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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 4/2/26 is acknowledged. Claims 21-22 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention as detailed in paper filed 4/2/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claims 1-4, the term “highly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 5-20, the claims are rejected as being dependent upon a claim that has been rejected as being indefinite as noted above and does not recite language which would render the claim definite and therefore is indefinite as well.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/128996 in combination with Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) further in combination with Mukai et al (2011/0262731) or JP 2002-266285.
WO 2020/128996 teaches a method of treating a fibrous material comprising nanocellulose with an organic acid (abstract). The fibrous solid content is between 40-99 weight percent and up to 90-99 weight percent (meeting the claimed 50 wt %) (pg. 5, lines 19-21 and pg. 6, lines 6-16). The organic acid treatment includes an organic acid and sodium hydroxide followed by drying (Fig. 1, and pg. 8, lines 19-24). The treatment improves gas barrier properties (pg. 11, lines 15-20).
WO 2020/128996 fails to teach the cellulose pulp having a Schopper Riegler (SR) value of 80-100 defined by ISO 5267-1.
Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) teaches producing microfibrillated cellulose with Schopper Riegler (SR) value of 80-100 defined by ISO 5267-1 (abstract and [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified WO 2020/128996 process to include a cellulosic barrier substrate having the claimed Schopper Riegler (SR) value of 80-100 defined by ISO 5267-1 as evidenced by Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) with the expectation of providing a gas barrier film.
WO 2020/128996 in combination with Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) fails to teach using sodium carbonate vs sodium hydroxide.
Mukai et al (2011/0262731) teaches forming cellulose fiber films including sodium carbonate (Table B1) while JP 2002-266285 teaches forming coating liquid that has barrier properties including sodium carbonate (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WO 2020/128996 in combination with Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) process to utilize sodium carbonate for the sodium hydroxide because of the advantages associated therewith for barrier properties of the cellulosic film. In addition, both sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate are alkali’s and the substitution of one for the other would be expected to produce similar barrier properties of the cellulose film as WO 2020/128996 stated the alkali being sodium hydroxide is preferred which would suggest alternative alkali’s such as sodium carbonate for similar results.
Regarding claim 2, WO 2020/128996 teaches the dry weight content to be from 60-99 weight% (pg. 5, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 3, Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) teaches producing microfibrillated cellulose with Schopper Riegler (SR) value of 80-100 defined by ISO 5267-1 (abstract and [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) teaches producing microfibrillated cellulose for barrier films (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, WO 2020/128996 teaches the barrier substrate being a film or coating on paper or paperboard (pg. 7, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 6, WO 2020/128996 teaches a grammage of the gas barrier substrate to be 1-80 gsm (pg. 5, lines 12-18).
Regarding claim 7, WO 2020/128996 teaches the organic acid to include citric acid, lactic, acid, acetic acid, formic acid, oxalic acid, uric acid and more (pg. 8, lines 12-17).
Regarding claim 8, WO 2020/128996 teaches the amount of organic acid to be 0.05-50 gsm of the fibrous material which would meet the claimed 5-60 wt% (pg. 9, lines 17-18).
Regarding claim 9, Mukai et al (2011/0262731and JP 2002-266285 fail to teach the claimed amount of 0.1-15wt% sodium carbonate, however, the Examiner takes the position that this would be a matter of design choice by one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claim 10, WO 2020/128996 teaches adding a water-soluble polymer but not a specific amount, however, the Examiner takes the position that it would be inclusive of 0.1-30 wt% (pg. 8, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 11, WO 2020/128996 teaches the organic acid solution to have a pH of 3-6 preferably 4-5 (pg. 8, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 12, WO 2020/128996 fasil to teach the organic acid treatment to be at a temperature of 40C, however, the Examiner takes the position that the temperature of the treatment would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art recognizing that a heated solution would have improved penetration to the cellulosic material and hence produce better results.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, WO 2020/128996 teaches drying at temperatures of between 40C-240C which would be inclusive of drying and further heat treatment as it teaches a post-curing and densifying by heated calendaring (pg. 9, lines 19-24, pg. 10, lines 1-4 and pg. 11, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Saukkonen et al. (2020/0239652) teaches an oxygen transmission rate of 1-300 cc/m2/24 h at 23C and 50% RH according to ASTM D03985 [0023]-[0025] and after treatment WO 2020/128996 would suggest to maintain the OTR so as to provide very good oxygen barrier properties in high humidity.
Regarding claims 17-20, WO 2020/128996 teaches a water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of 1-30 cc/m2@24hours (23C, 50%RH) after treatment and WVTR of greater than 50 cc/m2@24hours (23C, 50%RH) after treatment according to ASTM F-1249 (pg. 7, lines 14-18 and pg. 11, lines 20-28).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights