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 without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 57 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
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 1-3, 8, 14-15, 17-20, 23, 27-30, 32 and 36 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.
Claim 1 recites “the layer has a thickness of between 1 micron and 20 microns”. It is not clear what layer of the multilayered structure has a thickness between 1 and 20 microns.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 14-15, 17-20, 23, 27, 32, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattegard et al. (US 2018/0258188).
Regarding claim 1, Slattegard discloses a multilayer structure, i.e. article, (0028) comprising three or more material layers (0132, 0136) wherein one layer is a substrate layer comprising a paper (0020, 0134) and at least one second layer (0134) is a blend of nanocrystalline cellulose, i.e. cellulose nanocrystal (CNC), (0030) and PVOH (0082) wherein the thickness of the layer can be at least 20 nm or greater than 10 microns (0130) and the amount of CNC is at least 8% (0081). Given that Slattegard discloses at least one second layer (0134), it is noted that one layer corresponds to a second layer and another layer corresponds to a third layer wherein the layer comprises composition comprising PVOH, i.e. latex, (0082).
In light of the overlap between the claimed article and the article disclosed by Slattegard, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an article that is both disclosed by Slattegard and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that the present claim is drawn to an article, it is clear that the PVOH of Slattegard meets the presently claimed limitation of latex.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 8, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 1 wherein given that Slattegard discloses the same multilayer and its composition as claimed in present claims, it is clear that the article of Slattegard would have the same properties as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Slattegard discloses the multilayer of claim 1 being a biodegradable (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 15, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 1 wherein Slattegard does not specifically disclose a ratio of CNC to PVOH. However, when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 1 wherein the article containing 3 or more layers, i.e. consisting of 3 layers such as ABC, (0132, 0136) wherein layer A is a substrate, layer B is the CNC-PVOH blend and layer C is a cover layer comprising latex as explained above.
Regarding claim 18, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 17 wherein the layer of CNC-PVOH blend further comprises starch (0082, 0086).
Regarding claim 19, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 1 wherein the layer containing CNC and PVOH, i.e. consisting of CNC and PVOH, (fig. 7, paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 20, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 17 wherein the at least one second layer, i.e. two layers, (0134) is a blend of nanocrystalline cellulose, i.e. cellulose nanocrystal (CNC), (0030) and PVOH (0082). Slattegard meets the claimed limitation when two layers are present.
Regarding claim 27, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 17 wherein layer A is a paper or polypropylene (0020-0021).
Regarding claim 32, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 17 wherein layer A and layer B are associated with each other directly (0134).
Regarding claim 36, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 1 wherein the article comprising 3 layers: a paper layer, i.e. paperboard layer, a layer of CNC-PVOH blend and a layer of CNC-PVOH blend, i.e. biodegradable plastic, as explained above.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattegard et al. (US 2018/0258188) in view of Xu (US 2011/0135912).
Regarding claims 28-30, Slattegard discloses the article of claim 17 wherein the layer A is a paper but Slattegard is silent with respect to biodegradable polymer coated paperboard.
Xu discloses packaging material having paper based substrate with biodegradable polymer of polylactic acid to obtain barrier properties (0008, 0024, 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biodegradable polymer coated paper of Xu instead of just a paper of Slattegard to obtain further barrier properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights