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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on March 02, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, no arguments were indicated and therefore, the election has been considered as without traverse .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed1 the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 02, 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The disclosure provides,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-3, 9 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McKay, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0080175 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 9, 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]. The examples shown on table 6, shows the use of additive B, which is a cationic acrylamide with specific reduced viscosity between 5.1 and 12.0; see ¶-[0049], which discloses the properties of the additives used in the invention, considered the dewatering agent and including a Perform PC8713 a drainage agent, which as it is well-known drainage aids increase the strength of the web and thus considered as the strength agent as-well. Table 5 also shows the addition of a strength agent, Hercobond 6350 and additive B, which is an acrylamide polymer defined in on ¶-[0049] as a drainage aid, i.e., dewatering aid/agent and thus reading also on claim 1. The additives are added to the furnish, i.e., the cellulosic fiber suspension and no starch was used in the examples on table 5 and 6, thus reading on claim 9.
Regarding to claim 2, McKay teaches that the polymer is preferably added as solution/dispersion polymer; see ¶-[0035], [0045].
With regard to claim 3, McKay teaches a polymer a cationic monomer having mols within eth claimed range; see ¶-[0049], which teaches that the acrylamide contains 40% actives.
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 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 as evidenced by McKay, cited above.
With regard to claims 1 and 9, 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 which uses the same acrylamide and incorporate by reference Brungardt’s teachings; see ¶-[0037], discloses that the acrylamide has RSV value between 3 dL/g to 5.0 dL/g, which falls within the claimed range. 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].
With regard to claim 3, Brungardt teaches mol content in the polymer in amount falling within the claimed range; see ¶-[0017].
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.
Claims 4-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay, cited above in view of Brungardt, also cited above.
McKay does not teach the use of the monomers for the making of the polymer, the acrylamide of claims 4-7. However, Brungardt which teaches a similar process which teachings McKay incorporated by reference; see ¶-[0037], teach the same type of monomers since 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. As for claims 6-7, Brungardt teaches the same type of cationic monomers in the acrylamide; see ¶-[0019]. Therefore, the use of the monomers suggested by Brungardt in the making of the acrylamide taught by McKay would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if such monomers were used in the making of the acrylamide taught by McKay.
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.
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.”
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 As not arguments for the traverse has been filed/supplied, then the election would be considered as without-traverse.
Prosecution Insights