DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/25/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-38 are cancelled. Claims 39, 50, and 54 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 prior art GLENN teaches away from dewatering after foam formation and does not teach the proper order of the invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 5/25/2026, with respect to claim 50 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 2/26/2026 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 50-57 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 39-57 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.
Claims 39 and 50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the temperature conditions of the hot-pressing step. The Examiner suggests further defining the hot-press step by amending with conditions from the instant Specification, “wherein hot-pressing is at a temperature greater than 80 degrees C” [0043 of instant Specification]. All claims depending therefrom are also rejected.
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) 39-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOFT (US 2018311940 A1).
For claim 39, the Examiner notes the language of “obtained by a moulding process”, “obtained by a powder coating process”, and “the fibrous structure to be coated or a part of it has been obtained by utilizing foam forming”, and “wherein after said forming and before applying the coating:- the fibrous structure is dewatered;- said dewatered fibrous structure is hot-pressed, wherein said hot-pressing produces a surface that is directly suitable for being powder coated,” are directed to processes. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. The resultant product-by-process limitations are not regarded by the Examiner. See MPEP 2113. TOFT teaches a laminated cellulose packaging material [abstract] that has a foam-formed structure with a density of 300 to 400 kg/m3 [0045] and a coated surface [0039]. This teaches the limitation of “A product comprising:- a fibrous structure comprising a cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibrous material”, “and- a coating on at least one surface of the fibrous structure”, and “the fibrous structure to be coated or a part of it has been obtained by utilizing foam forming”. The density range of TOFT is within 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”. TOFT also teaches the material has a surface smoothness of 450 ml/min measured by the Bendtsen method [0026]. 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”.
For claim 40, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches a hot melt coating (element 15a) on the outer layer [Fig 1a and 0186]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the coating forms an uppermost layer or a lowermost layer of the product”.
For claim 41, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches a hot melt coating (element 15a and 17a) on the opposite outer layers [Fig 1a and 0186-0188]. 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, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches a hot melt thermoplastic coating (element 15a and 17a) on the outer layer [Fig 1a and 0186-0188]. 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, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches a hot melt thermoplastic coating (element 15a and 17a) on the outer layers [Fig 1a and 0186-0188]. The coating to be about 95 to 80% by weight thermoplast [0137]. This range, 95 to 80%, 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, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches examples with a total grammage of 280 g/m2 (the 72 g/m2 coatings of [0225] and two 32 g/m2 compact surface barrier papers [0224] and a foamed cellulose layer, 150 g/m2 [0105]). This total is within the instant range of “wherein the product has a dry grammage in the range of 5 to 900 g/m2.
For claim 45, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches an example with 72 g/m2 of coatings [0225]. This value is within the instant range of “wherein the coating has a dry grammage in the range of 2 to 80 g/m2”. TOFT further teaches the coating has a thickness of 10-40 nm [0227]. This value is in the instant claim range of “and wherein the thickness of the coating is at least 1 pm”.
For claim 46, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches the laminate has multiple layers including a multiple fibrous spacer layers [0072]. This teaches the limitation of “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, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 46, as above. TOFT teaches embodiments where spacer layers are sandwiched [0071] between other paper facing barrier papers that are cellulose based [0096]. 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, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches the fibrous structure is made from foamed cellulose that is laminated by polymer coatings [0074]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the entire fibrous structure has been obtained by foam forming”.
For claim 49, TOFT teaches the product according to claim 39, as above. TOFT teaches the fibrous structure is made from foamed cellulose that is laminated by polymer coatings [0074]. TOFT also teaches multiple spacer layers are possible [0072]. This teaches the limitation 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”.
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
Prosecution Insights