DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 1/21/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-38 are cancelled. Claims 39, 41-45, 47, 50, and 52-55 are amended. Claims 39-57 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the forming process of ANDERSEN does not teach mold forming.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 39-57 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.
The Examiner notes that ANDERSEN is directed to the coating of a foamed cellulosic composite sheet.
Applicant argues that amendments remove indefinite language.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of REMARKS, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 39-57 have been fully considered and overcome the prior 112(b) rejections by amendment. The 112 (b) rejection of 11/06/2025 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 39-44, 46-51, and 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GLENN (US 20200308359 A1) in view of ANDERSEN (US 6083586) and REUTHER (US 20230311468 A1).
For claim 39, GLENN teaches the process and product of a rigid foam made from cellulose [0037 and 0045]. GLENN teaches the cellulose is wetted, mixed with a foaming agent, pressed into a mold and dried within the mold [0045]. This teaches the limitation of “A product comprising:- a fibrous structure comprising a cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibrous material and obtained by a moulding process”. GLENN teaches the final foamed product can be coated to provide moisture resistance [0059]. GLENN teaches the cellulose foamed mold composite has a density of from about 0.02 g/cm3 to about 0.4 g/cm3 (equivalent to about 20 kg/m3 to 400 kg/m3) [0055]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the density of the fibrous structure to be coated is in the range 300 to 1,000 kg/m3 calculated as dry solids weight per volume”. GLENN does not teach the use of powder coating to apply the coating.
ANDERSEN teaches a similar foamed and molded sheet [column 26 line 4] made of cellulose [abstract and column 12 line 53]. ANDERSEN also teaches the product is coated by a powder coating process [column 43 line 41]. This teaches the limitation of “and- a coating on at least one surface of the fibrous structure, wherein the coating has been obtained by a powder coating process”. ANDERSEN also teaches the product has a density of “0.6 g/cm3 to as high as about 2 g/cm3” (equivalent to 600-2000 kg/m3) [column 46 line 24]. ANDERSEN teaches the coating is made of polyethylene [column 42 line 54] and has the added advantage of not being as visible as wax [column 63 line 29]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of GLENN with surface coating of ANDERSEN to produce a transparent polymer coated cellulose composite. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved appearance as taught by ANDERSEN.
GLENN does not teach the smoothness of the surface. GLENN teaches the final foam composite may be treated with a polyethylene derived film [0078]. REUTHER teaches a similar coated cellulose substrate [0014 and 0023] coated with polyethylene [0046]. REUTHER teaches that the resulting surface has a surface smoothness of 50-900 ml/min [0032]. REUTHER teaches the advantage of the invention is the increased recyclability and the high transparency of the final protective layer [0011]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the surface smoothness of the fibrous structure to be coated is in the range 50 to 3000 ml/min, measured by ISO 8791-2 Bendtsen method”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of GLENN with surface smoothness of REUTHER to produce a transparent polymer coated cellulose substrate. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of polyethylene coating and the added benefit of improved recyclability as taught by REUTHER.
For claim 40, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the coating is applied after formation (creating an outer layer) [column 42 line 53]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the coating forms an uppermost layer or a lowermost layer of the product”.
For claim 41, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the molded product can be dipped into the coating (allowing coating on opposite sides) [column 42 line 53]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the product comprises at least two coating layers which are located on different surfaces of the fibrous structure”.
For claim 42, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the coating is made of polyethylene [column 42 line 54]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the coating is a non-fibrous coating and comprises or consists of a thermoplastic polymer material or a thermoset polymer material”.
For claim 43, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the polyester polymer coating is used alone or in combination [column 43 line 62]. The Examiner understands polyester is a thermoplastic. The Examiner understands the use of only one thermoplastic polymer is the equivalent of 100% of the coating is thermoplastic. This range is within the instant claim range of “wherein the coating comprises at least 50 wt% of a thermoplastic polymer material or a thermoset polymer material”.
For claim 44, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. GLENN does not teach the paper grammage. REUTHER teaches the paper has a basis weight between 40-45 g/m2. This value sis within the range of “wherein the product has a dry grammage in the range of 5 to 900 g/m2”.
For claim 46 GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the product can be a multilayered laminate [column 40 line 61]. This teaches the limitation “wherein the fibrous structure is a multi- layered fibrous structure and comprises at least a first fibrous layer and a second fibrous layer, each comprising a cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibrous material”.
For claim 47, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 46, as above. GLENN teaches the paper is made of Kraft pulp [0062]. The Examiner understands the Kraft process produces a chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP). This teaches the limitation of “further comprising between the first and the second fibrous layers one or more inner fibrous layers, each comprising a cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibrous material”.
For claim 48, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. GLENN teaches the cellulose is wetted, mixed with a foaming agent, pressed into a mold and dried within the mold [0045]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the entire fibrous structure has been obtained by foam forming”.
For claim 49, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39 as above. ANDERSEN teaches the structure can be a laminated structure (two layers) [column 8 line 67] and the structure can be molded with a foamed structure [column 4 line 23]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the fibrous structure is a multi-layered fibrous structure comprising at least two fibrous layers, and wherein all fibrous layers of the fibrous structure have been obtained by a foam forming method in a mould”.
For claim 50, GLENN teaches the process and product of a rigid foam made from cellulose [0037 and 0045]. GLENN teaches the cellulose is wetted, mixed with a foaming agent, pressed into a mold and dried within the mold [0045]. This teaches the limitation of “A method comprising:- providing at least one fibrous composition comprising cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibres and water;- in a mould, forming a fibrous structure from said at least one fibrous composition” and “wherein said forming comprises foam forming”. GLENN teaches the final foamed product can be coated to provide moisture resistance [0059]. GLENN teaches the cellulose foamed mold composite has a density of from about 0.02 g/cm3 to about 0.4 g/cm3 (equivalent to about 20 kg/m3 to 400 kg/m3) [0055]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the density of the fibrous structure to be coated is in the range 300 to 1 000 kg/m3, calculated as dry solids weight per volume”. GLENN does not teach the use of powder coating to apply the coating.
ANDERSEN teaches a similar foamed and molded sheet [column 26 line 4] made of cellulose [abstract and column 12 line 53]. ANDERSEN also teaches the product has a density of “0.6 g/cm3 to as high as about 2 g/cm3” (equivalent to 600-2000 kg/m3) [column 46 line 24] similar to GLENN. ANDERSEN also teaches the product is coated by a powder coating process [column 43 line 41]. This teaches the limitation of “and- applying a coating on at least a part of a surface of the moulded fibrous structure by a powder coating process”. ANDERSEN teaches the coating is made of polyethylene [column 42 line 54] and has the added advantage of not being as visible as wax [column 63 line 29]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of GLENN with surface coating of ANDERSEN to produce a transparent polymer coated cellulose composite. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved appearance as taught by ANDERSEN.
GLENN does not teach the smoothness of the surface. GLENN teaches the final foam composite may be treated with a polyethylene derived film [0078]. REUTHER teaches a similar coated cellulose substrate [0014 and 0023] coated with polyethylene [0046]. REUTHER teaches that the resulting surface has a surface smoothness of 50-900 ml/min [0032]. REUTHER teaches the advantage of the invention is the increased recyclability and the high transparency of the final protective layer [0011]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the surface smoothness of the fibrous structure to be coated is in the range 50 to 3000 ml/min, measured by ISO 8791-2 Bendtsen method”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of GLENN with surface smoothness of REUTHER to produce a transparent polymer coated cellulose substrate. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of polyethylene coating and the added benefit of improved recyclability as taught by REUTHER.
For claim 51, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the immediate use of the article as a container [column 8 line 40]. The Examiner understands that the container has three dimensions to contain substance and that the immediate use as such would be resultant of its formation within the mold in that same shape. “wherein said forming step comprises forming a three-dimensional fibrous structure from said at least one fibrous composition by using a three-dimensional mould”.
For claim 53, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the composite can be coated during corrugation [column 42 line 52]. ANDERSEN teaches the amount of water in the paper can be from about 7% to about 15% by weight [column 42 line 19] (equivalent to a dry matter content between about 93% to about 85%). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the fibrous structure to be coated has a dry matter content of at least 90%”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 54. GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the product can be dewatered [column 7 line 58] then coated [column 8 line 66]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “further comprising after said forming step and before applying the coating:- dewatering the structure;- hot-pressing the dewatered structure, to obtain the moulded three-dimensional fibrous structure, wherein said hot-pressing produces a surface that is directly suitable for being powder coated”.
For claim 55, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the composite can be coated during corrugation [column 42 line 52]. ANDERSEN teaches the amount of water in the paper can be from about 7% to about 15% by weight [column 42 line 19] (equivalent to a dry matter content between about 93% to about 85%). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the fibrous structure to be coated has a dry matter content of at least 60%,”. ANDERSEN also teaches finishing rolls can be used after coating to apply texture [column 40 line 32-35]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “and wherein after applying the coating, the coated structure is hot-pressed”.
For claim 56, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the product has a density of “0.6 g/cm3 to as high as about 2 g/cm3” (equivalent to 600-2000 kg/m3) [column 46 line 24]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the density of the fibrous structure to be coated is at least 700 kg/m3”.
For claim 57 GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN teaches the structure can be a laminated structure (two layers) [column 8 line 67] and the structure can be molded with a foamed structure [column 4 line 23]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the fibrous structure is a multi-layered fibrous structure comprising at least two fibrous layers, and wherein each fibrous layer of the fibrous structure is obtained by foam forming from a respective fibrous composition in a mould”.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSEN (US 6083586) in view of REUTHER (US 20230311468 A1) and KIKUCHI (US 20030219615 A1).
For claim 45, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the product according to claim 39, as above. GLENN teaches the composite is coated with a polyethylene terephthalate film [0078]. GLENN does not teach the coating grammage. KIKUCHI teaches a similar structure that is coated with a polyethylene terephthalate coating [0211]. KIKUCHI further teaches the coating has a coating weight of 1 to 25 g/m2 and a thickness of 1 to 25 µm [0221]. These ranges overlap the range of “wherein the coating has a dry grammage in the range of 2 to 80 g/m2 and wherein the thickness of the coating is at least 1 µm, such as in the range 2 to 50 µm”. KIKUCHI teaches the advantage of the invention is the ability to use the coating as a laminate or single film. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of ANDERSEN with the coating dimensions of KIKUCHI to produce a laminate coated cellulose paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of polyethylene coating and the added benefit of versatile laminate or single coating as taught by KIKUCHI.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSEN (US 6083586) in view of REUTHER (US 20230311468 A1) and APPEL (US 20200262599 A1).
For claim 52, GLENN, ANDERSEN and REUTHER teach the method according to claim 50, as above. ANDERSEN also teaches the product is coated by a powder coating process [column 43 line 41]. ANDERSEN is silent to the details of how the powder coat process is done. APPEL teaches a similar molded structure formed in blanks [abstract] that are powder coated with a polyethylene terephthalate coating [0159]. APPEL further teaches that the powder coating process uses electrostatic attraction to apply the powder [0165] and allows the powder to be heat cured afterwards [0193]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said powder coating process comprises electrostatically applying a dry powder on said surface of the fibrous structure, and curing or melting the applied powder to form a film”. APPEL teaches the advantage of the instant claim is that the polymer imparts watertightness for storing aqueous liquids in the container over a period of several weeks or months [0159]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the art of ANDERSEN with powder coating process of APPEL to produce a similar coated article. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the common use of polyethylene powder coating and the added benefit of improved watertightness as taught by APPEL.
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