficient [0021]. REINICKE further teaches the first consistency of the furnish after dilution is about 0.61% [0089]. This value is within the instant range of “wherein the first concentration is 0.6 - 1.4 weight-%”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the starch composition of REINICKE into the process of NEIVANDT to further improve the drainage of the papermaking process. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the improved drainage and efficiency as taught by REINICKE.
BROTHERSON teaches the use of the furnish at a consistency of 4% or less [0002]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “and the second concentration is 2 - 13 weight-%”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 12, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON are silent to the composition of the starch alone. REINICKE teaches a similar combination of cationic starch and polymer [0024].REINICKE teaches the use of the mixture aids in fibre retention and the colloidal removal which make the process more efficient [0021]. REINICKE further teaches the starch is added at a composition of between 0 to 5% [0071]. “wherein the fibre stock comprises starch at least 2 weight-%, calculated from the dry solid matter, before the addition of the cationic copolymer”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the starch composition of REINICKE into the process of NEIVANDT to further improve the drainage of the papermaking process. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the improved drainage and efficiency as taught by REINICKE.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEIVANDT (US 20040170749 A1), and BROTHERSON (US 20140262090 A1) in view of HAUSCHEL (US 20130000857 A1).
For claim 3, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. NEIVANDT does not teach the use of OCC. HAUSCHEL teaches the use of cationic starch graft polymer similar to NEIVANDT. HAUSCHEL also teaches the advantage of the composition is that the use of strength enhancing polymer allows for the use of lower quality fiber like OCC [0006]. HAUSCHEL teaches that the papermaking furnish is made entirely of old corrugated container (OCC) [0129]. This value is within the range of the instant claim range of “wherein in that the recycled cellulosic fibre material comprises at least 40 weight-%, preferably at least 50 weight-%, of fibre material originating from old corrugated containerboard (OCC)”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the OCC of HAUSCHEL into the process of NEIVANDT to further improve the papermaking process. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the improved efficiency flexible use of low quality fiber as taught by HAUSCHEL.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NEIVANDT (US 20040170749 A1), and BROTHERSON (US 20140262090 A1) in view of JOGIKALMATH (US 20160010283 A1).
For claim 15, NEIVANDT and BROTHERSON teach the method according to claim 1, as above. NEIVANDT teaches the furnish uses hardwood and softwood fibers (short and long fibers respectively) [0031]. JOGIKALMATH teaches a similar use of hardwood softwood and starch for papermaking [0021]. JOGIKALMATH also teaches the use of an activator polymer in the form of a cationic polymer [0022], that is added to a softwood furnish (long fibers) [0021]. Then a mixture of tether-polymer and starch are added to a second furnish of hardwood (short fiber) before the two are mixed together in web formation [0021]. JOGIKALMATH teaches the advantage of this configuration is the improvement of interfiber contacts and surface properties of the resultant paper. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the fibre stock preparation comprises a fibre fractioning step, where a long fibre fraction is separated from a short fibre fraction, and the cationic polymer is added at least to the short fibre fraction”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the admix method of JOGIKALMATH into the process of NEIVANDT to further improve the papermaking process. One would be motivated to modify the art based on the improved interfiber contacts and surface properties as taught by JOGIKALMATH.
For claim 16, NEIVANDT, BROTHERSON, and JOGIKALMATH teach the method according to claim 1, as above. NEIVANDT teaches the furnish uses hardwood and softwood fibers (short and long fibers respectively) [0031]. NIEVANDT does not teach the use of more polymer in a wherein the cationic polymer is added to both the long fibre fraction and the short fibre fraction, and the cationic polymer is added to the short fibre fraction in an amount that is higher than the amount of the cationic polymer added to the long fibre fraction.
Conclusion
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