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 .
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 1-2, 10-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0080175 A1 as evidenced/or in view of Sutman et al., (hereinafter Sutman), US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0247775 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 21, McKay discloses a process of increasing the performance of a papermaking system by adding to the wet end of the papermaking machine different additives, including strength agent and drainage/dewatering agent(s); see abstract, ¶-[0010]-[0011]. McKay also teaches the use of cationic polyvinylamide, (it is a homopolymer comprising vinyl amide which is cationic), which can have 50% to 100% cationic groups, i.e., it can be partially hydrolyzed (¶-[0039]), and have reduced specific viscosity (RSV) greater than 3 dL/g and preferably greater than 5.0 dL/g; see ¶-[0036]. McKay also teaches that the polyvinylamide used can be Hercobond 6350 (¶-0049]), which is 50% hydrolyzed polyvinylamide that can be used as wet strength agent or retention and drainage aid, i.e., a dewatering agent ; see ¶-[0014] of Sutman and thus said product is considered as the dewatering agent of the claim(s) and the acrylamide that can also be used as both dewatering and strength agent, since it has multiple function as recognized by the prior art1. Therefore, the reference teaches all the components of the claims, although the reference cites them for the inverse purpose, yet the use of the components, i.e., the different additives, acts in the say way as claimed, even if they are designed for other purpose(s), they invariably would work in the same way as claimed.
Regarding to claim 2, McKay teaches that the polymer is preferably added as solution/dispersion polymer; see ¶-[0035], [0045].
Regarding to claims 10 and 11, the claims recite all the ways to add materials to the pulp and thus the reference reads on those claims. Note that on ¶-[0045] the additives are added either individually or as a blend to the furnish/stock, i.e., before the headbox.
Claims 1-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brungardt et al., (hereinafter Brungardt), US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0155339 A1 in view McKay, cited above.
With regard to claims 1, 9 and 21, Brungardt discloses a process of enhancing the dry strength of paper by the treatment with vinylamine-containing polymer and acrylamide by adding to the wet end of the papermaking machine said additives, see abstract. The vinylamine-containing polymer correspond to the strength agent and the acrylamide correspond to the dewatering/drainage aid. While Brungardt is silent with regard to the specific reduced viscosity of the acrylamide, McKay teaches the use cationic acrylamide for the same purpose as Brungardt, having RSV value between >3 dL/g and preferably >5.0 dL/g, (¶-0037) and in the examples discloses acrylamides having RSV between 5 to 12 dL/g (¶-[0049]) which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, using acrylamides with RSV falling within the range of the secondary reference would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if the acrylamides suggested by McKay were used as the acrylamides taught by Brungardt. Brungardt teaches mol content in the polymer in amount falling within the claimed range; see ¶-[0017]. The examples do not include starch and therefore, reading on claim 9 as-well.
Regarding to claim 2, Brungardt teaches that the polymer/acrylamide is added as a solution/dispersion polymer; see ¶-[0018] and [0019].
Regarding to claims 4-5, Brungardt teaches that the polymer, the acrylamide, can be amphoteric, which indicates that the polymer can include cationic, anionic monomers; see ¶-[0020]-[0021] and thus the use of the claimed monomers of the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if an acrylamide taught by Brungardt would have said monomers for the reason discussed above. Note that the reference reads on non-ionic monomers since it contains acrylamide, which is one of the monomers cited on claim 4.
With regard to claims 6-7, Brungardt teaches the same type of cationic monomers in the acrylamide; see ¶-[0019].
Regarding to claim 8, Brungardt teaches the use of vinylamine as the strength agent, which is considered a synthetic polymer, since it is man-made.
Regarding to claims 10 and 11, the claims recite all the ways to add materials to the pulp and thus the reference reads on those claims. Note that on ¶-[0044] the additives were added as blend to the furnish/stock, i.e., before the headbox and on ¶-[0043] the additives were added separately to the thick stock or before the thick stock, which are before the headbox.
With regard to claim 12, Brungardt discloses a fiber suspension/furnish having a conductivity of 2000 uS/cm which is at least 1 uS/m and thus reading on the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 21 have been considered but are moot because in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Strength Synergy Between Polymer and Papermaking Strength Aid.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 column1, lines 29-43 of United State Patent No. 5,281,307; paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 of United State Patent No. 11,214,927 and column 8, lines 8-30 of United State Patent No. 11,325,086, just to cite a few.
Prosecution Insights