Detailed Action
The communications received 09/27/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the roll or belt” should be changed to “the heated roll or heated belt” in order to maintain consistency and clarity in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backfolk et al (WO 2019/198040) hereinafter BAC in view of Saukkonen et al (WO 2019/123238) hereinafter SAU.
As for claim 1, BAC teaches a method for manufacturing a barrier substrate (via production of a paperboard/paper/film with a coating this has good barrier properties) [Abstract; pg. 1 l. 7-15; pg. 2 l. 23-35], comprising:
Providing a web with at least a first layer in which said first layer comprises at least 30 wt% highly refined cellulose fibers having an SR of 60-95 or at least 30 wt% MFC based on the total dry weight of the first layer (first suspension is a nanocellulose with 70-100 wt% nanocellulose which can be microfibrillated cellulose) [pg. 3 l. 5-17], or both,
Wherein the web has a first and second side [pg. 2 l. 30-35],
Providing a heated roll or a heated belt (via calendar with at least one roll or belt, understood to be heated on the surface in order to dry) [pg. 3 l. 1-5; pg. 4 l. 7-25]
In a first coating step applying a first composition comprising a polymer (second suspension includes a polymer) in an aqueous medium (understood to be an aqueous medium as water is removed from the second suspension once coated) [pg. 3 l. 17-23; pg. 4 l. 20-25] on the first side of the belt (applying the second suspension via calendar) [pg. 8 l. 7-23] while the second side is in contact with the heated roller or heated belt in order to evaporate the aqueous medium to form a first barrier layer on the web thereby making a barrier coated web (it is understood that this would occur as the web could be conducted through the nip of the calendar during the coating step, the coating understood to be done merely at an applied surface of a roll or belt to form a coating web) [pg. 8 l. 10-23; pg. 10 l. 20-29; pg. 10 l. 34-pg. 11 l. 4; claim 1], followed by an optional drying step (the rest of the calendar/additional calendars) [pg. 8 l. 7-37].
BAC does not explicitly teach a Gurley air resistance of at least 1000 s / 100 ml although BAC teaches an oxygen transmission rate that is optimally low for packaging purposes
SAU teaches that a similar multi-layered product that also comprises nanocellulose, with an additional layer formed of polymer attached to one side of the multi-layered product has nanocellulose based layer having an air resistance of less than 4000 s/100ml [Abstract] which overlaps the claimed range. This amount of air resistance allows for the achieving of a good barrier product in an efficient way [pg. 2 l. 6-8; pg. 2 l. 19-30].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the air resistance values of SAU in BAC in order to provide an overall multi-layered barrier product efficiently. As both BAC and SAU pertain to nanocellulose based barrier products with an added layer of polymer over the nanocellulose layer, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
As for claim 2, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches that the web has a grammage of less than 65 gsm (as the film would have a grammage of 30 gsm which falls within the claimed range and which is understood to correspond to the first suspension produced from a nanocellulose) [pg. 11 l. 19-24].
As for claim 3, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein the web has a density of above 600 kg/m^3 (700-1400 kg/m^3 which falls within the claimed range) [pg. 11 l. 19-24].
As for claim 9, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein the temperature of the heated roll or heated belt is between 60-90 degrees Celsius which falls within the claimed range [pg. 8 l. 6-10].
As for claim 10, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein the polymer of the first composition which is dispersed in the aqueous medium is a polyvinyl alcohol, a modified polyvinyl alcohol (with acetate), a polysaccharide and/or modified polysaccharide (cellulose and modified celluloses), and/or combinations thereof [pg. 7 l. 4-13].
As for claim 11, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein the first composition comprises a latex emulsion (styrene butadiene copolymers which form a latex emulsion in the context of aqueous medium) [pg. 7 l. 10-13].
As for claim 12, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein said first composition has a solid (dry) content of between 1-20 wt% (4-40% by weight which overlaps the claimed range) [pg. 2 l. 34-pg. 3 l. 2].
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
As for claim 14, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC further teaches wherein the first barrier layer has a coat weight of 0.1-10 gsm which falls within the claimed range [pg. 4 l. 3-7].
As for claim 15, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and BAC teaches it further comprises: applying at least one second composition comprising a polymer dispersed/dissolved in an aqueous medium on the first side of the web in at least one second coating step to provide the web with an additional barrier layer (via multiple coatings and multiple calendars which could provide the same constituents as the second suspension but on both sides of the web) [pg. 8 l. 27-37].
As for claim 16, BAC/SAU teaches claim 15 and it is understood that as both sides of the web would be coated that the same grammage would be applied to the other side of the web, therefore the coating weight grammage would be 0.1-10 gsm which falls within the claimed range [BAC: pg. 4 l. 3-7].
As for claim 17, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 and by extension the produced barrier substrate [see claim 1].
As for claim 18, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 with its resultant barrier substrate [see claim 17] followed by laminating said barrier substrate with at least one additional polymer layer or extruding at least one additional polymer layer on the barrier substrate in order to form a laminate [BAC: pg. 5 l. 10-14].
As for claim 19, BAC/SAU teaches claim 18 and the barrier substrate laminate is produced [see claim 18].
As for claim 20, BAC/SAU teaches claim 17 and the production of a paper based packaging using the barrier substrate [BAC: pg. 5 l. 15-16].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAC/SAU as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Heiskanen et al (US 2015/0096700) hereinafter HEI.
As for claim 4, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 but fails to teach a water absorption value of the web.
HEI teaches that in a similar web based on MFC [Abstract] that a hydrophobic sizing can be utilized to provide the web with a Cobb water absorption value of less than 30 g / m^2 which overlaps the claimed range [0019; 0033]. This helps to counter the excess amount of water that MFC tends to hold which improves drying [0018].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the hydrophobic sizing of HEI to the web of BAC/SAU in order to improve the drying of the MFC based layer. As HEI addresses an issue found in the MFC that is used by BAC/SAU, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to HEI for a solution and would have expected success in the combination.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAC/SAU as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Toft et al (US 2018/0311940) hereinafter TOF.
As for claim 5, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 but fails to teach a wet strength.
TOF teaches that a paper that is going to be coated with a similar composition to the one of BAC/SAU (as it has a polyvinyl alcohol in aqueous medium) and wherein that layer is dried ideally has a wet strength that ranges from 0.4-0.6 kN/m (which falls within the claimed range) in order to prevent deformation/damage from the application of the coating [0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the web of BAC/SAU to have the wet strength of TOF in order to prevent deformation/damage when being coated by an aqueous based coating. As both BAC/SAU and TOF pertain to barrier substrates (barrier paper) [TOF: 0030], they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAC/SAU as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Neagu et al (US 2020/0039713) hereinafter NEA.
As for claim 6, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 but does not teach internal sizing.
NEA teaches that in a microfibrillated cellulose based layer used in packaging that one manner of improving the water repelling properties of the resultant packaging board is by adding an internal sizing in amounts up to 4 kg/ton (which overlaps the claimed range) [0041; 0077].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added internal sizing of NEA to the web
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAC/SAU as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lares et al (US 2004/0244608) hereinafter LAR.
As for claim 7, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 but fails to teach the heated roller being heated via induction.
LAR teaches that in calendaring that one known way of heating a heated roller is via induction [Abstract; 0009].
In accordance with the MPEP a combination of prior art elements according known methods to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the induction heating of LAR to the heated roll of BAC/SAU in order to provide the heated roller with a means of heating itself. In addition this would amount to a combination of a heated roller with a manner of heating it according to the known method of supplying the heated roller with an induction heater to yield the predictable result of heating the roller. As both LAR and BAC/SAU utilize heated rollers in a calendar they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 8, BAC/SAU/LAR teach claim 7 and BAC further teaches that the key to the calendaring and its heat is to avoid boiling of the applied on the calender roll/belt while still drying the first composition on the surface of the calender to a required dry content [pg. 4 l. 11-25].
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured the dry content of the first suspension deposited on the resultant barrier coated web and adjust the heat of the heated cylinders in order to be certain that the required dry content is achieved without causing any boiling of the first composition during its application.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAC/SAU as applied to claim 1 as evidenced by/in view of Pereira et al (US 2021/0207325) hereinafter PER.
As for claim 13, BAC/SAU teaches claim 1 but fails to teach a water retention value.
PER teaches that in layers employing MFC in packaging [Abstract] that the concentration of MFC of said layer corresponds to the water retention value (WRV) [Fig.40, 48, 55, 62, 0059; 0067; 0074; 0081; 0151]. Therefore as the MFC has the concentration as required in claim 1, it is understood that it would have the requisite WRV. In addition, PER further teaches that the WRV would be a variable that would be adjusted in experimentation as its increase impedes water drainage while also corresponding to the content of MFC while an increase of MFC which causes the increase in WRV also improves physical properties of the layer in which it is included such as the strength (tensile and bursting) and improved smoothness and air resistance [0152].
In accordance with the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the WRV to the range claimed as PER teaches the WRV is a property of MFC inclusion that runs counter to the processing ease of the layer which is balanced against the advantageous properties imbued by the MFC such as strength, smoothness and airflow resistance. As PER also pertains to packaging barrier layers it is analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the application of its teachings.
Conclusion
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
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights