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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the grammage" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindstrom (WO 2017/108910).
Regarding claim 1: Lindstrom discloses a coated paper comprising a kraft paper substrate, a pre-coating layer provided on the kraft paper substrate and a water vapor barrier coating layer provided on the pre-coating layer, see for example (Figs. 1-2 & abstract).
Lindstrom may not suggest the exact claimed values and/or ranges of the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 65-155 g/m2, the pre-coating layer comprises inorganic filler and binder in a dry weight ratio of between 100:25 and 100:5 and the water vapor barrier coating layer comprises clay pigment and styrene-butadiene co-polymer (SBR) binder in a dry weight ratio between 100:30 and 100:80, wherein the particle size distribution (% < 2pm) of said clay pigment is above 90 and the shape factor of said clay pigment is below 20, such as below 10. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the use coated paper, pre-coating layer weight ratio, dry weight ratio, etc., would only be a matter of coming up with a value or range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Lindstrom’s coated paper by having the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 65-155 g/m2, the pre-coating layer comprises inorganic filler and binder in a dry weight ratio of between 100:25 and 100:5 and the water vapor barrier coating layer comprises clay pigment and styrene-butadiene co-polymer (SBR) binder in a dry weight ratio between 100:30 and 100:80, wherein the particle size distribution (% < 2pm) of said clay pigment is above 90 and the shape factor of said clay pigment is below 20, such as below 10. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the use coated paper, pre-coating layer weight ratio, dry weight ratio, etc., would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claim 2: Lindstrom may not suggest that the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the kraft paper substrate is 50-140 g/m2, such as 50-120 g/m2, such as 60-100 g/m2. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the kraft paper substrate is 50-140 g/m2, such as 50-120 g/m2, such as 60-100 g/m2, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claims 3 & 4: Lindstrom may not suggest that the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 65-135 g/m2, such as 75-115 g/m2 nor the coat weight of the pre-coating layer is 4-20 g/m2, preferably 4-12 g/m2, such as 5-10 g/m2. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 65-135 g/m2, such as 75-115 g/m2 and/or the coat weight of the pre-coating layer is 4-20 g/m2, preferably 4-12 g/m2, such as 5-10 g/m2., would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claims 5 & 6: Lindstrom may not suggest that the coat weight of the water vapor barrier coating layer is 4-20 g/m2, preferably 4-12 g/m2, such as 5-10 g/m2 nor the dry weight ratio of inorganic filler to binder in the pre-coating layer is between 100:20 and 100:8, such as between 100:16 and 100:8. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the coat weight of the water vapor barrier coating layer is 4-20 g/m2, preferably 4-12 g/m2, such as 5-10 g/m2 and/or the dry weight ratio of inorganic filler to binder in the pre-coating layer is between 100:20 and 100:8, such as between 100:16 and 100:8, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claims 7 & 8: Lindstrom may not suggest that the dry weight ratio of clay pigment to SBR binder in the water vapor barrier layer is between 100:40 and 100:70, such as between 100:40 and 100:60 nor the particle size distribution (% < 2pm) of said clay pigment is above 95. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the dry weight ratio of clay pigment to SBR binder in the water vapor barrier layer is between 100:40 and 100:70, such as between 100:40 and 100:60 and/or the particle size distribution (% < 2pm) of said clay pigment is above 95, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claim 9: Lindstrom discloses a sack comprising a ply formed from the coated paper, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via the shown formed sack).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the sack comprises at least two plies and the ply formed from the coated paper is an outer ply, see for example (Figs. 1-2 & abstract; via inner and outer paper ply).
Regarding claims 11 & 12: Lindstrom may not suggest that the sack comprises an inner ply formed from a kraft paper having a Gurley permeance measured according to ISO 5636-5:2013of 2-10. nor the kraft paper of the inner ply has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 60-90 g/m2. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the sack comprises an inner ply formed from a kraft paper having a Gurley permeance measured according to ISO 5636-5:2013of 2-10. and/or the kraft paper of the inner ply has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 60-90 g/m2, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claims 13 & 14: Lindstrom may not suggest the coated paper has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 75-105 g/m2 nor the paper substrate of the coated paper has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 60-90 g/m2. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the coated paper has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 75-105 g/m2 and/or the paper substrate of the coated paper has a grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of 60-90 g/m2, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claim 15: Lindstrom may not suggest that the shape factor of said clay pigment is below 10 nor the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 75-115 g/m2. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the shape factor of said clay pigment is below 10 and/or the grammage according to ISO 536:2019 of the coated paper is 75-115 g/m2, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claim 17: Lindstrom may not suggest that the coat weight of the pre-coating layer is 5-10 g/m2 and the coat weight of the water vapor barrier coating layer is 5-10 g/m2 nor the dry weight ratio of inorganic filler to binder in the pre-coating layer is between 100:16 and 100:8. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the coat weight of the pre-coating layer is 5-10 g/m2 and the coat weight of the water vapor barrier coating layer is 5-10 g/m2 and/or the dry weight ratio of inorganic filler to binder in the pre-coating layer is between 100:16 and 100:8, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Regarding claims 19 & 20: Lindstrom may not suggest that the dry weight ratio of clay pigment to SBR binder in the water vapor barrier layer is between 100:40 and 100:60 nor the sack comprises an inner ply formed from a kraft paper having a Gurley permeance measured according to ISO 5636-5:2013 of 5-6 s. However, since Lindstrom discloses the claimed structures, coming up with a specific value and/or range of the dry weight ratio of clay pigment to SBR binder in the water vapor barrier layer is between 100:40 and 100:60 and/or the sack comprises an inner ply formed from a kraft paper having a Gurley permeance measured according to ISO 5636-5:2013 of 5-6 s, would involve only routinely skilled in the art. It has been held that there is no reasonable difference in operability over the ranges (Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999; ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1345).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights