Detailed Action
The communications received 03/03/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-16 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 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.
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) 1-4, 8-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilodeau et al (US 2020/0347549 cited in the IDS filed 10/28/2024 as WO2019075184A1) hereinafter BIL as evidenced by paperonweb (PROPERTIES OF PULP) hereinafter PRO and paperonweb (DICTIONARY OF PULP) hereinafter DIC.
As for claim 1, BIL teaches a method for the production of a modified pulp, wherein the method comprises the steps of:- providing a wood pulp furnish (market pulp before it contains fibril-filler and before it is dried) [0038];- mixing the wood pulp furnish with highly refined pulp, microfibrillated cellulose, or both to obtain a fibrous suspension (adding the fibril filler which can have highly refined pulp) [0038], wherein a total content of the highly refined pulp and/or microfibrillated cellulose in the fibrous suspension obtained is in a range of from 2 to 15 weight-%, based on a total dry solid content (5-15% which falls within the claimed range) [0038] and, drying the fibrous suspension to obtain a modified pulp having a moisture content of less than 15 wt-% (as the suspension is dried in order to be transported, this is understood to mean that the moisture is very low) [0045]. In addition PRO and DIC evidence that a market pulp which is dried would be dried to a moisture amount of about 10% [PRO: Moisture Content of Market Pulp and DIC: Air Dry (AD)].
BIL does not explicitly teach:
wherein the fibrous suspension has a dewatering resistance measured as Schopper-Riegler (SR) number in a range of 14-20, as determined by standard ISO 5267-1;
However BIL teaches that the freeness of the pulp (CSF) which determines the dewatering resistance of the pulp is controlled in accordance to desired speed of pulp production against fiber bonding strength of the pulp [0029; 0057; 0065]. Therefore the dewatering resistance is a routinely optimized variable.
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)].
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 arrived to the claimed SR value range which is a dewatering resistance as BIL teaches that the dewatering resistance is a routinely optimized variable.
As for claim 2, BIL teaches claim 1 and refer to the rationale of the SR range above.
As for claims 3-4, BIL teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the lamella like fines would be the nanofibrils (length of 0.1-4.0mm and width of 1-200 nm which is less than 10um) used as fibril filler [0028], their inclusion would be in the amounts of 5-15 wt% which overlaps 10-20% and 14-18% [0038]. Although this is not the exact percentage as calculated by the Applicant it is understood that the length of each object would contribute to its relative weight contribution in the pulp and therefore would be substantially the same.
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 8, the crill value is determined by the amount of fibrillation i.e. the degree/extent of refining in the context of producing microfibrillated cellulose which influences the % fines and the fiber length [0028; 0037-38]. This affects the overall surface area of the resultant fibril which influences the ability of the fibril to crosslink and bond in both manners that contribute to the strength of the pulp and also detract from the ability of the pulp to retain strength when dried [0042-45; 0057-66]. Therefore the crill value is a routinely optimized variable.
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)].
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 arrived to the claimed crill value range which is a degree of refinement value as BIL teaches that the degree of refinement is a routinely optimized variable.
As for claim 9, see claim 7.
As for claim 10, BIL teaches claim 1 and the resultant pulp.
As for claim 11, this is the resultant pulp of claims 1 and 3 which is taught by BIL.
As for claim 12, BIL teaches claim 1 and an intermediate product comprising the fibrous suspension that is then dewatered and dried to a moisture content of less than 15 wt-% (the cross linked enhanced market pulp which is then dried again, it is understood that a re-pulped pulp would need to be dewatered to be dried) [0003; 0013; 0075].
As for claim 13, BIL teaches claim 10 and the production of a fibrous product from the modified pulp [0015].
As for claim 14, BIL teaches claim 13 and wherein the product is a paper [0015].
As for claim 16, this is the resultant fibrous suspension produced by the combination of claims 1, and 3 both of which are taught by BIL. 1
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIL in view of Luo (US 2018/0363245) hereinafter LUO.
As for claims 5-6, BIL teaches a kraft pulp [0035] but does not teach a hemicellulose nor lignin content.
LUO teaches a kraft pulp which can be used in a blend with a hemicellulose content of 6-20 wt % which overlaps the claimed range and a lignin content of less than 1.0 % which falls within the claimed range [0093-107]. The pulp of LUO has desirable properties [0073-74].
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 kraft pulp of LUO as the one of BIL as LUO’s has desirable properties. As both LUO and BIL utilize kraft pulp they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination/replacement.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIL in view of Miller et al (US 2017/0254025) hereinafter MIL.
As for claim 7, BIL teaches claim 1 and although BIL does not teach an explicit fiber length content, it does teach that the refining can occur such that the refined fiber lengths fall within 0.2-0.5mm [0037] which is substantially all of the highly refined pulp having a content of fibers with a length greater than 0.2mm. However the millions per gram of fibers is not taught.
MIL teaches that using fiber populations of refined fibers as great as 200 billion fibers per gram contributes to improved bulk and strength [0137; 0141].
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 refined fibers of MIL as the refined fibers of BIL in order to obtain improved strength and bulk.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIL in view of Everett et al (US 2020/0063355) hereinafter EVE.
As for claim 15, BIL teaches claim 14 but does not teach the production of a grease proof or glassine paper.
EVE teaches that one product that is usable in packaging and produced from a wide variety of pulps is a grease proof paper [0647].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the pulp of BIL into a grease proof paper as taught by EVE in order to produce a useful packaging product. As EVE teaches that multiple varieties of pulp can be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized EVE as pertinent to the issue of how to employ the pulp product of BIL to create a useful product.
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
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights