Detailed Action
Communication dated 5/8/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 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 .
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) 1-3, 5-9, 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZIEGENBEIN (US 20180002864 A1) in view of GELINAS (US 10550520 B2).
For claim 1, ZIEGENBEIN teaches a continuous [0017] papermachine with a headbox that dispenses stock [0100] of water and re-pulped old corrugated cartons (cellulose fiber) [col 10 line 29] onto a moving wire [0100]. This teaches the limitation of “A continuous papermaking machine, comprising: a headbox discharging a suspension of cellulose fibers in water; a forming wire moving in a process direction, the forming wire receiving the suspension from the headbox such that a web is formed on the forming wire”.
ZIEGENBEIN teaches a forming roll on top of the formed web [0100]. This teaches the limitation of “a top former above the forming wire for upwardly removing water from the web, the top former comprising a lead out roll”.
ZIEGENBEIN teaches a vacuum box below the formed web wire after the formation section [0102]. This teaches the limitation of “a dewatering device below the forming wire and downstream from the top former”. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of cellulose nanofilament after strength additive [0041]. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of additive in an aqueous composition to the dried web [0082 and 0083]. ZIEGENBEIN does not disclose the application method. GELINAS teaches a similar papermaking method with a wet web formation and aqueous additive distribution on the sheet [abstract]. GELINAS teaches the additive is applied through an applicator above the formed web (after formation) [abstract]. GELINAS also teaches that the additive can be microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [col 2 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “and an applicator positioned above the forming wire and downstream from the lead out roll of the top former, the applicator discharging onto the web a mixture comprising microfibrillated cellulose and a carrier”. GELINAS teaches the addition of heavily fibrillated cellulose (MFC) has many benefits for the production of many paper grades [col 2 line 42]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the MFC application of GELINAS into the process of ZIEGENBEIN to produce a better sheet. One would be motivated to make the substitution based on the many benefits for paper production as taught by GELINAS.
For claim 2, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of cellulose nanofilament after strength additive [0041]. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of additive in an aqueous composition to the dried web [0082 and 0083]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator is positioned upstream from the dewatering device”.
For claim 3, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a vacuum box below the formed web wire after the formation section [0102]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the dewatering device comprises a vacuum box”.
For claim 5, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a press section after the dewatering device [0095]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a pressing section downstream from the dewatering device for mechanically squeezing water from the web”.
For claim 6, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 5, as above. ZIEGENBEIN teaches the use of multiple rollers in the press section (element 30) [0100]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pressing section comprises a plurality of rolls for squeezing the web”.
For claim 7, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 5, as above. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a drying section (element 50) after the press section (element 30) [Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a drying section downstream from the pressing section for removing water by heating the web”.
For claim 8, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 5, as above. ZIEGENBEIN teaches the use of a heated drying roller and a YANKEE dryer in series [0096]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the drying section comprises a plurality of heated rolls for heating the web”.
For claim 9, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. GELINAS teaches the applicator has a channel that holds stock until the application. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator comprises a basin defined by one or more basin walls for holding the mixture”.
For claim 13, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. GELINAS teaches a flow control by applicator shape [col 2 line 30]. GELINAS further teaches an expected range to aid in control [col3 line 25]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator comprises a first flow control slope for flowing the mixture”.
For claim 16, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. GELINAS teaches the final concentration of applied MFC is less than 10% [col 3 line 24]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the mixture comprises about 0.01 percent by weight to about 10 percent by weight microfibrillated cellulose”.
For claim 17, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. GELINAS teaches water is added to the MFC to lower the consistency to aid in flow through the narrow geometry of the die applicator [col 3 line 14]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the mixture further comprises a flow modifying agent”.
For claim 18, ZIEGENBEIN teaches a continuous [0017] papermachine with a headbox that dispenses stock [0100] of water and re-pulped old corrugated cartons (cellulose fiber) [col 10 line 29] onto a moving wire [0100]. This teaches the limitation of “A continuous papermaking machine, comprising: a headbox discharging a suspension of cellulose fibers in water; a forming wire moving in a process direction, the forming wire receiving the suspension from the headbox such that a web is formed on the forming wire”. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a vacuum box below the formed web wire after the formation section [0102]. This teaches the limitation of “a dewatering device positioned below the forming wire”. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of cellulose nanofilament after strength additive [0041]. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of additive in an aqueous composition to the dried web [0082 and 0083]. ZIEGENBEIN does not disclose the application method. GELINAS teaches a similar papermaking method with a wet web formation and aqueous additive distribution on the sheet [abstract]. GELINAS teaches the additive is applied through an applicator above the formed web (after formation) [abstract]. GELINAS also teaches that the additive can be microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [col 2 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “and an applicator positioned upstream from the dewatering device, the applicator discharging onto the web a mixture comprising microfibrillated cellulose and a carrier”. GELINAS teaches the addition of heavily fibrillated cellulose (MFC) has many benefits for the production of many paper grades [col 2 line 42]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the MFC application of GELINAS into the process of ZIEGENBEIN to produce a better sheet. One would be motivated to make the substitution based on the many benefits for paper production as taught by GELINAS.
For claim 19, ZIEGENBEIN teaches a continuous [0017] papermachine with a headbox that dispenses stock [0100] of water and re-pulped old corrugated cartons (cellulose fiber) [col 10 line 29] onto a moving wire [0100]. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a forming roll on top of the formed web [0100]. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a vacuum box below the formed web wire after the formation section [0102]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for continuous papermaking, comprising: discharging a suspension of cellulose fibers in water onto a moving forming wire to yield a web on the forming wire; draining water from the web through the forming wire; upwardly removing water from the web”. ZIEGENBEIN further teaches a YANKEE dryer can carries and dries the paper passing over [0018 and Fig 2]. This teaches the limitation of “and passing the web having the mixture thereon over one or more dewatering devices to downwardly remove water from the web”. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of cellulose nanofilament after strength additive [0041]. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of additive in an aqueous composition to the dried web [0082 and 0083]. ZIEGENBEIN does not disclose the application method. GELINAS teaches a similar papermaking method with a wet web formation and aqueous additive distribution on the sheet [abstract]. GELINAS teaches the aqueous additive is applied through an applicator above the formed web (after formation) [abstract]. GELINAS also teaches that the additive can be microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [col 2 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “applying a mixture comprising microfibrillated cellulose and a carrier on top of the web after the step of upwardly removing water from the web;”. GELINAS teaches the addition of heavily fibrillated cellulose (MFC) has many benefits for the production of many paper grades [col 2 line 42]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the MFC application of GELINAS into the process of ZIEGENBEIN to produce a better sheet. One would be motivated to make the substitution based on the many benefits for paper production as taught by GELINAS.
For claim 20, ZIEGENBEIN teaches a continuous [0017] papermachine with a headbox that dispenses stock [0100] of water and re-pulped old corrugated cartons (cellulose fiber) [col 10 line 29] onto a moving wire [0100]. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a forming roll on top of the formed web [0100]. ZIEGENBEIN teaches a vacuum box below the formed web wire after the formation section [0102]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for continuous papermaking, comprising: discharging a suspension of cellulose fibers in water onto a moving forming wire to yield a web on the forming wire; draining water from the web through the forming wire; passing the web over a dewatering device to downwardly remove water from the web”. ZIEGENBEIN also teaches the application of additive in an aqueous composition to the dried web [0082 and 0083]. ZIEGENBEIN does not disclose the application method. GELINAS teaches a similar papermaking method with a wet web formation and aqueous additive distribution on the sheet [abstract]. GELINAS teaches the aqueous additive is applied through an applicator above the formed web (after formation) [abstract]. GELINAS also teaches that the additive can be microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [col 2 line 36]. This teaches the limitation of “and prior to passing the web over the dewatering device, applying on top of the web a mixture comprising microfibrillated cellulose and a carrier”. GELINAS teaches the addition of heavily fibrillated cellulose (MFC) has many benefits for the production of many paper grades [col 2 line 42]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the MFC application of GELINAS into the process of ZIEGENBEIN to produce a better sheet. One would be motivated to make the substitution based on the many benefits for paper production as taught by GELINAS.
Claims 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZIEGENBEIN (US 20180002864 A1) and GELINAS (US 10550520 B2) in view of TAYLOR (US 5985030).
For claim 10, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 9, as above. ZIEGENBEIN does not teach the headbox using a flowrate controller. TAYLOR teaches a similar sheet formation using a headbox, dewatering and drying process. TAYLOR teaches a flow controller for the application system [col 9 line 54]. This teaches the “wherein the applicator comprises a first flow control barrier for limiting a flow of the mixture”. TAYLOR further teaches the die applicator system provides a consistent flow across the sheet [col 3 line 33]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the flow controller of TAYLOR into the applicator of GELINAS to the aid in flow. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved flow consistency as taught by TAYLOR.
For claim 11, ZIEGENBEIN, GELINAS, and TAYLOR teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 9, as above. TAYLOR teaches the second control barrier is the shape of the die [col 8 line 31] and the first flow controller is a control valve [col 9 line 54]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator further comprises a second flow control barrier for limiting a flow of the mixture from the first flow control barrier”.
For claim 12, ZIEGENBEIN, GELINAS, and TAYLOR teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 11, as above. TAYLOR teaches the control valve can be used to sinch down flow [col 9 line 56]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator further comprises a flow-down surface for flowing the mixture from the first flow control barrier”.
For claim 14, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. ZIEGENBEIN does not teach the headbox using a flowrate controller. TAYLOR teaches a similar sheet formation using a headbox, dewatering and drying process. TAYLOR teaches a flow controller valve for the application system [col 9 line 54]. TAYLOR teaches the flow control valve can be adjusted to give a specific flow [col 9 line 55]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator further comprises a second flow control slope for flowing the mixture from the first flow control slope”. TAYLOR further teaches the die applicator system provides a consistent flow across the sheet [col 3 line 33]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the flow controller of TAYLOR into the applicator of GELINAS to the aid in flow. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved flow consistency as taught by TAYLOR.
For claim 15, ZIEGENBEIN, GELINAS and TAYLOR teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 14, as above. TAYLOR teaches a similar sheet formation using a headbox, dewatering and drying process. TAYLOR teaches a flow controller valve for the application system [col 9 line 54]. TAYLOR teaches the flow control valve can be adjusted to give a specific flow [col 9 line 55]. TAYLOR also teaches that this is used to change the flow through the die [col 9 line 56]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the applicator further comprises a flow direction change surface for reversing a flow of the mixture from the first flow control slope to the second flow control slope”.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZIEGENBEIN (US 20180002864 A1) and GELINAS (US 10550520 B2) in view of MCKAY (US 20110262377 A1).
For claim 4, ZIEGENBEIN and GELINAS teach the continuous papermaking machine of claim 1, as above. ZIEGENBEIN does not teach the dewatering box using gravity as a separation method. MCKAY teaches a similar web formation method with a headbox [0028], press belt [0029], and MFC [0064]. MCKAY further teaches that the web is dewatered by either vacuum or gravity [0028]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the dewatering device comprises a gravity box”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the combined gravity and vacuum belt of MCKAY into the system of ZIEGENBEIN improve sheet formation. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the successful use of combined gravity and vacuum as taught by MCKAY.
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
Prosecution Insights