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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 14 and 16 have been withdrawn do to the amendments overcoming the previously applied 112 rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to require the limitations of claims 2 and 8 and then adds a new limitation of “reducing dust generation during the creping process and/or the converting process.”
Applicant argues that Furman does not address the step of reducing dust generation during the creping process. Applicant further argues that Furman is directed to compositions for use as release aids and is silent on dust generation.
This is not held to be persuasive.
The instant specification states that the creping process suffers from dusting issues [0003]. It is then stated that the intention of the wire treatment is so that the composition added will reduce dust in the papermaking process [0031]. It is further stated in [0051] of the instant specification that the sheet treated with the composition has an unexpectedly significant reduction in dust generation.
It is also noted that there are no steps in the instant specification that supports a dust reduction step. In fact, additional dust removal steps are taught to be avoided [0005], and the act of adding a separate step of reducing dust is not supported by the instant specification.
It is therefore the understanding of the Examiner that the reduction of the dust is a direct result of the act of applying the composition to the sheet prior to the creping process, as supported by [0051] of the instant specification.
The Examiner therefore states that as the reduction of dust is a result of the composition, if the composition is taught then the reduction of dust must also be taught as it is the same steps of applying the same composition to the same material and will produce the same outcomes.
As the claism are already taught in an anticipatory manner, the fact that Furman doesn’t teach the same intended use is immaterial as the active method steps are the same and therefore the results will also be the same.
In addition, Furman teaches that the act of applying the composition aides in the act of keeping the fabric “clean” ([0005] states that it prevents the individual fibers from being pulled out which is considered to be analogous to “dusting”). Paragraph [0058] even describes the addition of the composition in question to provide better cleanliness of the fabric and rolls than when it is not utilized. This is a direct teaching of the same result of a reduction of dust.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 –
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 12-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Furman, JR et al, US Patent Publication 2006/0272787 (already of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Furman Jr teaches a method of improving a papermaking process (see abstract), comprising:
adding an effective amount of a composition (release aid, see examples and abstract) to a foraminous surface (see claim 17), wherein the composition comprises an oil [0023-0029], an emulsifying surfactant [0031], and a formulation aid (see claim 11);
contacting the foraminous surface with a furnish comprising water and pulp ([0021] and example 1);
draining the water through the foraminous surface (see formation steps of example 1 [0056-0058]);
forming a sheet comprising the pulp on the foraminous surface (see examples and described in [0020]); and
conveying the sheet (claim 17 step c) to a fabric, a felt, a belt, a dryer, or any combination thereof (see abstract and claims 17-19);
transferring the dried sheet to a creping process and/or a converting process (see claims 18-19 and examples), and further comprising reducing dust generation during the creping process and/or the converting process (as the claims do not state how this dust generation is reduced it is assumed that it is through the application of the same composition to the forming members, which is directly taught see discussion above in regards to Furman’s teaching of keeping the fabric “clean”).
Regarding claim 3, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches adding the composition through chemical shower [0038-0041].
Regarding claim 4, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches adding the composition before the sheet is formed or conveyed (applied to the Yankee dryer before conveyed to the creping roll (see example and claims 17-19).
Regarding claim 5, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches adding the composition in a forming zone of a papermaking machine [0040].
Regarding claim 6, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches adding the composition to a side of the foraminous surface that contacts the sheet [0040].
Regarding claim 7, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches adding the composition when the sheet has a moisture content from about 80 wt. % to about 99.9 wt. % (80% Example 1 [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the composition comprises from about 50wt. % to about 95 wt. % of the oil (see claims 8 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the emulsifying surfactant is an ethoxylated alcohol [0031].
Regarding claim 12, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the composition comprises from about 1 wt. % to about 25 wt. % of the emulsifying surfactant [003].
Regarding claims 13-14, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches that the formulation aid is selected from a tall oil fatty acid [0029-0031].
Regarding claim 15, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the composition comprises from about 1wt. % to about 20 wt. % of the formulation aid [0060].
Regarding claim 16, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches the effective amount is between about 1 and about 60 mg/m² [0037].
Regarding claim 17, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches that the foraminous surface comprises a forming fabric [0057 and 0002].
Regarding claim 18, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the sheet comprises a natural fiber, a synthetic fiber, a chemical pulp, a mechanical pulp, a vegetable fiber, a recycled fiber, a filler, or any combination thereof [0021].
Regarding claims 19-20, Furman Jr remains as applied above and further teaches wherein the composition is not added after conveying the sheet in the claimed amounts (the Example 1 does not show these limitations).
Regarding claims 21-22, Furman further teaches that the oil is selected from a synthetic oil [0023] which is a non -silicon based oil (there is no mention of the oil being silicon based in the description of the PAO oils of preference [0023 and examples]).
Conclusion
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 JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights