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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 20-35 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 September 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 25 and 30 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein a weight of the second layer is over 100 g sq m – 170 g sq m”. The recitation of a range as the lower limit of the basis weight of the layer renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “wherein a weight of the second layer is over 170 g sq m.”
Claim 30 recites “further consisting of a third layer”. It is unclear as to whether this third layer is the third layer referred to in claim 27, from which claim 30 depends, or a layer in addition to that third layer. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be read as “wherein the barrier board contains three layers…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2016/0016717 to Toubeau et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Toubeau).
Regarding claim 20, Toubeau teaches a fibrous substrate (abstract) that is repellent to fatty substances and water and is used as a barrier in packaging (paragraph 0030). Toubeau teaches that the substrate comprises a layer corresponding to the first layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0031) that can be made from softwood or hardwood Kraft pulp (paragraph 0041), i.e. softwood or hardwood chemical pulp, that is refined above 50° SR (paragraph 0043). Toubeau teaches that the layer also contains nanofibrillar cellulose (herein NFC) (paragraph 0047) that is refined to 50 to 70° SR (paragraph 0055). Combining these two materials gives layer having an SR value over 50. Toubeau teaches that the wood fibers have a length of 0.4 to 4 mm (paragraph 0045) and a diameter of 17 to 32 micrometers (paragraph 0046) which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Toubeau teaches that the fibrous substrate can comprise additional layers which can be the same as the first layer (paragraph 0069) which would give a second layer an SR value above 50°. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 21, 24, and 25¸ Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the layers have a basis weight of 20 to 200 g/m2 (paragraph 0039). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 22¸ Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above.
As discussed above, Toubeau teaches that the substrate can contain additional layers (paragraph 0067) made of natural fibers (paragraph 0081) which, as discussed previously, can be made from softwood or hardwood Kraft pulp (paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau as applied above and in view of WIPO Publication 2015/036930 to Hallgren et al. cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 25 April 2024 (herein Hallgren).
Regarding claims 23 and 26, Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above.
Toubeau is silent as to the SR value of a third layer being below 35° or a basis weight of 40-80 gsm.
Hallgren teaches a multi-ply paperboard (abstract) comprising a top ply, back ply, and at least one middle ply (page 6, lines 27-29). The inventive examples use a top ply having a basis weight of 40 gsm (page 10, lines 10-11) and an SR value of 30.1° (Tables 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third layer of Toubeau to be the top layer of Hallgren in order to provide strength and good printing properties (page 2, lines 12-14).
Claim(s) 27, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau in view of WIPO Publication WO 2022/071871 to Andersson et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Andersson).
Regarding claim 27, Toubeau teaches a fibrous substrate (abstract) that is repellent to fatty substances and water and is used as a barrier in packaging (paragraph 0030). Toubeau teaches that the substrate comprises a layer corresponding to the first layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0031) that can be made from softwood or hardwood Kraft pulp (paragraph 0041), i.e. softwood or hardwood chemical pulp, that is refined above 50° SR (paragraph 0043). Toubeau teaches that the layer also contains nanofibrillar cellulose (herein NFC) (paragraph 0047) that is refined to 50 to 70° SR (paragraph 0055). Combining these two materials gives layer having an SR value over 50. Toubeau teaches that the wood fibers have a length of 0.4 to 4 mm (paragraph 0045) and a diameter of 17 to 32 micrometers (paragraph 0046) which overlaps the claimed ranges. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Toubeau teaches that the fibrous substrate can comprise additional layers (paragraph 0069).
Toubeau is silent as to an additional layer being corrugated.
Andersson teaches a container board (abstract) that is a corrugated board wherein the liner and fluting layers are made from the same containerboard material (page 5, line 27 – page 6, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an additional layer of Toubeau to be a corrugated layer as taught by Andersson because applying a known technique to a known device has been head to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 29, Toubeau and Andersson teach all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the additional layers can be the same as the first layer (paragraph 0069) which would give a second layer an SR value above 50°. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 31, Toubeau and Andersson teach all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the additional layers can be the same as the first layer (paragraph 0069). Toubeau teaches that the layers have a basis weight of 20 to 200 g/m2 (paragraph 0039). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau and Andersson as applied above and further in view of WIPO Publication WO 2020/003129 to Lampainen et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Lampainen).
Regarding claim 28, Toubeau and Andersson teach all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the layers can contain strengthening additives such as carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph 0066).
Toubeau is silent as to the amount of carboxymethyl cellulose present.
Lampainen teaches a linerboard for corrugated board (abstract). Lampainen teaches that the linerboard is made from pulps comprising cellulose fibers (page 4, lines 14-15) and that strengthening additives such as carboxymethyl cellulose can be added (page 5, lines 19-21) in an amount of 0.1 to 1 wt% (page 5, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the carboxymethyl cellulose of Toubeau in the amounts taught by Lampainen because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau as applied above and in view of Hallgren.
Regarding claim 30, Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the substrate can contain additional layers (paragraph 0067) made of natural fibers (paragraph 0081) which, as discussed previously, can be made from bleached or unbleached softwood or hardwood Kraft pulp (paragraph 0041). Toubeau also teaches that the substrate can have a coating formed thereon (paragraph 0133).
Toubeau is silent as to the SR value of a third layer being below 35°.
Hallgren teaches a multi-ply paperboard (abstract) comprising a top ply, back ply, and at least one middle ply (page 6, lines 27-29). The inventive examples use a top ply having a basis weight of 40 gsm (page 10, lines 10-11) and an SR value of 30.1° (Tables 1 and 2). Hallgren also teaches that the top layer can be made from bleached pulp (Tables 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third layer of Toubeau to be the top layer of Hallgren in order to provide strength and good printing properties (page 2, lines 12-14).
Claim(s) 32 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau.
Regarding claim 32, Toubeau teaches a fibrous substrate (abstract) that is repellent to fatty substances and water and is used as a barrier in packaging (paragraph 0030). Toubeau teaches that the substrate comprises a layer corresponding to the first layer recited in the instant claims (paragraph 0031) that can be made from softwood or hardwood Kraft pulp (paragraph 0041), i.e. softwood or hardwood chemical pulp, that is refined above 50° SR (paragraph 0043). Toubeau teaches that the layer also contains nanofibrillar cellulose (herein NFC) (paragraph 0047) that is refined to 50 to 70° SR (paragraph 0055). Combining these two materials gives layer having an SR value over 50. Toubeau teaches that the wood fibers have a length of 0.4 to 4 mm (paragraph 0045) and a diameter of 17 to 32 micrometers (paragraph 0046) which overlaps the claimed ranges. Toubeau teaches that the layers have a basis weight of 20 to 200 g/m2 (paragraph 0039). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 35, Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 32 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the fibrous substrate can comprise additional layers (paragraph 0069) which meets the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau as applied above and in view of Lampainen.
Regarding claim 33, Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 32 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the fibrous substrate can comprise additional layers (paragraph 0069). Toubeau teaches that the layers can contain strengthening additives such as carboxymethyl cellulose (paragraph 0066).
Toubeau is silent as to the amount of carboxymethyl cellulose present.
Lampainen teaches a linerboard for corrugated board (abstract). Lampainen teaches that the linerboard is made from pulps comprising cellulose fibers (page 4, lines 14-15) and that strengthening additives such as carboxymethyl cellulose can be added (page 5, lines 19-21) in an amount of 0.1 to 1 wt% (page 5, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the carboxymethyl cellulose of Toubeau in the amounts taught by Lampainen because it is known in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toubeau as applied above and in view of U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2002/0136913 to Schaedler et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Schaedler).
Regarding claim 34, Toubeau teaches all the limitations of claim 32 as discussed above.
Toubeau teaches that the fibrous substrate can be subjected to surface treatments such as coating (paragraph 0133).
Toubeau is silent as to the type of coating used.
Schaedler teaches an aqueous polymer dispersion for use on paper, cardboard, or paperboard (abstract) used in food packaging (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Toubeau to be the aqueous dispersion of Schaedler because it would improve the impermeability to water vapor without a tendency toward yellowing (paragraph 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Toubeau teaches the inclusion of NFC, it does not teach the claimed invention which uses only natural fibers (Remarks, pages 7-8). The claimed invention does not preclude the use of NFC and does not require only the use of natural fibers. Therefore, the fact that Toubeau includes NFC is immaterial. Furthermore, Applicant states that Toubeau uses a raw material that is 50/50 NFC and natural fibers; however, Toubeau teaches the use of between 39.9 and 87.9% natural fibers (paragraph 0032).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
