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 .
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite as to what would be considered “highly refined pulp.”
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson et al., (hereinafter Larsson) in “Towards optimised size distribution in commercial microfibrillated cellulose: a fractionation approach.”
With regard to claims 1, 3 and 5-9, Larsson discloses in comparison A process for preparing a treated fibrous material in the form of a suspension or a wet web; see abstract and page 1569 "Vacuum-assisted dewatering and film fabrication": the study discloses manufacturing of suspensions and wet films of fractionated MFC comprising the steps of:
a) providing a suspension comprising MFC or highly refined pulp, wherein the MFC or highly refined pulp is at least 50% of the solids of the suspension and wherein the suspension has a dewatering resistance measured as Schopper-Riegler (SR) value according to EN ISO 5267-1 in the range of from 72 to 99 SRº; see page 1567 "Microfibrillated cellulose": which are known to have SRº within the claimed range1.
b) removing 2 wt-% to 25 wt-% of the solids from the suspension, wherein the content of flake-like fine material having a length less than 0.2 mm in the removed fraction is at least 50 %, determined as a percentage of the projection area of all measured objects in the removed fraction; see page 1569, Fig 1(b) that teaches that about 20 wt-% finest fraction F4 is removed by a 1-2 µm metal mesh from MFC B, which is understood to mean that also the defined size property of the removed fraction is fulfilled;
c) adjusting the solid content of the suspension from step b) to at least 2 wt.-% solid content; see page 1569 "Vacuum-assisted dewatering and film fabrication": a wet film was made from the fraction F3 - corresponding to the suspension from step b - by vacuum-assisted filtration through a circular microporous membrane, and it is understood that the solid content of the wet film at least will be 2 wt.-%, otherwise it would not be considered as a film); and
d) subjecting the fibrous material in the suspension from step c) to a heat treatment step wherein the suspension is subjected to a temperature of 93 ºC for 15 min; see “Vacuum-assisted dewatering and fil, fabrication” section on page 1569; which is within the range of from 50 to 150 °C for at least 10 seconds to obtain a treated fibrous material, wherein the heat treatment is carried out on the suspension and/or on a wet web formed from the suspension and also reads on claim 3. Note that a film was formed and therefore, reading on claims 5-9.
With regard to claim 2, Larsson teaches a water MFC suspension which is considered to be in within the claimed range. This is more evident by the fact that to measure the total surface charge the suspension the pH of the suspension was adjusted to a pH of 2 by the addition 1 M hydrochloric acid; see “Total and surface charge determination” header on page 1567.
Regarding claim 4, to use cast forming on polymer or metal belt is a well-known alternative o wet laying of an MFC film, see e.g. WO 2020/095254 A1 see page 6, lines 13-25) or WO 2021/160608 A1; see page 9, lines 3-15, (Both cited in the IDS filed on December 13, 2024). Therefore, to substitute wet laying for cast forming on polymer or metal belt for obtaining an MFC film, as in claim 4, is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. Since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if other known procedures to form a MFC film/paper were used instead of the process taught by the reference. Note that it has been held that “[W]here two equivalents are interchangeable for their desired function, substitution would have been obvious and thus, express suggestion of desirability of the substitution of one for the other is unnecessary.” In re Fout 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967).
Regarding to claim 10, Larsson teaches that the film made with MFC can be used as a barrier film, which are commonly used in packaging; see page 1566, “Introduction” header.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Process for Producing a Fibrous Material.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 Microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) typically has a Schopper-Riegler (SR) value in the range of 80–100, indicating a highly refined pulp suitable for multilayer film applications. See also column 3, lines 59-62 of United State Patent No. 11,198,973 B2; ¶-[0040] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0324580 A1; ¶-[0014], [0016], [0043] and claim 16 of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0023627 A1; ¶-[0120], [0126]-[0128] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0315747 A1, just to cite a few.
Prosecution Insights