Detailed Action
The communications received 07/15/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-18 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 § 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 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14 the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination the limitations following “especially” are understood to be optional. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 repeats the limitations that are already claimed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett et al (US 2020/0063353) hereinafter EVE in view of Lipponen (US 2005/0251976) cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 07/15/2024).
As for claim 1, EVE teaches a method for post-processing of a product (off machine super calendaring of a wet laid web which has been converted into a thermoplastic film) [0695], which has been fabricated at least partly from pulp containing lignin (substrates are woods) [Abstract; 0112], comprising the following steps:
Introducing the product into a product gap, to a temperature between 160-350 degrees Celsius (at least 135 – up to 210 degrees Celsius which overlaps the claimed range) [0703]
And applying either a line pressure between 30-200 N/mm (at least 35 N/mm which overlaps the claimed range, converted from 200 pli) [0702].
EVE does not teach introducing the product into a product gap of a belt press having at least one belt. However EVE does teach vertical stacked calendars [0579].
KOL teaches a super calendar [Abstract] in which the calendaring element includes a blet press in which the web is fed into the product gap of the belt press [Fig. 2; 0009; 0092-93]. The usage of the belt press allows for the processing of a wide variety of papers under a wide set of operating parameters [0025].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the belt press of KOL to the super calendar of EVE in order to allow for a wide range of processing conditions.
As for claim 2, EVE/KOL teaches claim 1 and EVEN further teaches that there is a moistening/drying performed such that the resultant product has a moisture content below 20% which overlaps the claimed range [0709].
As for claim 3, EVE/KOL teaches claim 1, and KOL further teaches that the belt is steel and plastic [0093].
As for claim 4, EVE/KOL teaches claim 1 and KOL further teaches that the belt press is a double belt press, it is understood that the application of heat and pressure would occur between the two belts [Fig. 2].
As for claim 5, EVE/KOL teaches claim 1 and KOL further teaches that the double belt press is composed of two steel belts, two plastic belts, and a steel and a plastic belt as options [0093].
As for claim 6, EVE/KOL teaches claim 5 and KOL further teaches wherein two plastic belts form at least a portion of the product gap in between them and wherein on the back side of at least one of the plastic belts, a steel belt runs parallel to the plastic belt for a least a portion of the product gap (by using a steel reinforced rubber belt) [0093].
As for claim 7, EVE/KOL teaches claim 3, and KOL further teaches wherein the upper belt is perforated (understood that at least one belt is porous i.e. perforated) [0048; 0093].
As for claim 8, EVE/KOL teaches claim 4, and it is understood that the first and second upper belts would amount to the addition of a belt press downstream. In accordance with the MPEP, a duplication of parts is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an additional belt press as this would have amounted to a duplication of parts, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would result in further customization capability of operating parameters.
As for claim 9, EVE/KOL teaches claim 1 and KOL further teaches the pressure is applied via at least one pressure roller/circulating rollers (rollers/rolls which apply the pressure) [Fig. 2 #5a and roller below].
As for claim 10, EVE/KOL see claim 9 as is understood that nips mean direct contact is made.
As for claim 11, see claim 9 and the roller also touches the backside of the belt [Fig. 2 #5a and roller below].
As for claim 12, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 and KOL further teaches wherein the desired temperature of the product is achieved by heating the at least one belt [0052].
As for claim 13, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 and wherein the pressure is applied and again at least partially released within the belt press (at the edges pressure is both applied and released when the product enters then leaves) [KOL: Fig. 2].
As for claim 14, EVE/KOL teach claim 13 and KOL further teaches wherein the pressure is released to a value of less than 30% of the pressure applied immediately before releasing the pressure (when it is leaving the belt press there is a point where no pressure is being applied by the press) [Fig. 2].
As for claim 15, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 and EVE further teaches wherein the pulp has been generated by mechanical pulping [0111].
As for claim 16, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 and wherein the product is unwound from a first coil, then the product is introduced into the belt press and after leaving the belt press the product is coiled up on a second coil (via off machine super calendar) [0709-711].
As for claim 17, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 and wherein at least two layers of product arranged on top of each other are introduced into the product gap (web laid product and a layer of plasticizer/coating) [0711].
As for claim 18, EVE/KOL teach claim 1 wherein heating of the paper to a temperature within the boundaries indicated and submitting the product to a pressure within the boundaries (this was understood to occur by performing the method of claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748