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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “1” and “2” have been used to designate both the substrates and rollers. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference characters “1” and “2” have been used to designate both the substrates and rollers. See “Example 1” sections 2 and 3 of the specification as filed. In accordance with the change required in the objection to the drawings, above, appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 9-12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rousseau (US20100124651).
In reference to claim 9:
Rousseau discloses a method for manufacturing films from nanocellulose (para 0003) comprising:
feeding a nanocellulose suspension comprising modified or unmodified nanocellulose having a solids content of at least 5% by weight (para 0004), between two substrates (fig. 1 substrates 14 and 22), wherein at least one substrate is porous (para 0022, “semi permeable fabric layer, indicated at numeral 22”), to obtain a multi-layered structure (para 0022, “the semi permeable fabric creates a sandwich effect with the nano-crystalline film being surrounded by fabric), and
passing the multi-layered structure through one or more nip gaps to form a film, each nip gap defined between a pair of nip rollers (para 0033; Fig. 5 numeral 32).
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, Rousseau further discloses wherein the nanocellulose comprises cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) in modified or unmodified form (para 0003).
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, Rousseau further teaches wherein the mass percentage of the nanocellulose is at least 50% of the total dry mass of the suspension (claim 5).
In reference to claim 12:
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, Rousseau further teaches wherein the solids content of the nanocellulose suspension is in the range of 5-60% by weight (para 0004 disclosing 5%).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, Rousseau further discloses separating the film from the two substrates, keeping the film attached to either substrate, or transferring the film as a semi-dry or a fully dry film to a third substrate (para 0003, step vi).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau further discloses wherein the two substrates comprise a porous substrate and a nonporous substrate (para 0003).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Kunnari (CA3002729A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 12, above, Rousseau further discloses wherein the nanocellulose suspension “preferably” has a solids content less than 10% solids and the ability of the film to gel and form a more self-sustaining film will be affected by the % solids included in the nano-crystalline cellulose suspension and that the % solids can be reduced or increased to ensure the suspension is able to form a self-supporting gel (para 0028) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solids content of the nanocellulose suspension is in the range of 20-60% by weight. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kunnari. Kunnari teaches a method of producing films from nanocellulose suspensions (abstract, para 0025). Kunnari further teaches that utilizing higher weight percent suspensions, such as 20-30%, reduces the required drying time and requires less energy (para 0025). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the suspension of Rousseau with the suspension of Kunnari in order to obtain a method which required less time and energy to dry.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Iodice (US20210244069).
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau does not disclose further comprising controlling film thickness by adjusting the nip gaps. However, this is taught by Iodice. Iodice teaches a method for producing nanocellulose films (abstract). Iodice further teaches controlling film thickness by adjusting the nip gaps (paras 0012-0013). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Rousseau with the adjustable nip gaps of Iodice in order to obtain a method which could produce films of different thicknesses.
In reference to claim 19:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau further discloses modifying the method based on film requirements such as film thickness (para 0031; the position of the Examiner is that this discloses the use of differing film thicknesses). Rousseau does not explicitly disclose wherein the formed film has a thickness of 10-500 μm. However, this would have been obvious in view of Iodice. Iodice teaches a method for producing nanocellulose films (abstract). Iodice further teaches wherein the films have a thickness of 40 to 2500 microns (discloses as 0.04 to 2.50 mm, para 0114). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a film thickness known in the prior art as suitable for manufacturing a stable film.
Claim(s) 17 is/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 Rousseau.
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Rousseau further discloses the semi-permeable fabric allows for the passage of fluids or gasses (para 0022) and that the non permeable and semi permeable fabrics maintain the nano-crystalline film within a support structure (para 0025). It is the Examiner’s first position that the semi-permeable fabric has pores having a smaller pore size than the dimensions of the nanocellulose because the semi-permeable fabric maintains the nano-crystalline film. It is the Examiner’s second position that, if it is determined the fabric of Rousseau does not possess the claimed features, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a semi-permeable fabric having smaller pore size than the dimensions of the nanocellulose in order to prevent material loss through the fabric.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Imai (US20130288133).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau does not disclose wherein the two substrates each have a surface roughness in the range of 0.1-10 μm. However, this would have been obvious in view of Imai. Imai teaches a method of producing a membrane comprising nanocellulose (abstract, para 0055). Imai further teaches that the surface roughness of the substrate is transferred to the produced film and, as such, the substrate surface is preferably as smooth as possible (para 0092). While not explicitly discloses wherein the surface roughness is in the range of 0.1-10 μm, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As applied to the instant application, Imai teaches that the surface roughness of the substrate is transferred to the produced film, e.g. a results-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Heiskanen (US20130047893).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau further discloses wherein the additives are present in the suspension (para 0018) but fails to disclose wherein the additives comprise at least carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and sorbitol. However, this is taught by Heiskanen. Heiskanen teaches a nanocellulose composition for use in film press, blade, or curtain coating (abstract, paras 0002-0003, 0060). Heiskanen further teaches that the inclusion of carboxymethyl cellulose will work as a lubricant or dispersant (para 0017) and that sorbitol facilitates the flow of slurries (para 0019). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Rousseau with the additives of Heiskanen in order to obtain a method which utilized a lubricated, dispersed composition with improved flow properties.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Tanner (US6162961).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Rousseau further discloses wherein the one or more nips comprises a plurality of nips (para 0032-0033; Fig. 4 numeral 32). Rousseau further discloses that the calendaring may utilize processes known and used in the art (para 0033) but fails to disclose wherein a predetermined distance exists between respective pairs of the nips, and wherein the predetermined distance between the respective pairs of the nips decreases in a flow direction of the multi-layered structure through the plurality of nips. However, the selection of a known mechanism, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As applied to the instant application, Tanner teaches a method of manufacturing an article comprising cellulose (abstract). Tanner further teaches that nip compression should be completed in a progressive series of steps such that the thickness decreases with each compression step (col 12 ln 26-45; interpreted as “wherein the predetermined distance between the respective pairs of the nips decreases in a flow direction of the multi-layered structure through the plurality of nips” because the thickness will depend from the distance between the respective pairs of nips).
Claim(s) 22, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau in view of Kunnari.
In reference to claims 22, 23, and 24:
Rousseau discloses a method for manufacturing films from nanocellulose (para 0003) comprising:
feeding a nanocellulose suspension comprising modified or unmodified nanocellulose between two substrates (fig. 1-2 substrates 14 and 22), wherein at least one substrate is porous (para 0022, “semi permeable fabric layer, indicated at numeral 22”), to obtain a multi-layered structure (para 0022, “the semi permeable fabric creates a sandwich effect with the nano-crystalline film being surrounded by fabric), and
passing the multi-layered structure through one or more nip gaps to form a film, each nip gap defined between a pair of nip rollers (para 0033; Fig. 5 numeral 32).
Rousseau further discloses wherein the nanocellulose suspension “preferably” has a solids content less than 10% solids and the ability of the film to gel and form a more self-sustaining film will be affected by the % solids included in the nano-crystalline cellulose suspension and that the % solids can be reduced or increased to ensure the suspension is able to form a self-supporting gel (para 0028) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nanocellulose suspension has a solids content of at least 12% by weight (claim 22), wherein the nanocellulose suspension has a solids content of at least 15% by weight (claim 23), or wherein the solids content of the nanocellulose suspension is in the range of 20-60% by weight (para 0025). However, this would have been obvious in view of Kunnari. Kunnari teaches a method of producing films from nanocellulose suspensions (abstract, para 0025). Kunnari further teaches that utilizing higher weight percent suspensions, such as 20-30%, reduces the required drying time and requires less energy (para 0025). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the suspension of Rousseau with the suspension of Kunnari in order to obtain a method which required less time and energy to dry.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau.
Rousseau discloses a method for manufacturing films from nanocellulose (para 0003) comprising:
feeding a nanocellulose suspension comprising modified or unmodified nanocellulose having less than 10 wt. % total solids (para 0011 disclosing “preferably contains less than 10% solids), between two substrates (fig. 1 substrates 14 and 22), wherein at least one substrate is porous (para 0022, “semi permeable fabric layer, indicated at numeral 22”), to obtain a multi-layered structure (para 0022, “the semi permeable fabric creates a sandwich effect with the nano-crystalline film being surrounded by fabric), and
passing the multi-layered structure through one or more nip gaps, each nip gap defined between a pair of nip rollers (para 0033; Fig. 5 numeral 32), and wherein the nanocellulose suspension is transformed to a film during the passing step (para 0033, as the nanocellulose suspension achieves the required thickness and surface properties at the nip rollers the film is “formed” at the passing step within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. See MPEP 2111).
Rousseau does not explicitly disclose wherein the nanocellulose suspension comprises at least 10 wt. % total solids. However, it is the Examiner’s position that because Rousseau discloses the composition is “preferably” less than 10% (para 0011) and the % solids can be reduced or increased to ensure that the suspension is able to form a self-supporting gelled film (para 0028), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the wt% higher, such as to 10%, in order to ensure the suspension is able to form a self-supporting gelled film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
