Detailed Action
The communications received 12/02/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1-19 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.
As for claim 1, the limitation “wherein the z strength of the CTMP is at least 150 kPa, when measured according to ISO 15754:2009 after sheet forming according to ISO 5269-2:2004.” Because it is unclear whether “after sheet forming” refers to sheet forming of the entire board, of solely the CTMP, or of an individual web of the method. For purposes of examination this is understood to mean after forming of the entire board. Dependent claims are similarly rejected. The Examiner notes that should the Applicant wish to claim solely the sheet formed from CTMP that phrasing such as “wherein the z strength of a sheet made from the CTMP furnish” or similar. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the z strength” although on its surface, the z strength appears to have insufficient antecedent basis, the Examiner notes that as defined in the specification, the z strength is a z-directional tensile strength, a property that any web/sheet/board would have innately, therefore there is sufficient antecedent basis for “the z strength” [refer to paragraph 0015-17 of the instant specification]. Therefore this limitation IS NOT rejected under 35 USC § 112.
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) 1-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietaniemi et al (US 2021/0002830) hereinafter HIE in view of Heiskanen et al (US 2024/0240406) hereinafter NEN.
As for claim 1, a method of producing a multi-layered liquid packaging board (LPB) comprising a print layer, a back layer and a middle layer (top ply, inner ply, and back ply) [0027; 0053], said method comprising the steps of:
- providing a chemithermomechanical pulp (CTMP) and forming a middle layer furnish comprising the CTMP, broke pulp [0066-67; Table 5] and;
- forming a middle layer web from the middle layer furnish in a forming section of a full- scale paperboard machine [0029];
- forming a print layer web from a print layer furnish in the forming section [0029],
- forming a back layer web from a back layer furnish in the forming section [0029],
- merging the print layer web to the middle layer web by couching at a couching dryness above 10% (0.5-25% which overlaps the claimed range) [0017], wherein the z strength of the CTMP is at least 150 kPa (the listed values fall within the claimed range) [Table 3 ZDT 2-6; 0064], when measured according to ISO 15754:2009 after sheet forming according to ISO 5269-2:2004.
HIE fails to teach the hydrophobic size.
NEN teaches that in multi-layered packaging that an internal sizing agent which is a hydrophobic size can be used in the furnishes that produce the plies [Abstract; 0069-70] which aid in the performance of the ply (as a performance chemical) [0058].
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 size of NEN to the plies of HIE in order to improve their performance. As both HIE and NEN pertain to multilayered packaging they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 2, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and NEN further teaches that a preferred multi-layered packaging has a tensile index (as an SCT index) of greater than 25 Nm/g (which falls within the claimed range) [0075]. This range of tensile index is understood to be a property that an ideal a multi-layered packaging with good strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability would have [0015].
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 tensile index of the multi-layered packaging to the one taught by NEN in order to achieve a multi-layered packaging with good strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability.
As for claim 3, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches that a CTMP used is refined to a 440 mL which falls within the claimed range [0066].
As for claims 4 and 5, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches wherein the proportion of the CTMP in the middle layer furnish is above 20% and 30% by dry weight (at 80% which falls within the claimed range) [Table 5 middle ply, CTMP at 80 with broke at 20 which works out to 80% and 20% respectively].
As for claim 6, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches wherein the proportion of broke pulp in the middle layer furnish is less than 35% (at 20% which falls within the claimed range) [Table 5 middle ply, CTMP at 80 with broke at 20 which works out to 80% and 20% respectively].
As for claim 7, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and NEN further teaches that one pulp that can be incorporated is softwood kraft pulp (unbleached pine/spruce craft pulp) [0037], this is understood to contribute to the achieving the combined benefits of strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability [0015].
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 softwood kraft pulp of NEN to the middle layer furnish as a means of contributing to the achieving of the combined benefits of strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability.
As for claim 8, HIE/NEN teach claim 7 and NEN further teaches that the amounts in which the softwood kraft is present are at least 20 wt. % which overlaps the claimed range [0037].
As for claim 10, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches that the z strength of the middle layer furnish is at least 375 kPa [Table 3 ZDT 2-6; 0062-63].
As for claim 11, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches that the CTMP is obtained by post-refining CTMP from a CTMP production process (as the CTMP is refined after it is produced) [0066].
As for claim 12, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and HIE further teaches wherein less than 1 gsm of starch is provided in the interface between the print layer web and the middle layer web (as an interfacial strength component of 0.05-0.5 gsm which would have a weight ratio of strength component: starch of 0.1:1 to 0.4:1 which results in a starch value of ~0.125-5 gsm which overlaps the claimed range) [0045; 0056].
As for claims 13-15, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and NEN further teaches that the performance of the performance enhancing chemicals which would be added to all the plies to improve performance such as the hydrophobic size are added in amounts of 0.5-5 kg/ton which overlaps the claimed ranges of at least 1.5 kg/ton and at least 2.5 kg/ton [0071].
As for claim 16, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and NEN further teaches that the hydrophobic size which would be included in all the plies would be ASA, AKD, rosin size and their combinations [0070].
As for claim 17, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and although HIE teaches that the CTMP is in exemplary amounts of 80% which falls above the claimed range [Table 5 middle ply] NEN teaches that unbleached kraft pulp can also be incorporated in amounts as high as at least 30% without compromising strength performance (as it still achieves desired strength properties) [0017; 0037] and in particular aids in the production of a multi-layered packaging that has combined strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability [0015].
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 unbleached kraft pulp of NEN and thereby displace some of the CTMP of HIE in order to achieve a combination of strength, low grammage, water/moisture resistance, low chemical consumption, low cost, and/or high recyclability without compromising strength performance. This would therefore put the CTMP at a range of less than 50%, which overlaps the claimed range.
As for claim 18, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and wherein the print layer web is merged to the middle layer web by couching at a couching dryness above 13% (0.5-25% which overlaps the claimed range) [0017].
As for claim 19, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and wherein the z strength of the CTMP is at least 180 kPa (the ZDT measurements all fall within the claimed range) [0062-63; Table 3 ZDT 2-6].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hietaniemi et al (US 2021/0002830) hereinafter HIE in view of Heiskanen et al (US 2024/0240406) hereinafter NEN and further in view of Schwaiger et al (US 2024/0401275) hereinafter SCH.
As for claim 9, HIE/NEN teach claim 1 and that the CTMP of the middle layer can be refined [HIE: 0066] but fail to teach the SR value.
SCH teaches that in packaging material of multiple layers [Abstract; 0012] that a good SR value to achieve good uniformity, tension, and elasticity is 13-20 degrees which overlaps the claimed range [0004-6].
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 SR of the middle furnish of HIE/NEN to have the SR value of SCH in order to achieve to achieve good uniformity, tension, and elasticity. As both SCH and HIE/NEN pertain to multi-layered packaging materials they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
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 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights