Detailed Action
The communications received 05/01/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1 and 3-18 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-17 are amended, claim 18 is new.
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiopol et al (US 2006/0270801 cited by the Applicant in the IDS filed 08/13/2024) hereinafter HAG.
As for claim 1, HAG teaches a composition for strengthening paper or board [Abstract], said composition comprising:
(a) at least one cationic glyoxalated polyacrylamide ("GPAM") comprising a high molecular weight base polymer [0015-16; 0047]; and
(b) at least one anionic polysaccharide promoter ("APP") (acrylamide-acrylic acid copolymers) [by being blended with other polymeric agents including anionic polymers such as CMC 0103; 0106];
wherein said high molecular weight base polymer has a weight average molecular weight selected between 50-5000 kDa [0.5-1000 kDA which overlaps the claimed range; 0047], and a net charge density selected from the range of 0-5 meq/g (2-5 meq/g which has some positive charge removed by the addition of the anionic component and reactions which is still controlled to be positive in order to maintain a greater affinity for cellulose fibers, therefore understood to be less than 5 and greater than 0. In addition, a final product charge density can be 1.26 meq/g which falls within the claimed range) [0049; 0051; 0091; 0106; 0126].
As for claim 3, The composition or combination of claim 1, wherein said at least one cationic GPAM comprising a high molecular weight base polymer comprises one or more of the following:
(b) is obtained by reaction of glyoxal with said high molecular weight base polymer, wherein said high molecular weight base polymer comprises an acrylamide-based copolymer comprising neutral monomers, cationic monomers, and optionally anionic monomers, further wherein (i) said neutral monomers are selected from the group of primary amide-containing monomers comprising acrylamide, methacrylamide, ethyl acrylamide, crotonamide, N-methyl acrylamide, N-butyl acrylamide, N-ethyl methacrylamide, and any combination thereof;(ii) said cationic monomers are selected from acryloyloxyethyltrimethyl ammonium chloride ("AETAC"), methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium chloride ("MAETAC"), methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride ("MAPTAC"),acrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride ("APTAC"),methacryloyloxyethyldimethylammonium sulfate, diallyldimethylammonium chloride ("DADMAC"); dialkylaminoalkyl acrylates and dialkylaminoalkyl methacrylates and their quaternary or acid salts, including but not limited to,dimethylaminoethyl acrylate ("DMAEA"), dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate ("DMAEA"), dimethylaminoethyl acrylate methyl chloride quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl acrylate methyl sulfate quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl acrylate benzyl chloride quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl acrylate sulfuric acid salt, dimethylaminoethyl acrylate hydrochloric acid salt, diethylaminoethyl acrylate methyl chloride quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate methyl chloride quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate methyl sulfate quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate benzyl chloride quaternary salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate sulfuric acid salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate hydrochloric acid salt, dimethylaminoethyl methacryloyl hydrochloric acid salt; dialkylaminoalkylacrylamides and methacrylamides and their quaternary or acid salts, including but not limited to acryloylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride, dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide, dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide methyl sulfate quaternary salt, dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide sulfuric acid salt, dimethylaminopropyl acrylamide hydrochloric acid salt, methacrylamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride, dimethylaminopropyl methacrylamide, dimethylaminopropyl methacrylamide methyl sulfate quaternary salt, dimethylaminopropyl methacrylamide sulfuric acid salt, dimethylaminopropyl methacrylamide hydrochloric acid salt, diethylaminoethylacrylate, diethylaminoethylmethacrylate; and diallyldialkylammonium halides, including but not limited to, diallyldiethylammonium chloride and diallyldimethylammonium chloride ("DADMAC"), and any combination thereof [a reaction product from acrylamide, N-butyl acrylamide, N-methyl acrylamide, N-ethyl metharylamide 0024; 0044];
(d) has a cationic charge density ranging from 0.4-5 meq/g, 1-4 meq/g, or 1.4-2 meq/g at pH 8.0 [2-5 meq/g at pH 8 which overlaps the claimed range 0049].
As for claim 4, The composition or combination of claim 1, wherein said at least one anionic polysaccharide promoter comprises one or more of the following:
(a) has a weight average molecular weight selected from 10-5000 kDa, 20-2000 kDa, and40-1000 kDa [0.5-1000 kDA which overlaps the claimed range; 0047];
(b) comprises an anionic polysaccharide selected from the group comprising anionic
As for claim 5, HAG teaches claim 1 and further teaches that
Said composition is formulated as at least one aqueous solution [0046], and/or
(b) the ratio of GPAM:APP is anywhere from 1:3 – 99:1 (as the GPAM would be 40-99% of the total weight of GPAM and APP) which overlaps the claimed range [0109].
As for claim 6, HAG teaches claim 1 and wherein
(a) said at least one cationic GPMA comprises DADMAC and acrylamide [0029-30],
(b) said at least one APP is acrylic acid [0106].
