Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 6/9/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-23 are pending with claims 21-23 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not suggest recycling UBC and treating with electro-osmosis followed by conversion into high SR (low CSF) pulp (MFC).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to use UBC fibers because the composition of UBS is different from many other sources. The applicant argues that the UBC is multilayer and comprised barrier layers. The applicant argues that therefore the UBC cannot be treated as interchangeable with any recycled fiber mentioned in KROENER.
In response the fiber of BOUCHETTE goes through an extensive purification treatment. BOUCHETTE discloses pulping with sodium hydroxide [Example 4] which separates the pulp fibers from polymer and aluminum [Example 5, 0152]. BOUCHETTE performs a coarse fractionation [0152] followed by a fine screening [0154]. BOUCHETTE then dewaters the pulp to 30% by centrifuge [0154]. Therefore both the polymer and aluminum that the applicant argues is problematic has been removed.
This is the same treatments as instant claims 3 and 4.
Applicant argues that the it has not been explained why the person of ordinary skill in the art would choose the abutting range of 30% consistency.
An abutting range makes a prima facie case of obviousness. Further a 30% consistency is the consistency of the pulp of BOUCHETTE after centrifuging [0154]
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range.
Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30
The applicant would need to show an unexpected result from using the claimed range as compared to the prior art range. The unexpected results must make a nexus with the consistency.
The applicant argues that there is not teaching provides a reason to select the specific beverage caron pulp of BOUCHETTE.
In response BOUCHETTE is cited as a primary reference. Thus there needs to be a reason to treat the pulp as per KROENER. The Examiner gives a TSM of p[producing MFC fibers from the pulp.
Alternatively, the Examiner does suggest that KROENER would be the primary reference and BOUCHETTE the secondary reference. The Examiner use the substitution rational as described in KSR. KROENER states that virgin or recycle pulps can be used and BOUCHETTE discloses after its recycling treatment a high-quality pulp.
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 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2002/0096269 BOUCHETTE et al., hereinafter BOUCHETTE, in view of U.S. 10,648,130 KROENER et al., hereinafter KROENER, or in the alternative, KROENER in view of BOUCHETTE.
As for claims 1, 14, and 20, BOUCHETTE discloses obtaining pulp from used beverage cartons [0044, milk cartons are beverage cartons] with a caustic pretreatment. BOUCHETTE discloses mostly milk carton [Example 4] which is greater than 50% milk carton in pulp.
BOUCHETTE does not discloses refining the pulp obtained to an SR of 50 to 100 at a consistency of 0.5-30%
KROENER discloses refining pulp to an SR of greater than 60 to less than 90 [col. 5 lines 7-14]. KROENER discloses refining (shearing) the pulp [col. 4 lines 60-61] at 30-70% consistency which abuts the instant claimed range [col. 3 lines 64-65] making a prima facie case of obviousness. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to treat the fibers UBC of BOUCHETTE in the process of KROENER. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by KROENER to produce MFC fibers [col. 5 lines 64-66] which can be used in papermaking as an additive to increase strength properties [col. 2 lines 34-44 and col. 6 lines 32-36] while being storable in moist form without bacterial degradation [col. 2 lies 39-44].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as the pulp used in KROENER can be virgin or recycled fiber sources [col. 3 lines 23-25]. BOUCHETTE discloses that multiple types of products can be formed from the pulp [0018]. BOUCHETTE discloses the paper pulp produced is of high quality [0014]. In the alternative KROENER teaches the features as per above but fails to teach used beverage carton as the pulp source. BOUCHETTE teaches used beverage carton as per above for making recycled pulp. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to substitute one known recycled pulp source for another recycled pulp source. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as KROENER does not limit the pulp source to be used.
As for claim 2, KROENER discloses 25% milk carton [Example 5] and 75% other pulp [Example 5, 0152].
As for claim 3, KROENER discloses fine screening [0154].
As for claim 4, BOUCHETTE discloses pulping with sodium hydroxide [Example 4] which separates the pulp fibers from polymer and aluminum [Example 5, 0152]. BOUCHETTE performs a coarse fractionation [0152] followed by a fine screening [0154]. BOUCHETTE then dewaters the pulp to 30% by centrifuge [0154].
As for claims 7-13, as BOUCHETTE teaches substantially the same starting material and is treated in substantially the same way [see supra claims 1, 4, and 14] it would be expected to have substantially the same properties.
As for claim 15, at the time of the invention it would be obvious to optimize consistency. Differences in concentration (consistency) will not typically support non-obviousness absent evidence of unexpected results.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.);
As for claim 18 and 19, BOUCHETTE teaches substantially the same starting material treated in substantially the same way [see supra claims 1, 4, and 14 and claim 16 below] and refined with an overlapping power range to the same SR it would be expected to have substantially the same MFC fiber properties.
As for claim 16, KROENER discloses 0.3 to 10 MWH/t dry fiber (300 kWh/t -10,000 kWh/t) which overlaps with the instant claimed range making a prima facie case of obviousness [col. 5 lines 19-21]
As for claim 17, KROENER discloses refining pulp to an SR of greater than 75 to less than 90 [col. 5 lines 7-14].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights