DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/5/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that RAGOT and RIVAS TORRES are non-analogous art.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that RAGOT is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, RAGOT is directed to the production of packaging material [abstract] and the instant invention is directed to producing a corrugated cardboard, a packaging material.
In response to applicant's argument that RIVAS TORRES is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, RIVAS TORRES is directed to a bioderived composition for bottles, a packaging material [abstract] and the instant invention is directed to producing a corrugated cardboard, a packaging material.
Applicant argues that hindsight reasoning is used in meeting the present limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, HANSEN teaches the paperboard contains recycled fiber sourced from waste paper [0021]. RAGOT teaches a plant based corrugated cardboard made from paper [abstract and 0081]. RAGOT teaches the advantage of the invention is the production of a fully natural product and biodegradability [0155]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of plant fibers from RAGOT into the virgin fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of a biodegradable product as taught by RAGOT.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, HANSEN teaches the paperboard contains recycled fiber sourced from waste stream of a mill process [0021] but does not teach the fiber originates specifically from biogas residual. RIVAS TORRES teaches the production of packaging (bottles) from alternative sources [abstract] including recycling of a waste stream from a mill process [0087]. RIVAS TORRES also teaches the biomass used can include recycling of a waste stream from a mill process like HANSEN. RIVAS TORRES also teaches fiber fractions from a biogas processing system [0065]. This teaches the limitation of “; fibers originating from a residue of biogas”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of biogas fibers from RIVAS TORRES into the recycle fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of biogas fiber matter to produce a packaging as taught by RIVAS TORRES.
Applicant argues that prior art, RAGOT, does not teach the plant fiber of the instant claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. RAGOT teaches that the invention is plant based [0028]. RAGOT then teaches the plants used include roots and bark [0029]. RAGOT further teaches the non-soluble part of the plant is used [0063] and that the plant used includes silphium and Adansonia [0034 and 0035]. This teaches the instant limitation of ““wherein, the additional fibers contain a proportion of fibers [[of]] from one or more of the following: [[the]] a cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum); either a fruit or a tree bark of the baobab genus (Adansonia) at least one plant plants of the genus Cannabis”. The claim language of the instant claim 1 uses optional language of “one or more of the following” which allows for the teaching one of the listed options to satisfy the optional limitation as a whole.
Applicant argues that RAGOT teaches away from the use of hemp.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Though RAGOT suggests not using hemp fiber, RAGOT further teaches the non-soluble part of the plant is used [0063] and that the plant used includes silphium and Adansonia [0034 and 0035]. The claim language of the instant claim 1 uses optional language of “one or more of the following” which allows for the teaching one of the listed options to satisfy the optional limitation as a whole.
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 19 overcome prior art and all dependent claims thereon also overcome the prior art/rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amended claims 1 and 19 remain rejected and as such the dependent claims thereon remain rejected as well.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN (US 20030168191 A1) in view of RAGOT (US 20170174404 A1) and RIVAS TORRES (US 20170058078 A1).
For claim 1, HANSEN teaches a multiply paper [abstract] with layers (plies) couched together [0090] for packaging [0046]. HANSEN teaches the plies are either inner plies (support layers) or outer plies called liners (cover layers) [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising: at least two layers of different composition which are couched together, wherein a first layer of the at least two layers forms a carrier layer; and wherein a second layer of the at least two layers forms a cover layer”. HANSEN teaches the paperboard contains recycled fiber sourced from waste paper [0021] and other fibers from trees [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the paper [[(10)]] contains waste paper fibers and additional fibers in the form of fibers other than waste paper fibers”.
HANSEN does not teach the virgin fiber from the sources of the instant claim. RAGOT also teaches the use of additional fibers to make a packaging paper [0120]. RAGOT teaches the paper can be used to make corrugated cardboard [0081]. This teaches the limitation of “Paper used for producing corrugated cardboard comprising:”. RAGOT also teaches that bark [0029] of Adansonia [0099], residues [0041], silphium [0035], and hemp (cannabis) [0063] are successfully used for papermaking [0035]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein, the additional fibers contain a proportion of fibers [[of]] from one or more of the following: [[the]] a cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum); either a fruit or a tree bark of the baobab genus (Adansonia) at least one plant plants of the genus Cannabis”. The claim language of the instant claim 1 uses optional language of “one or more of the following” which allows for the teaching one of the listed options to satisfy the optional limitation as a whole. RAGOT teaches the advantage of the invention is the production of a fully natural product and biodegradability [0155]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of plant fibers from RAGOT into the virgin fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of a biodegradable product as taught by RAGOT.
HANSEN teaches the paperboard contains recycled fiber sourced from waste stream of a mill process [0021] but does not teach the fiber originates specifically from biogas residual. RIVAS TORRES teaches the production of packaging (bottles) from alternative sources [abstract] including recycling of a waste stream from a mill process [0087]. RIVAS TORRES also teaches the biomass used can include recycling of a waste stream from a mill process like HANSEN. RIVAS TORRES also teaches fiber fractions from a biogas processing system [0065]. This teaches the limitation of “; fibers originating from a residue of biogas”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of biogas fibers from RIVAS TORRES into the recycle fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of biogas fiber matter to produce a packaging as taught by RIVAS TORRES.
HANSEN also teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “and wherein a proportion of additional fibers of 0 to 75 wt% is contained in the carrier layer”. HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least 80% by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 20% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein a minimum proportion of additional fibers of 8 wt% and a maximum proportion of additional fibers of 80 wt% are contained in the cover layer”. Together this teaches the limitation of “and [[,]] wherein [[the]] a proportion of additional fibers in the cover layer is higher than the proportion of additional fibers in the carrier layer [[(11)]]”.
For claim 2, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN also teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least 80% by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 20% by weight). This 10% difference in additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the proportion of additional fibers in the cover layer [[(12)]] is at least 5 wt% higher than the proportion of additional fibers in the carrier layer [[(11)]]”.
For claim 3, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 2, as above. HANSEN teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the additional fibers are also contained in the carrier layer”.
For claim 4, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the proportion of additional fibers in the carrier layer [[(11)]] is at most 80 wt%”.
For claim 5, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least 80% by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 20% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the proportion of additional fibers in the cover layer [(12)]] is 20 to 70 wt%”.
For claim 6, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least “about 80%” by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to “about 20%” by weight). This amount of additional fiber overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein the minimum proportion of additional fibers in the cover layer [[(12)]] is 25 wt%”. See 2144.05(I).
In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.")
For claim 7, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the carrier layer has a minimum proportion of waste paper fibers of 20 wt%”.
For claim 8, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. RAGOT teaches the use of sorrel [0035]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the additional fibers also contain a proportion of fresh fibers and/or a proportion of grass fibers; wherein the grass fibers are in the form of fibers of sweet grass, sorrel, seagrass, or algae”.
For claim 9, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least 80% by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 20% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the proportion of fibers of the cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum), of fibers obtained from fruits and/or the bark of trees of the baobab genus (Adansonia), of fibers originating from plants of the genus Cannabis, or originating from the residue of the biogas facilities, in a[[the]] fiber composition of the cover layer makes up at least 5 wt%, relative to a_[[the]] dry weight of the fibers introduced overall into the cover layer”.
For claim 10, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 9, as above. HANSEN teaches that each of the layers could be made of recycled fibers [0053 and 0036]. This teaches the limitation of “characterized in that wherein [[it]] the paper contains no fresh fibers”.
For claim 11, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN teaches that the inner ply uses recycled fiber form different sources [0036]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the carrier layer contains at least one type of waste paper fibers not contained within [[than]] the cover layer”.
For claim 13, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 11, as above. HANSEN teaches the use of a KRAFT recycled paper [0029] in either furnish. This teaches the limitation of “wherein waste paper fibers of a kraft paper or a Kraft cardboard are contained in the carrier layer[[ (11)]]”.
For claim 14, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 1, as above. HANSEN is silent to the basis weight of the product. RAGOT teaches the paper has a basis weight of 90 to about 120 g/m2 [0068]. This range is within the limitation of “wherein the paper has a basis weight of 80 to 200 g/m2”.
For claim 15, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 14, as above. HANSEN is silent to the basis weight of the product. RAGOT teaches the paper has a basis weight of 90 to about 120 g/m2 [0068]. RAGOT does not distinguish between the layers. The layers have similar furnishes as such one skilled in the arts would expect similar basis weights. This range taught by RAGOT is within the limitation of “ wherein the carrier layer [[(11)]] has a basis weight of 60 to 170 g/m2”.
For claim 16, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 14, as above. HANSEN is silent to the basis weight of the product. RAGOT teaches the paper has a basis weight of about 20 to about 3000 g/m2 [0068]. RAGOT does not distinguish between the layers. The layers have similar furnishes as such one skilled in the arts would expect similar basis weights. This range taught by RAGOT encompasses the limitation of “wherein the cover layer [[(12)]] has a basis weight of 30 to 50 g/m2”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
For claim 19, HANSEN teaches a method to produce a multiply paper [abstract] with layers (plies) couched together [0090] by applying a pulp stock onto a belt [0090]. This meets the limitation of “A method for producing a paper, comprising the following steps performed in a paper machine: applying a first web of a first fibrous material composition containing water[[,]] and waste paper fibers relative to [[the]] a dry mass on a first screen”. HANSEN teaches the use of multiple belts in Fourdrinier systems making the individual plies [0091]. HANSEN also teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). HANSEN also teaches the top liner (cover layer) can have at least 80% by weight recycled fiber [0053]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 20% by weight). This amount of additional fiber is within range of the instant claim of “applying a second web of a second fibrous material composition containing water, waste paper fibers in a maximum proportion of 80 wt%, relative to the dry mass, and additional fibers in the form of fibers other than waste paper fibers in a minimum proportion of 20 wt%, relative to the dry mass on a second screen, wherein the second fibrous material composition has a higher proportion of additional fibers than the first fibrous material composition”.
HANSEN teaches the layers are couched together [0090] and dewatered (dried) [0092]. This teaches the limitation of “[[']] couching the first web and the second web [[webs]] formed on the first screen and the second screen [[screens]] to form an at least two-layer paper web; [[']] drying the at least two-layer paper web[[,]]”.
HANSEN does not teach the virgin fiber from the sources of the instant claim. RAGOT also teaches the use of additional fibers to make a packaging paper [0120]. RAGOT teaches the paper can be used to make corrugated cardboard [0081]. This teaches the limitation of “Paper used for producing corrugated cardboard comprising:”. RAGOT also teaches that bark [0029] of Adansonia [0099], residues [0041], silphium [0035], and hemp (cannabis) [0063] are successfully used for papermaking [0035]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein, the additional fibers contain a proportion of fibers [[of]] from one or more of the following: [[the]] a cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum); either a fruit or a tree bark of the baobab genus (Adansonia) at least one plant plants of the genus Cannabis”. The claim language of the instant claim 1 uses optional language of “one or more of the following” which allows for the teaching one of the listed options to satisfy the optional limitation as a whole. RAGOT teaches the advantage of the invention is the production of a fully natural product and biodegradability [0155]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of plant fibers from RAGOT into the virgin fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added advantage of a biodegradable product as taught by RAGOT.
HANSEN teaches the paperboard contains recycled fiber sourced from waste stream of a mill process [0021] but does not teach the fiber originates specifically from biogas residual. RIVAS TORRES teaches the production of packaging (bottles) from alternative sources [abstract] including recycling of a waste stream from a mill process [0087]. RIVAS TORRES also teaches the biomass used can include recycling of a waste stream from a mill process like HANSEN. RIVAS TORRES also teaches fiber fractions from a biogas processing system [0065]. This teaches the limitation of “; fibers originating from a residue of biogas”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of biogas fibers from RIVAS TORRES into the recycle fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of biogas fiber matter to produce a packaging as taught by RIVAS TORRES.
For claim 20, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the method according to claim 19, as above. HANSEN teaches that the inner layers (carrier layer) contains 90% by weight recycled fiber [0036]. The examiner understands the difference is made of the additional fiber (equivalent to 10% by weight). This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the first web further comprises additional fibers in the form of fibers other than waste paper fibers in a maximum proportion of 50 wt% or less relative to the dry mass”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN (US 20030168191 A1) and RAGOT (US 20170174404 A1) and RIVAS TORRES (US 20170058078 A1) in view of TAUSCHE (US 20150136343 A1).
For claim 12, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 11, as above. HANSEN teaches the use of kraft fiber [0029] but does not specify the use of bleached and unbleached kraft fiber. TAUSCHE teaches the bleached kraft fiber and unbleached kraft fiber can be used as either recycled and virgin fiber sources [0131]. TAUSCHE teaches the furnish can be used to make paper and paperboard [0134]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the composition of plant fibers from TAUSCHE into the fiber composition from HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of bleached and unbleached pulp to produce a packaging paper as taught by TAUSCHE. One skilled in the art would reasonably understand that using the brown and white fiber of TAUSCHE in the furnishes of HANSEN would make a paper with white waste paper in the cover and brown waste paper in the carrier. This teaches the limitation of “wherein waste paper fibers obtained from a white waste paper are contained in the cover layer [[(12)]], and [[that]]a brown waste paper fibers are contained in the carrier layer[[ (12)]]”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN (US 20030168191 A1) and RAGOT (US 20170174404 A1) and RIVAS TORRES (US 20170058078 A1) in view of TUTTLE (US 20180340297 A1).
For claim 17, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 16, as above. HANSEN does not teach the internal bond strength of the invention. TUTTLE teaches a similar multi-layer paper with outer and inner layers [0034]. TUTTLE also teaches that waste paper is used with virgin fiber to make the paper [0010]. TUTTLE then teaches the combined fiber layers have an internal bond strength based on the SCOTT BOND TEST of 180 J/m2. This value is within the range of the limitation of “wherein an interlaminar strength determined according to the International Scott Bond Test according to DIN ISO 16260 [[of]] is equal to about 180 to 300 J/m2”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the art of TUTTLE and HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of virgin and recycled pulp to produce a packaging paper as taught by both HANSEN and TUTTLE. One would expect the multilayer paper of HANSEN to have a similar SCOTT BOND strength.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HANSEN (US 20030168191 A1) and RAGOT (US 20170174404 A1) and RIVAS TORRES (US 20170058078 A1) in view of HEMMES (US 20190301100 A1).
For claim 18, HANSEN, RAGOT, and RIVAS TORRES teach the paper according to claim 17, as above. HANSEN does not teach the Cobb test value of the multilayer paper. HEMMES teaches a similar multilayer paper or board [0055]. HEMMES also teaches the use of broke, recycle [0053] and virgin fiber [0022]. HEMMES also teaches that the multilayer paper has a Cobb60 according to ISO 535 of 20 to 50 g/m2 [0045]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein a Cobb60 value of the cover layer [[(12)]] according to DIN EN ISO 535 [[of]]is equal to at most 40 g/m2”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to combine the art of HEMMES and HANSEN. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of virgin and recycled pulp to produce a packaging paper as taught by both HANSEN and HEMMES. One would expect the multilayer paper of HANSEN to have a similar Cobb value.
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 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