As for claim 7, HAG teaches claim 1 and wherein said paper product [0015] results in an improved dry tensile strength [0002]. In addition:
The Examiner notes that HAG has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. the combination of composition of claim 1 and its inclusion in the formation of a paper product) which would result in the claimed properties. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the paper product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 8, HAG teaches the combination of materials of claim 1 and that it is supplied in a furnish wherein the furnish is an aqueous slurry of cellulosic fibers obtained from recycled fiber and the strength is improved [0015; 0109].
As for claim 9, HAG teaches the combination of claim 1 (which cover (a) and (b) and the net charge) and that the two are added together as a pre-mixed composition at a time point during paper making (as a blended composition) [0015-16; 0109].
As for claim 10, HAG teaches claim 9 and are formulated as aqueous solution with a solids content of 5-30 wt.% which falls overlaps the claimed range [0111],
Are added in the corresponding ratio [see claim 5 which teaches the ratio],
Have the corresponding net charge when combined [see claim 5 for the net charge],
Are added either during wet-end, formation of the paper product, or after [0112-113],
Are added in the amounts of up to 10% by weight of the GPAM which would amount to up to 30% of the APP [0114 see claim 5 for the ratios], this in turn assuming 1 ton of dry wt. cellulose fibers is up to 0.1 ton of GPAM/ton of dry wt. cellulose fibers = up to 220 pound GPAM / ton dry wt. cellulose fibers and up to 661 pound APP / ton dry wt. cellulose fibers which overlaps the claimed range.
Are added during said process during spraying, impregnating (immersing) [0112].
As for claim 11, HAG teaches claim 9 and this is understood to be substantially claim 3 but in the context of a process [see claim 3].
As for claim 12, HAG teaches claim 9 and this is understood to be substantially claim 2 but in the context of a process [see claim 2].
As for claim 13, HAG teaches claim 9 and comprising recycled fibers at a pH of 5-8 which overlaps the claimed range [0111-113].
As for claim 14, HAG teaches claim 9 and this is understood to be substantially claim 6 but in the context of a process [see claim 6].
As for claim 15, HAG teaches claim 9 and this is understood to be substantially claim 8 but in the context of a process [see claim 8].
As for claim 16, HAG teaches the combinations of claim 1 and its inclusion in a paper product [0111-113] and it is understood that this is a combination of the claim 10 (as it is understood that the dry weight dosages would continue in the paper product especially if applied after, the dry weight dosages of up to 10% for GPAM and up to 30% of the APP overlapping the claimed range) and claim 15.
As for claim 17, HAG teaches the process of claim 9 and its formation of a paper product [0111-113] and it is understood that this is a combination of the claim 10 (as it is understood that the dry weight dosages would continue in the paper product especially if applied after, the dry weight dosages of up to 10% for GPAM and up to 30% of the APP overlapping the claimed range) and claim 15.
As for claim 18, HAG teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the high molecular weight base polymer and the anionic polymeric promoter can be reacted to form a single molecule (as a polymer reaction solution, as the reactants are understood to be glyoxalated) therefore the anionic polymer has cationic monomers and the high molecular weight base polymer would further comprise one or more anionic monomers [0125-126]
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments and amendments pertaining to the double patenting have overcome the previously supplied double patenting rejection as they are now drawn to compositions of different bases.
Applicants arguments and amendments pertaining to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome the previously supplied rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 23-24 that Hagiopol fails to teach a cationic GPAM and non-glyoxalated anionic acrylamide-based promotor. Respectfully the Examiner disagrees as Hagiopol teaches that the anionic promotor can include acrylamide-acrylic acid [0106]. In addition the high density GPAM taught by Hagiopol is the combination of the groups a) and b) cited in the remarks on pg. 23 [0015-16] therefore the characteristics are understood to derive from the combination.
Applicant argues on pg. 23-24 that the component (a) fails to have a sufficiently high molecular weight. The Applicant cites a paragraph that describes the typical and preferred molecular weights, however the Examiner notes that the invention of Hagiopol is determined by the suitable elements, not solely the typical. As such the teaching at paragraph 0047 of the suitable base polymer (cationic polyacrylamide) ranging from 0.5 to 1000 kDa overlaps the claimed range regardless of what would often be a typical use case.
Applicant argues on pg. 24 that Hagiopol fails to teach a net charge density selected from the range of 0-5 meq/g of the combination. However Hagiopol teaches that the positive charge of the glyoxylated component would range from 2-5 meq/g which in the combination would have some positive charge removed by the addition of the anionic component and other reactions, the combination is still controlled to be positive in order to maintain a greater affinity for cellulose fibers i.e. serve as strength improving, therefore understood to be less than 5 and greater than 0. In addition, a final product charge density can be 1.26 meq/g which falls within the claimed range [0049; 0051; 0091; 0106; 0126].
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 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
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights