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 § 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 20-31 are 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.
Claims 20 and 26 are vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the barrier coating is applied in solid form/powder and the 2% solution is just to measure the viscosity of the powder in solution, i.e., the depolymerization, or the 2% solution is also how the coating is applied, and thus the metes and bounds of patent protection desired cannot be ascertained.
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 20-21, 23, 25-27, 29 and 31 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 any of Biasotti et al., (hereinafter Biasotti), EP 2492395 A1 and Nobel-Bozel, GB 1,056,711.
With regard to claims 20, 23, 25-26, 29 and 31, both Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel teach a barrier coating of fibrous material, such as cardboard and paper, in which the fibrous material is coated with a coating solution comprising galactomannans, such as guar and locus bean gums, which gum has been depolymerized by an acid treatment and then neutralized with a base, and thus the gum(s) do not contain halogens and have viscosity in a 2% solution in the falling range. Biasotti explicitly teaches that the coating resist oil and grease resistant and although Nobel-Bozel does not explicitly teaches the oil and grease resistant of the coating since it teaches the stiffening of boards, such properties are inherent to its invention, since Nobel-Bozel teaches the same coating process comprising the same claimed gum and added at overlapping range, i.e. overlapping the range of claims 25 and 31; see ¶-[022], [0025]-[0026] , [0027]-[0029] (for the viscosity range), [0032], [0037] and [0040]-[0041] of Biasotti and page 1, lines 61-78, page 2, lines 74-85, page 2, line 121 through page 3, line 11 and page 2 , lines 86-108 and page 3, lines 32-54 (for the viscosity of the solution). Note that both, Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel, teach the use of a powder gum; see page 3, lines 3-11 of Nobel-Bozel and examples of Biasotti, see for example ¶-[0049] which teaches that 100 g of mixture of guar gum and inorganic phosphate salts were mixed together and then added water, which clearly means that the mixture was in solid, powder form or at the very least using the blend in powder form would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding to claims 21 and 27, both Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel teach the addition of additives and adjuvants of the same type as claimed; see ¶-[0031] and [0035] of Biasotti and page 2, lines 117-128 and page 3, lines 21-27 of Nobel-Bozel which teaches the use of glyoxal, which is an hydrophobing agent.
It seems that the cited references teach all the limitations of the above claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 22, 24, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel, cited above in view of Foster, United State Patent No. 3,346,556.
None of the cited references, Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel, teach the use of the claimed adjuvants (claims 22 and 28) nor the use of the coating in a multilayer coating.
With regard to claims 22 and 28, the use of the claimed adjuvants and multilayer coating are well-known in the art as evidenced by Foster that teaches the use of sorbitol and other alcohols as a way to stabilize the solution/emulsion; see column 2, lines 30-69. Therefore, the use of such adjuvants would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to stabilize the gum(s) solution.
Regarding to claims 24 and 30, the multilayer coating of papers, boards and molded product is well-known in the art1 and considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Claims 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al., (hereinafter Tang), CN 101974100 A in view of any Biasotti and Nobel-Bozel.
Tang teaches a gar gum in powder form which has been depolymerized by acid and them neutralized with base and them dried and pulverized to a powder; see abstract. Tang also teaches that the powder can be used as sizing agent on paper; see ¶-[0068], which is known to be applied as a solution to the surface of the paper. As to the depolymerization degree, i.e. the viscosity of a solution at 2%, the secondary references teach id that it is common to use gums at such viscosity range, since it is easier to handle it in coating solutions and thus depolymerization to such viscosity would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to obtain the benefits indicated by the secondary references. Note that for claim 26, the viscosity of the applied solution is not a limitation, since the product would not retain said solution viscosity, but just the coating material(s) and thus the sizing paper taught by Tang would have the same claimed property/materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Water-Based Barrier Coating of Native Substances for Paper, Cardboard or Moulded Pulp.”
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 The examiner takes official notice of this fact and will present proof/evidence if necessary.
Prosecution Insights