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
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the primary reference teaches the pH adjustment for the formation of the components but is silent as to the pH adjustments during the formation of the final mixture.
The amendments to the claims overcome the previously applied 112 and now mandate the presence of a pH adjustment instead of it being optional.
This argument is found to be persuasive, but it is noted that the reference does not teach away from the act of pH adjustments. The reference is merely silent to a pH adjustment at this point in the reaction. To show that pH adjustments during the final reactions and crosslinking of the same additive for papermaking, a new reference is presented.
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.
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) 1-8, 10-13, 16-17, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borkat et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0277735 in view of Schaffer, US Patent Publication 2008/0216979 in further view of Hund et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0325263.
Regarding claims 1 and 31, Borkat teaches a method of increasing the strength of paper (see claim 20 and abstract), comprising:
reacting a cationic dialdehyde-modified polyacrylamide polymer (see claim 20 and [0021]) with an amphoteric polymer to form a mixture (water soluble compound [0047] - see claim 20);
holding the mixture at the value for a period of time to form a crosslinked polymer ([0038-0039 and 0064] Borkat teaches that the pH is maintained to allow for the composition to form, also [0061] disclosed the interactions of the two components to form their own associations to prevent excessive self-crosslinking so that the composition does not become unusable);
and adding the crosslinked polymer to a pulp furnish (see claim 20).
Borkat teaches all of the claimed components even if some of the limitations are implied. It is the Examiner's stance that the method of Borkat reads on the limitations of holding the mixture at the value even if a distinct waiting or resting step is not mentioned. The period of time is not specified in claim 1 and the crosslinking of the two components in the mixture occur in the discloser of Borkat so that the composition can
be dried and stable for an extended shelf life before being re wetted and introduced into the pulp.
In the alternative, if Applicant wishes to argue that such a holding step is not present, the Schaffer reference is presented.
In the same field of endeavor of making a papermaking strength composition with treatment of a polyacrylamide, Schaffer teaches reacting a cationic dialdehyde polyacrylamide [0023] and that the crosslinking reactions will dependent on a combination of factors such as pH and time [0214] and that these factors should be actively controlled to allow for the crosslinking to occur. Schaffer teaches that the reaction should occur for less than 10 minutes for the crosslinking composition to be mixed (see claim 6) and that the pH is 8.05 in the reactor [0230] and is monitored with a pH probe [0220].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the mixing time of the reaction of less than 10 minutes as taught by Schaffer in the Borkat method that is merely silent to how long the reaction takes place.
In response to the argument that the pH controlling steps are doing for the formation of the cationic dialdehyde-modified polyacrylamide polymer and not the entire mixture itself, Hund is provided.
In the same field of endeavor of making a cationic dialdehyde-modified polyacrylamide polymer mixed with a amphoteric polymer (see claims), Hund teaches that the components are mixed together to form a “complex polymer” that is then utilized to a mixing tank to form the “additive” of the final product (see examples and claims).
Hund teaches the act of taking the complex copolymer and reacting it with a pH adjusted solution of 104 with the pH monitoring the reaction to control the viscosity of the final product (see Example 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the reaction of the components in a controlled pH environment of around 10 as that is what is shown in the prior art for the actual reaction of the copolymers for the benefit of adjusting and controlling the viscosity fo the final product formed.
Regarding claim 2, Schaffer further teaches a reaction of less than 10 minutes (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 3, Borkat further teaches that the polymer comprises a cationic monomer that dominates from a mol % over the anionic monomer [0036] with an example in claim 14 of 40% are reacted with 15% being active aldehyde functionality.
Regarding claims 4-5, Borkat teaches that the ratio of the polyacrylamide agent and the water soluble compound can be either 1:1 or 3:1 (see claims 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, Borkat further teaches that polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride monomers are utilized [0022].
Regarding claim 7, Borkat further teaches that the vinylamide monomers are methacrylamides and can be amphoteric [0028-0032].
Regarding claim 8, Borkat teaches controlling the charge of the amphoteric polymer [0036] with a preference to the overall charge being cationic [0036] but can be anionic if desired (see claim 12). Borkat further teaches a range of possible charge values of the different monomers in [0031-0034]. While an explicit charge ratio is not provided, the teaching that the mole ratio to control the charge of the polymer is expressly taught, and finding a workable range of a known parameter is within the ability of the average artisan through routine optimization.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Hund teaches that the pH is controlled to a value of around 10 (see examples).
Regarding claim 11, Borkat further teaches that the polymer has a molecular weight in a wide range of values less than 10 million Da [0028-0029].
Regarding claim 12, Borkat further teach the addition of other additives [0068] and additional embodiments that include more strength agents [0057 and 0017].
Regarding claim 16, Borkat further teaches that the dialdehyde-modified polyacrylamide may be further defined as a glyoxalated polyacrylamide that includes an aldehyde group [0021].
Regarding claim 17, Borkat teaches method where the composition is not added to fibers until after the mixing and crosslinking occurs (see claim 20).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borkat et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0277735 in view of Schaffer, US Patent Publication 2008/0216979 in further view of Hund et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0325263 and in view of Wright, USP 8,920,606.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Borkat is silent to the measuring of turbidity in the process.
In the same field of endeavor of adding strength additives to cellulose products, Wright teaches that the formulation of the additive is monitored by watching the turbidity results to a value of 0.5-500 NTU (see claim 15) to see how much of the reaction has taken place to known when to utilize the reaction additive (see columns 1 and 2). Wright further teaches using turbidity to measure when the additive is useful in the addition to a papermaking process (see column 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the act of monitoring the turbidity of the solution to calculate the reaction process and to know when it will be useful for addition it the papermaking process as taught by Wright in the Borkat method as a secondary monitoring system to track the reaction process would have been a useful and conventional addition to the process to arrive at a known and predictable end result.
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