Detailed Officer Action
The communication dated 11/8/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
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 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.
Claim 10 is 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.
In claim 10 the applicant claims an average fiber length. It is not clear if this is an arithmetic average or length weighted average fiber length. The effect of the difference between these two is especially strong with high amounts of fines.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 17 -20 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 WO 2019/171279 LAND et al., hereinafter LAND.
As for claims 1-6, 13, 14, and 19, LAND discloses a MFC film made of microfibrillated dialdehyde cellulose and that the MFC can be applied to a substrate [abstract]. LAND discloses that it can be used for food packaging [pg. 2 lines 30-35]. LAND discloses making the MFC film from the non-wood agricultural feedstock of bagasse [pg. 3 lines 29-30]. LAND discloses the pulp that has been chemically modified by to be a dialdehyde cellulose [pg. 5 lines 5-10].
As LAND discloses substantially the same product an A-MFC film made with substantially the same starting material bagasse and modified to a dialdehyde cellulose structure with the same additives it would have substantially the same oil absorbency properties as claimed or be an obvious variant thereof.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
As for claim 7, LAND claims 5-95% first degree fibers and 5-95% second degree oxidized fibers in the film [claim 6]. This means the film comprises 10-100% oxidized MFC fibers which overlaps the instant claimed range with sufficient specificity (the claimed range of about 95% includes 100% based on applicant’s ‘about’ definition) or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claim 8, LAND discloses softeners including glycerol and other additives including starch [pg. 13 lines 26-34].
As for claim 9, LAND discloses a length of 1-10 microns [pg. 15 lines 1-10] which is much less than the holes of a 200-mesh screen (76 microns) therefore categorizing them as about 100% fines according to the applicant’s definition. 100% fines falls within the claimed range of “about 95%”.
As for claims 15, 17, and 18, LAND discloses a strain at break of 4% [claim 19]. LAND does not disclose the tensile or WVTR. However, as LAND discloses substantially the same product an A-MFC film made with substantially the same starting material bagasse and modified to a dialdehyde cellulose structure with the same additives it would have substantially the same tensile and WVTR properties as claimed or be an obvious variant thereof.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
As for claim 20, NYLEN discloses the MFC film can be on a paper substrate [pg. 4 lines 9-11, pg. 7 lines 21-22].
Claims 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/171279 LAND et al., hereinafter LAND, in view of WO 2022/180536 A1, NYLEN et al., hereinafter NYLEN.
As for claims 11, 12, and 16, LAND discloses a basis weight for the film of 10-35 g/m2 [pg. 14 lines 25-26] but does not disclose the thickness of the film. NYLEN in the same art of packaging films made of MFC discloses a thickness of 20-40 microns which falls within the claimed range [pg. 10 lines 17-18].
At the time of the invention it would be prima facie obvious to apply a known packing film caliper (thickness) of NYLEN to the packing film of LAND. The person would expect that applying the known thickness to the known product of LAND that it would be of sufficient thickness for packaging. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both teach A-MFC films.
From these values the bulk and density can be calculated:
thickness
thickness
grammage
grammage
density
bulk
microns
cm
g/m2
g/cm2
g/cm3
cm3/g
20
0.002
10
0.001
0.5
2.00
20
0.002
35
0.0035
1.75
0.57
40
0.004
10
0.001
0.25
4.00
40
0.004
35
0.0035
0.875
1.14
The bulk ranges from 0.57 cm3/g to 4 cm3/g which overlaps with the claimed range. The density ranges from 0.25 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 which overlaps within the claimed range
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, and 14-20 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 WO2017141205 HEISKANEN et al., hereinafter HEISKANEN.
As for claim 1-3 and 14-20, HEISKANEN discloses a film for food packaging [pg. 1 lines 7-10 and pg. 6 lines 6-9] comprising fibers less than 1 mm [claim 1, pg. 5 lines 21-25] which are fibrillated [claim 6, pg. 5 lines 25-30]. The fiber may be made from agricultural bagasse [pg. 6 lines 30-32]
As HEISKANEN discloses substantially the same product an A-MFC film made with substantially the same starting material bagasse would have the same oil absorbency, tensile, WVTR, and stretch properties as claimed or be an obvious variant thereof.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
As for claim 7, HEISKANEN discloses at least 75% of the less than 1 mm fibrillated cellulose [pg. 3 lines 26-30] which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or makes a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claim 8, HEISKANEN discloses starch [Table 1].
As for claim 10, HEISKANEN discloses 1 mm or less [claim 1, pg. 5 lines 21-25] which encompasses the claimed range making a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11- 16, 19 , and 20 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 WO 2022/180536 A1, NYLEN et al., hereinafter NYLEN.
As for claims 1-5, 7, 13, and 14, NYLEN discloses a MFC film or coating on a substrate [abstract, pg. 5 lines 27-29]. NYLEN discloses that it can be used for packaging [pg. 2 lines 1-2]. NYLON discloses making the MFC film from the non-wood agricultural feedstock of bagasse [pg. 7 lines 31-32]. . NYLEN discloses the pulp that has been chemically modified by TEMPO to form carboxymethylated A-MFC [pg.2 lines 19-22].
NYLEN discloses the film comprises 80-90% by weight MFC which falls within the claimed range [pg. 20 lines 14-15].
As NYLEN discloses substantially the same product an A-MFC film made with substantially the same starting material bagasse and modified to an oxidized cellulose structure it would have substantially the same oil absorbency properties as claimed or be an obvious variant thereof.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
As for claim 6, NYLEN discloses carboxymethylated A-MFC which meets the claim. The claim only limits the term “oxidized cellulose”. The applicant would need to claim “wherein the modified A-MFC is oxidized MFC or carboxymethylated and oxidized MFC and the oxidized MFC comprises dialdehyde cellulose.”
As for claim 11, NYLEN discloses a thickness of 20-40 microns which falls within the claimed range [pg. 10 lines 17-18].
As for claims 12 and 16, NYLEN discloses a thickness of 20-40 microns which falls within the claimed range [pg. 10 lines 17-18] and a film weight of 20-45 g/m2 [pg. 10 lines 19-20]. From these values the bulk and density can be calculated.
thickness
thickness
grammage
grammage
density
bulk
microns
cm
g/m2
g/cm2
g/cm3
cm3/g
20
0.002
20
0.002
1
1.00
20
0.002
45
0.0045
2.25
0.44
40
0.004
20
0.002
0.5
2.00
40
0.004
45
0.0045
1.125
0.89
The bulk ranges from 0.44 cm3/g to 2 cm3/g which overlaps with the claimed range. The density ranges from 0.5 g/cm3 to 2.25 g/cm3 which overlaps with the claimed range
As for claims 15, 17, and 18, NYLEN does not disclose, the stretch, the tensile or WWTR. However, as NYLEN discloses substantially the same product an A-MFC film made with substantially the same starting material bagasse and modified to an oxidized structure it would have substantially the same stretch, tensile and WVTR properties as claimed or be an obvious variant thereof.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
As for claim 19, NYLEN discloses that it can be used for packaging [pg. 2 lines 1-2]. The use of the packaging material for a food or beverage is an intended use of the product claimed on not limiting. The film of NYLEN could be used for a food.
As for claim 20, NYLEN discloses the MFC film can be on a paper substrate [pg. 4 lines 9-11, pg. 7 lines 21-22].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights