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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzburg et al., (hereinafter Wurzburg), United State Patent No. 3,071,485.
With regard to claims 1, 8, 15 and 18-19, Wurzburg teaches a heat-sealable paper coated with a film comprising starch (column 2, lines 36-48) and teaches that the starch can be oxidated starch, dextrin and others (column 2, lines 5-11), that can be converted into packages (column 2, lines 36-46). Wurzburg also teaches that the film can be heat sealed by using moisture or heat (column 2, lines 36-46) and using a combination of said sealing processes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Wurzburg does not teach explicitly teach the use of both oxidized starch and dextrin, the use of a mixture of the listed starches would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that it is Prima facie obvious to combine 2 compositions each of which is taught by the prior art for same purpose to form a third composition for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1079; In re Pintea, USPQ 801. Also it has been held that “[W]here two equivalents are interchangeable for their desired function, substitution would have been obvious and thus, express suggestion of desirability of the substitution of one for the other is unnecessary.” In re Fout 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967). As to the amount of the different components of claims 1, 8 and 19, of the coating composition this is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as obvious optimization of the components, and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. Note that the reference teaches different amounts of the starch (column 1, line 64- through column 2, line 4) in the composition, which clearly indicates that the starch proportion/amount is a results effective variable, that can be optimized. Note that claim 15 does not include any amount of the components and thus the reference reads on the claim, since it teaches a package id that can be made using starch of the same type as claimed and as indicate above using a mixture of the disclosed starches would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 2-4, this property must be inherent to the paper product of the obviousness rejection over Wurzburg since they would contain the raw materials on a heat sealable paper and Wurzburg teaches the lamination of such films onto other paper (column 2, lines 36-63).
With regard to claims 5-6, the use of wet strength on starch containing coating is common in the art1, since coating a substrate, typically paper or paperboard, with starch and wet strength agents enhances both the dry strength and wet strength of the material. Starch acts as a natural binder, while wet strength agents form durable, water-resistant bonds within the fiber network. The amount of wet strength can be optimized to desired levels of wet strength and therefore, considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
With regard to claims 7 and 20, Wurzburg teaches the thickness of the film; see column 3, lines 12-13, but silent with regard to the grammage of it. However, it is clear that the grammage can be optimized to desired thickness of the film and therefore, creating a film with the claimed grammage would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 9-11, Machine glazing coated papers is a common operation in the art2 to smooth one of both sides of the paper, which also densify the paper and adding the film to one or even the two surfaces is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 12-14, the formation of sticks and cotton bud, from the coated paper, just by rolling the paper to form said products is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending of the final product that is desired to convert the raw paper.
Regarding to claims 16-17, Wurzburg teaches the use of papers to make packages, including bags that can be filled with other products, e.g., food, laundry detergent, etc., so that a product can be sealed within the package or container; see column 2, lines 25-63, and to define the sealing line or introducing or removing the product without breaking the sealing line is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Heat-Sealable Paper.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 See for example United State Patent No. 11,377,798 B2, column 8, lines 8-18.
2 The examiner takes official notice of this fact and will present evidence if necessary.