Detailed Action
The communications received 07/17/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-22 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…a coated paper with the same base paper and each a coating layer of the natural polymer or its derivative and a coating layer of the crystallizable organic compound.” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9, 12-13, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tilton et al (US 2014/0274633) hereinafter TIL.
As for claim 1, TIL teaches a coated paper (a composite structure that has a mineral containing coating layer on top of a paper) [Abstract; 0149] comprising a base paper (the fiber layer which can be a paper) [Abstract; 0149] and at least one semi-crystalline coating layer with amorphous regions and crystalline regions (the mineral containing layer with both crystalline and amorphous regions) [0112-113], applied directly or indirectly to the base paper:
Wherein the amorphous regions container one or more natural polymers and/or their derivatives (nano-cellulose with a crystalline content from about 40-70%, it is understood that the remaining content is amorphous) [0143],
Wherein the crystalline regions comprise one or more crystallizable organic compounds (nano-cellulose as well as other crystallizable polymers) [0112; 0114; 0143], and
Wherein the permeability of the coated paper for at least one gas is reduced compared to the base paper [0114].
As for claim 3, TIL teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the there is a coated paper in existence with a higher permeability than the one taught by TIL, and since layers reduce permeability, that the combination would necessarily be less permeable than the coating layer or base paper alone.
As for claim 5, TIL teaches claim 1 and that the crystallinity of the semi-crystalline coating layer is in the range of 60-85% and 40-70%, both of which fall within the claimed range [0022; 0143].
As for claim 9, TIL teaches claim 1 and wherein at least one crystallizable organic compound includes a fatty acid (is understood that the polyolefin would begin to include some fatty acids) [0080; 0154].
As for claim 12, TIL teaches claim 1 and wherein the natural polymers are selected from cellulose (as nano-cellulose) [0143].
As for claim 13, TIL teaches claim 12 and this further limits lignin which is an optional feature of claim 12. As TIL teaches the nano-cellulose and no lignin, the limitation further limiting the optional lignin is already met by TIL’s disclosure of a cellulose.
As for claim 17, TIL teaches claim 1 and wherein the coated paper is recyclable and can be used for food containers therefore utilized for food contact [Abstract; 0078; 0139].
As for claim 22, TIL teaches claim 1 and the production of a packaging for food [see claim 17].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dellinger et al (US 2010/0203348) hereinafter DEL.
As for claim 18, DEL teaches a coating for coating papers [Abstract] comprising at least one solvent, at least one crystallizable organic compound (fatty acid), and at least one natural polymer and/or derivative of a natural polymer (cellulose ester) [0026];
wherein the crystallizable organic compound is selected from fatty acids, hydroxy fatty acids, or dicarboxylic acids or their esters, amides, or salts (stearamide as an amide of stearic acid) [0028].
wherein the natural polymer and the derivative of a natural polymer are selected from the group consisting of proteins, peptides, nucleic acids, polysaccharides, lipids, polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), cutin, suberin, lignin, cellulose, chitosan, and starch (cellulose ester) [0030]; and
wherein the solvent is selected from water, tetrahydrofuran (THF), toluene, ethyl acetate, and alcohols (as an ethyl acetate, water) [0033].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tilton et al (US 2014/0274633) hereinafter TIL as evidenced by Mariano et al (Nanocellulose: Common Strategies for Processing of Nanocomposites, 2017) hereinafter MAR and Gramann (The Many Faces of Polymers – Polyolefins) hereinafter GRA.
As for claim 2, TIL teaches claim 1 and that that polyolefin can be the crystallizable organic compound and nano-cellulose the amorphous polymer, in which case, MAR evidences that the glass transition temperature form 220-250 degrees Celsius for nanocellulose [MAR: pg. 214] and GRA evidences that the melting temperature of polyolefins is approximately 130 degrees Celsius [GRA: Fig. 3]. Therefore the limitation is met.
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.
For the rejections below, the Examiner notes that In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim(s) 4, 6-8, 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIL.
As for claim 4, TIL teaches claim 1 and TIL further teaches that the contact angle of the coating is adjusted in consideration of how well ink permeates into the layer with a particular desire for lower contact angles to improve graphics [0145].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lower the contact angle such that it was no more than 150 degrees in order to improve the graphics of TIL. As TIL teaches that this contact angle is in relation to a polar ink (as non-polar substrates have issues) [0145], one of ordinary skill in the art expects that this would apply to water contact angles as well.
As for claim 6, TIL teaches claim 1 and further that water vapor transmission into the package creates deleterious conditions to food [0139].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduce the wvtr to no more than 40 grams / (meters squared * d) when measured at the defined temperature, humidity, and coating weight, in order to prevent food within the packaging from being exposed to deleterious conditions.
As for claim 7, TIL teaches claim 1 and wherein the proportion of crystallizable organic compounds is 25-80% which overlaps the claimed range (as it is understood that the polyolefin would contribute to both the amorphous and crystalline structure by weight) [0151].
As for claim 8, TIL teaches claim 1 and wherein the proportion of natural polymers or their derivatives based on the total mass of the coating layer is in the range of 25-65% [0151].
As for claim 10, TIL teaches claim 1 and that the fatty acid has 8-24 carbon atoms which overlaps the claimed range [0154].
As for claim 11, TIL teaches claim 10 and is present as a mixture in the coating (mixed with the mineral and polyolefin) [0154].
As for claim 15, TIL teaches claim 10 and this further limits lignin which is an optional feature of claim 12. As TIL teaches the nano-cellulose and no lignin, the limitation further limiting the optional lignin is already met by TIL’s disclosure of a cellulose.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEL.
As for claim 19, DEL teaches claim 18 and further that the natural polymer/its derivative is in the concentration of 10% which falls within the claimed range [0027], the crystallizable organic compound in the concentration of 5-10% [0028] which falls within the claimed range and the solvent would be the remainer as a solvent based coating solution, therefore 100-20 to 100-15 which is the range of 80-95% which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TIL in view of Venditti et al (US 2016/0355535) hereinafter VEN.
As for claim 14, TIL teaches claim 12 but does not teach that the natural polymer is an ester of a polymer.
VEN teaches that that one useful amorphous material that is of natural derivation is a fatty acid derivative of lignin which can employ esterification reactions [Abstract; 0013; 0078; 0080-82]. This material is useful as a polymer blend with improved properties, is usable in recycled papers, and is a higher value usage of lignin [Abstract; 0004; 0053].
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/replaced the amorphous material of TIL with the esterified lignin of VEN in order to improve the value of an otherwise discarded product and to utilize improved properties. As the lignin of VEN is compatible with blends and can be used in recycled papers it is compatible with TIL and as VEN teaches a usable material in polymer blends based on workability and crystallinity [0048] it is addressing a similar issue as found in TIL (which polymer to use based on its workability and crystallinity) one of ordinary skill in the art would look to VEN for advantageous materials usable in TIL.
As for claim 16, TIL teaches claim 10, and TIL/VEN as applied to claim 14 teaches that the lignin can be a lignin stearate [VEN: 0070] and it is understood that some stearaic acid would remain therefore would contribute to the crystallizable organic compound [VEN: 0084].
As for claim 18, TIL teaches the coating, with the coated paper, a natural polymer/its derivative and a crystallizable organic compound [see claim 1]. TIL/VEN as applied to claim 16 teaches the inclusion of lignin stearate which is a lignin and further that a fatty acid is included (as either stearic acid or another fatty acid) [see claims 9 and 16]. VEN further teaches that to render the lignin stearate more processable that a solvent can be used (during workup and to provide a plasticization effect) [0008; 0081; 0090] such as toluene, tetrahydrofuran, ethyl acetate, water, and alcohols (isopropanol, methanol) [0061].
As for claim 20, TIL/VEN teaches claim 18 and the coating is produced via melt dispersion (understood to be extrusion coated) [TIL: 0111; 0119; VEN: 0048] and applied to the base paper then cured (it is understood that the curing agent is required for a substance that will be cured, this beat sealing layer becomes part of the coating layer) [TIL: 0091] which results in the semi-crystalline coating layer.
As for claim 21, a coated paper is produced [see claim 20].
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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights