DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/18/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 are amended. Claims 15-20 are new. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are elected. Claims 12-16 are non-elected and not considered.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-3, 5-11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACKFOLK (US 20220372250 A1) in view of TOUBEAU (US 20160016717 A1).
For claim 1, BACKFOLK teaches the production of a translucent paper with a translucent base paper [0046]. This base paper uses a mix of wood pulp and microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) [0106]. This teaches the limitation of “A translucent paper comprising: a base paper layer, wherein the base paper layer comprises a mixture of wood pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose”. BACKFOLK teaches the paper has a transmittance of at least 65% [0046]. This range is within the rage of “the translucent paper has a transmittance of 60% or more according to DIN 53147,”.
BACKFOLK does not teach the refinement value of the wood and MFC alone. TOUBEAU teaches the use of natural fibers and highly refined cellulose like BACKFOLK [abstract]. TOUBEAU teaches the wood pulp has a value of 50 SR [abstract]. This matches the range of the instant claim limitation of “wherein the wood pulp fiber has a degree of Schopper-Riegler (SR) of more than or equal to 50 SR”. TOUBEAU also teaches the paper is made of a mixture of natural fiber and nanofibrillar polysaccharide (MFC) [0048] at 12 to 60% [abstract]. This ranges are within the ranges overlap the instant claim range of “the microfibrillated cellulose is comprised in the mixture of pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose in an amount of 10 weight percent to about 50 weight percent, based on the weight of the mixture of wood pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose”. TOUBEAU also teaches the natural wood fiber is refined to a SR degree of 50 to 95 [0043]. TOUBEAU also teaches the MFC is refined to a degree of 90 [0056]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “the mixture of wood pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose has a degree of Schopper-Riegler (SR) of between 65 SR and 95 SR, measured according ISO 5267-1”. TOUBEAU also teaches the use of both hardwood and softwood in the natural fiber (wood) pulp [0041]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to experiment with variations of the natural fiber composition with some expectation of success based on the suggested use of both. This teaches the limitation of “and the wood pulp fiber comprises a mixture of a hardwood pulp fiber and softwood pulp fiber, wherein the mixture of hardwood pulp fiber and softwood pulp fiber contains at least 50 weight percent of the hardwood pulp fiber and 50 weight percent or less of the softwood pulp fiber”. TOUBEAU teaches the use of NFC (MFC) increases the grease-barrier levels [0169]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the fiber composition of TOUBEAU into the paper substrate of BACKFOLK to produce an improved paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved grease-barrier properties as taught by TOUBEAU.
For claim 2, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the paper has a transmittance of at least 65% [0046]. This range matches the rage of “wherein the translucent paper has a transmittance of 65% or more, according to DIN 53147”.
For claim 3, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the pulp mixture makes up 30 to 100wt% of the solid composition [0027]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the microfibrillated cellulose is comprised in the mixture of pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose in an amount of 10 weight percent to about 30 weight percent”.
For claim 5, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the pulp fiber has an average fiber length of 1400 to 3300 micrometers. This range abuts the claimed range of “wherein the average fiber length of pulp fibers is between 900 to 1400 micrometers, according to ISO 16065”.
For claim 6, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the presence of fines with MFC production can be between 0 and 60% [0039]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the mixture of wood pulp and microfibrillated cellulose comprises at least 40 weight percent of fines”.
For claim 7, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. BACKFOLK teaches applying a barrier coating to the cellulose film (paper) [0050] and the coating being a polymer [0054]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the base paper layer comprises a coating layer adjacent to the base paper layer, the coating layer comprising a polymeric coating”.
For claim 8, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 7, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the base paper has a grammage of 10-50 gsm [0043]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the base paper layer has a grammage between 25 and 100 gsm”. The examiner notes the use of the optional language of “and/or” allows for the teaching of one option to satisfy the complete claim language.
For claim 9, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the natural fiber is refined to between 47.5 and 77.5 [0032]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the pulp fiber has a degree of Schopper-Riegler (SR) of between 50 to 90 SR”.
For claim 10, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the base paper has a thickness/basis weight ratio lower than 1.4 (equivalent to a density less than 1.4) [0035]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the translucent paper has a density of more than 1.1 g cm-3, as measured according to ISO 534”.
For claim 11, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the natural fiber is sourced from Kraft pulp [0041]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the pulp fiber is chemical wood pulp fiber, such as kraft or sulphite wood pulp fiber”.
For claim 17, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 5, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the pulp fiber has an average fiber length of 400 to 3300 micrometers. This range encompasses the claimed range of “wherein the average fiber length of pulp fibers is between 900 and 1100 micrometers”. See 2144.05 (I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
For claim 18, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 9, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the natural pulp fiber is refined to a degree of 68-95 [0043]. This range encompasses the “wherein the pulp fiber has a degree of Schopper-Riegler (SR) of 73 to 83 SR”. See 2144.05 (I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
For claim 19, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. TOUBEAU teaches the natural pulp fiber is refined to a degree of 88-92 [0043] and the NFC is refined to 80 [0053]. This natural pulp range overlaps the claimed range, and this NFC value is within the claimed range of “wherein the mixture of wood pulp fiber and microfibrillated cellulose has a degree of Schopper-Riegler (SR) of 70 to 90 SR”.
For claim 20, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 7, as above. BACKFOLK teaches the coating used contains polyvinyl alcohol [0058]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the polymeric coating comprises a polymer or copolymer of vinyl alcohol”.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACKFOLK (US 20220372250 A1) and TOUBEAU (US 20160016717 A1) in view of BILODEAU (US 20150125658 A1).
For claim 4, BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU teach the translucent paper according to claim 1, as above. BACKFOLK and TOUBEAU do not specify the use of more hardwood than softwood. BILODEAU teaches the use of cellulose nanofibrils and fiber to make paper, like BACKFOLK [abstract]. BILODEAU teaches the use of hardwood and softwood together at 85 % and 15% respectively [0087]. These values are within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the mixture of hardwood pulp fiber and softwood pulp fiber, contains 75 weight percent or more of the hardwood pulp fiber, and/or 25 weight percent or less of the softwood pulp fiber”. BILODEAU teaches the advantage of the invention is improved dimensional stability [0093]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the fiber composition of BILODEAU into the paper substrate of BACKFOLK to produce an improved paper. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved dimensional stability as taught by BILODEAU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights