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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-15, 18-19 and 21-22 in the reply filed on 08 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nyflott (WO 2019/239334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nyflott teaches a cellulosic structure comprising a paperboard substrate 1 having a first surface and a second surface (page 2, line 15; Figures 1-2); a barrier layer 4 positioned over the first surface of the paperboard substrate; and a release layer 3 positioned between the barrier layer and the first surface of the paperboard substrate (page 14, lines 7-18; Figures 1-2), wherein the release layer is water soluble (page 14, lines 7-12; page 3, lines 4-14). It is noted that the claimed term “release layer” does not distinguish over Nyflott’s layer 3 comprising a water soluble polymer since a water soluble polymer is capable of dissolving in water to provide a release function. See Nyflott (page 3, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 2, Nyflott teaches the release layer comprises CaCO3 pigment (page 8, lines 11-15).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nyflott teaches the release layer comprises starch water soluble binder (page 6, line 27 to page 7, line 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Nyflott teaches the barrier layer is heat sealable and may comprise a polyolefin polymer (page 2, line 21; page 6, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 21, Nyflott teaches the paperboard substrate comprises solid bleached sulfate (page 6, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 22, Nyflott teaches a paperboard cup made from the cellulosic structure (page 1, line 9).
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyflott as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8, 11, 14 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Joyce (US 2019/0203420 A1).
Regarding claim 1, in the rejection above the examiner took the position that the claimed term “release layer” does not distinguish over Nyflott’s layer 3 comprising a water soluble polymer. Here, more weight is given to this term in view of the fact that Nyflott does not explicitly recite this layer has a release function. Nyflott seeks a re-pulpable material (page 1, lines 7; page 11, lines 1-11). In related paperboard art, Joyce teaches that an intermediate layer comprising water soluble polymer binder may be formulated to dissolve upon rewetting to facilitate repulping (Abstract; paragraphs 5 and 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the water soluble polymer binder layer of Nyflott as a release layer because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate repulping in accordance with the teachings of Joyce.
Regarding claim 2, Nyflott teaches the release layer comprises CaCO3 pigment (page 8, lines 11-15).
Regarding claims 7-8, Nyflott teaches the release layer comprises starch water soluble binder (page 6, line 27 to page 7, line 4).
Regarding claims 7-9, Joyce was applied above for suggesting a suitable water soluble formulation which allows the release function. Joyce suggests ethylated starch as the water soluble binder (paragraphs 5 and 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable soluble binder which facilitates repulping, as suggested by Joyce.
Regarding claim 10, Nyflott teaches the CaCO3 pigment may be 50 wt% or less of the soluble layer and the water soluble binder may be 50 wt% or more or 90 wt% or more (page 8, lines 11-19). This corresponds to a pigment to soluble binder ratio of 1:1 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Nyflott teaches the barrier layer is heat sealable and may comprise a polyolefin polymer (page 2, line 21; page 6, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 15, Nyflott teaches a coating weight of about 2 to 10 gsm (page 7, lines 18-26; 2 to 10 gsm is roughly 1.2 to 6.1 lb/3000 ft2). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 18-19, teaches a barrier layer thickness of about 15 to 35 gsm (Table 1 on page 16), which corresponds to a thickness of about 0.6 to 1.5 mil assuming a barrier layer density of about 0.94 g/cm3 for polyethylene (thickness is gsm divided by density, unit conversions required). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Nyflott teaches the paperboard substrate comprises solid bleached sulfate (page 6, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 22, Nyflott teaches a paperboard cup made from the cellulosic structure (page 1, line 9).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyflott in view of Joyce as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Fugitt (US 2009/0239047 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nyflott teaches the pigment may comprise CaCO3 and/or clay, but does not recite specific amounts of CaCO3 (page 8, lines 11-15). However in related coated paperboard art, Fugitt suggests 50% CaCO3 for providing desired smoothness or appearance at reduced cost (paragraphs 2-3, 35-36 and 38). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Fugitt.
Regarding claim 6, Fugitt further suggests that it is a matter of routine experimentation to vary the amount of CaCO3 as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve suitable smoothness within desired cost considerations (paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a suitable amount of CaCO3 as a matter of routine experimentation for the reasons provided above in view of the teachings of Fugitt.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyflott in view of Joyce as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Pang (US 2019/0257034 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nyflott does not recite the CaCO3 pigment is coarse CaCO3 in the soluble binder layer. In related coated paperboard art, Pang suggests course CaCO3 is a suitable pigment in such a layer (paragraphs 35 and 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use coarse CaCO3 as the CaCO3 pigment in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable CaCO3 pigment, as suggested by Pang.
Regarding claim 21, to the extent that Nyflott’s teaching of unbleached sulphate paperboard does not satisfy this limitation, Pang clearly suggests solid bleached sulfate is a suitable paperboard for packaging and cup applications (paragraphs 4 and 21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable paperboard as suggested by Pang.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyflott in view of Joyce as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Aho (US 6531196).
Regarding claim 12, Nyflott teaches polyethylene for barrier layer, but does not recite specific grades of polyethylene. This layer of Nyflott is a barrier layer which allows for heat sealing (page 6, lines 21-26). In relate art, Aho teaches that such a layer may comprise low density polyethylene (LDPE, column 3, lines 55-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable polyethylene material for the barrier layer, as suggested by Aho.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyflott in view of Joyce as applied to claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-15, 18-19 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Bhardwaj (US 2018/0327976 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Nyflott teaches polyethylene for barrier layer. This layer of Nyflott is a barrier layer which allows for heat sealing (page 6, lines 21-26). Nyflott does not recite this layer can be polylactic acid (PLA). In related art, Bhardwaj suggests PLA may be used for this layer to provide a suitable barrier and heat sealable layer, and to allow the use of the biopolymer PLA (paragraphs 3-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Nyflott because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable such layer or to allow the use of biopolymer, as suggested by the teachings of Bhardwaj.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
