Detailed Actions
The communications received 12/31/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-18 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 § 102
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 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(s) 1-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banzashi et al (US 2018/0230279 A1) hereinafter BAN.
As for claim 1, BAN teaches a cellulosic structure comprising (sheet of ultrafine cellulose fiber) [Abstract; 0130]:
A cellulosic substrate comprises a network of cellulose fibers having hydroxy moieties (cellulose has hydroxy moieties) [0130]; and
Metal ions having a valency of at least three bonded to the hydroxy moieties of the cellulose fibers proximate at least one surface of the cellulosic substrate (Al 3+ as aluminum sulfate which crosslinks with the cellulose, it is understood to cross-link with the hydroxy moieties) [0130].
As for claim 2, BAN teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the hydroxy moieties of cellulose contain both -OH and -COOH groups.
As for claim 3, BAN teaches claim 1 and that the metal ions include 3+ aluminum [0130].
As for claim 4, BAN teaches claim 1 and wherein the substrate is a cellulosic sheet substrate [0130].
As for claims 5-7, BAN teaches claim 4 and as the sheet is dipped in an aqueous solution with aluminum sulfate it is understood that it is applied on at least one edge, at least one of a first/second major surface, and have the metal ions distribute throughout the sheet substrate [0130].
As for claim 8, BAN teaches claim 1 and further comprising one or more barrier layers applied to at least one major surface of the cellulosic substrate (as a barrier film can be stacked on) [0123].
As for claim 9, BAN teaches claim 1 and it is understood that as the cellulosic structure has at least some cellulose, that it can be recycled.
As for claim 10, BAN teaches the method of producing claim 1 [0001; 0074].
As for claim 11, BAN teaches claims 10 and 2.
As for claim 12, BAN teaches claims 10 and 3.
As for claim 13, BAN teaches claims 10 and 4.
As for claim 14, BAN teaches claim 10 and further that the treatment can occur during the pulp preparation stage (during the slurry before sheet formation) [0086].
As for claim 15, BAN teaches claim 10 and wherein the metal treatment stage occurs during the sheet formation stage (as part of a washing) [0085].
As for claim 16, BAN teaches claim 10 and wherein the metal treatment stage occurs after sheet formation [0082].
As for claim 18, BAN teaches claim 10 and it is understood that as the cellulosic structure has at least some cellulose, that it can be recycled.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAN.
As for claim 17, BAN teaches claims 10 and BAN further teaches that the treatment with the metal improves the waterproofness [0086; 0123].
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 also applied the metal treatment via dipping after the sheet has a barrier layer in order to generally improve the waterproofness of the resultant sheet with a barrier layer.
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
