DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/19/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 3-10, 15-17, 19-22, 24, 26, and 27 are amended.
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) 1-7, 9-12, 21-24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over NYANDER (US 20060254464 A1).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, 21-24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NYANDER (US 20060254464 A1).
For claim 1, NYANDER teaches drainage and retention agent that uses a fiber [0012], crosslinking agent (binder) [0049], and additives [0079]. The composition uses the crosslinking agent in a colloidal dispersion that uses a dialkylaminoalkyl (meth) acrylate based polymer (N,N-methylene-bis(meth)acrylamide) including some with an acid functionalized polymer [0084 and 0049] added at from 0.05-10 part (equivalent to 0.45% to 90.5%) [0073]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “(Original) A composition comprising fibers, a binder, and an additive, wherein: the binder comprises a colloidal dispersion of a polymer comprising 0.1 to 25 percent by weight acid-functionalized monomeric units, based on the total weight of the polymer,”. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
The pH at addition was 7.4 [0093]. This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the colloidal dispersion of a polymer has a pH of from 5 to 12”. Another dialkylaminoalkyl (meth) acrylate base polymer (diethylaminoethyl methacrylate) that follows the structure of A2 (where R6 is CH3, R7 is a C2 alkyl group, R8 and R9 are C2 alkyl groups) [0067] is used as an additional component at about 5% by dry weight to the dry cellulosic suspension [0074]. This value is within the instant claim range of “and the additive comprises a water-soluble polymerization reaction product of monomeric units comprising from 5 to 99 weight percent monomeric units represented by at least one of the following general formulas A1 or A2, based on the total weight of the additive:
wherein, independently for each molecule of the monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas A1 or A2: R is H, CH3, or C2H5;R2 is H or a C1-C4 alkyl group; R3 is a C1- C6 alkyl group or a C1-C6 alkylene group; R4 is H or a C1-C4 alkyl group; R5 is H or a C1-C4 alkyl group; R6 is H, CH3, or C2H5; R7 is a C1-C6 alkyl group or a C1-C6 alkylene group; R8 is H or a C1- C4 alkyl group; and R9 is H or a C1-C4 alkyl group”.
For claim 2, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches a substitution of diethylaminoethyl methacrylate for the diethylaminoethyl methacrylate [0067] (where R8 and R9 are CH3 groups). This teaches the limitation of “wherein, independently for each molecule of the monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas Al or A2: R is H or CH3; R2 is H or CH3; R4 is H or CH3; R5 is H or CH3; R6 is H or CH3; R8 is H or CH3; and R9 is H or CH3”.
For claim 3, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of diethylaminoethyl methacrylate that has a structure A2 (R7 is a C2 alkyl group) [0067]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein, independently for each molecule of the monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas Al or A2: R3 is a C1-C4 alkyl group or a C1-C4 alkylene group; and R7 is a C1-C4 alkyl group or a C1-C4 alkylene group”.
For claim 4, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the crosslinking component is added at about 5% by dry weight to the dry cellulosic suspension [0074]. This values is within the instant claim range of “wherein the binder is present in the composition in an amount of from 5 to 60 percent by weight, based on the total dry weight of the composition”.
For claim 5, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the ratio of additive portion (third anionic component) [0074] to crosslinker portion (second anionic component) [0049] is from 1:10 to 1:0.05 (equivalent to 10:100 to 2000:100 additive: binder) [0073]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the composition comprises from 0.01 to 30 parts of the additive to 100 parts of the binder”.
For claim 6, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER allows for the first anionic component to have an acid-functionalized monomer units [0044]. NYANDER teaches the first second and third anionic components are present at a ratio of 0.1-2:0.1-2:1 (equivalent to 3.2% to 64.5% for the first component) [0073]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the polymer comprises 0.5 to 10 percent by weight acid-functionalized monomeric units, based on the total weight of the polymer.
For claim 7, NYANDER teaches the composition of either claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the pH at addition was 7.4 [0093]. This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the colloidal dispersion of a polymer has a pH of from 7 to 12.
For claim 9, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER allows for the first anionic component to have an acid-functionalized monomer units [0044]. NYANDER teaches the first second and third anionic components are present at a ratio of 0.1-2:0.1-2:1 (equivalent to 3.2% to 64.5% for the first component) [0073]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the water-soluble polymerization reaction product of monomeric units comprises from 20 to 95 weight percent monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas Al or A2, based on the total weight of the additive”.
For claim 10, NYANDER teaches the composition claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of vinyl group containing monomers [0044 and 0050] as copolymer in polymerization of other anionic polymers like the first component [0068]. NYANDER teaches the first second and third anionic components are present at a ratio of 0.1-2:0.1-2:1 (equivalent to 3.2% to 64.5% for the first component) [0073]. This range is within the instant claim range of “wherein the water-soluble polymerization reaction product of monomeric units comprises from 1 to 95 weight percent vinyl-group-containing monomeric units different from the monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas Al or A2, based on the total weight of the additive”.
For claim 11, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 10, as above. NYANDER teaches the vinyl group containing monomer units can be used alone to make a polymer or with the unsaturated anionic monomer (include acrylate) [0068]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the vinyl-group-containing monomeric units different from the monomeric units represented by at least one of the general formulas A l or A2 comprise at least one acrylate monomer and/or at least one styrene butadiene monomer”.
For claim 12, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 11, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of methacrylic acid and salts thereof including sulphoethyl-methacrylate (an ethyl-methacrylate) [0044]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one acrylate comprises at least one of methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl acrylate, butyl methacrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, or ethylhexyl methacrylate”.
For claim 21, NYANDER teaches the composition claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of cellulose fiber (natural) [0078]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the fibers comprises at least one of natural fibers, glass fibers, or synthetic fibers”.
For claim 22, NYANDER teaches the composition claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of cellulose fiber (natural) [0078]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the fibers comprise natural fibers”.
For claim 23, NYANDER teaches the composition claim 22, as above. NYANDER teaches the use of cellulose fiber (natural) [0078]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the natural fibers comprise cellulosic fibers.
For claim 24, NYANDER teaches the composition claim 22, as above. NYANDER also teaches the invention is used on machines making wood-free printing products [0080]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the fibers further comprise at least one additional type of fibers other than the natural fibers”.
For claim 26, NYANDER teaches the composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER also teaches the composition is used to make a paper (substrate) [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “A fibrous substrate comprising the composition of claim 1 formed into a substrate”.
For claim 27, NYANDER teaches the use of composition of claim 1, as above. NYANDER teaches drainage and retention agent that uses a fiber [0012], crosslinking agent (binder) [0049], and additives [0079]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of making the composition of claim1, the method comprising combining, in any order, the fibers, the binder, and the additive”.
Claim(s) 13-20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NYANDER (US 20060254464 A1) in view of ZORN (US 20200123280 A1).
For claim 13, NYANDER teaches the composition of either claim 1, as above. NYANDER does not teach the use of alkylene oxides in the dispersion. ZORN teaches a similar use of ethylenically unsaturated monomers [0055], colloids [0091], crosslinking polymer [0019], and fiber [0112]. ZORN further teaches the use of alkylene oxides including glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) which has a poly(alkylene oxide) with 2 Carbon atoms and a Hydrogen atom in the placement of R12 [0059]. ZORN further teaches the molecular weight of the poly(alkylene oxide) component is typically below 1000 (g/mol) [0092]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the at least one acrylate comprises at least one monomeric unit represented by the following general formula B: (B)wherein, independently for each molecule of the monomeric unit: R10 is H, CH3, or C2H5; R" is a poly(alkylene oxide) of number average molecular weight of from 88 to 1200 g/mole, wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) is comprised of repeating alkylene oxide units, and wherein each alkylene oxide unit independently has from 2 to 4 carbons; and R12 is H, a C1-C8 alkyl group, or a C1-C8 alkylene group”. ZORN teaches the composition of the invention improves the wet tear strength and burst pressure of the resultant paper. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the alkylene oxide component of ZORN into the dispersion of NYANDER to improve the final paper strength overall. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved wet tear strength and burst pressure as taught by ZORN.
For claim 14, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 13, as above. ZORN further teaches the molecular weight of the poly(alkylene oxide) component is typically below 1000 (g/mol) [0092]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein R11 is a poly(alkylene oxide) of number average molecular weight of from 132 to 1100 g/mole”.
For claim 15, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 13, as above. ZORN teaches the glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) with 2 Carbons can be used alone (equivalent to 100%) [0059]. This value is within the claimed range of “wherein at least 90 weight percent of the alkylene oxide units of the poly(alkylene oxide) have 2 carbons, based on the total weight of the poly(alkylene oxide)”.
For claim 16, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 13, as above. ZORN further teaches the use of alkylene oxides including glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) which has a poly(alkylene oxide) with 2 Carbon atoms and a Hydrogen atom in the placement of R12 [0059]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein R12 is H, CH3, or C2H5”.
For claim 17, NYANDER teaches the composition of either claim 1, as above. NYANDER does not teach the use of alkylene oxides in the dispersion. ZORN teaches a similar use of ethylenically unsaturated monomers [0055], colloids [0091], crosslinking polymer [0019], and fiber [0112]. ZORN further teaches the use of alkylene oxides including glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) which has a poly(alkylene oxide) with 3 Carbon atoms and a Hydrogen atom in the placement of R12. ZORN further teaches the molecular weight is typically below 1000 (g/mol) [0092]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the water-soluble polymerization reaction product of monomeric units comprises from 1 to 95 weight percent monomeric units represented by the following general formula B: wherein, independently for each molecule of the monomeric unit: Rl° is H, CH3, or C2Hs; R1 is a poly(alkylene oxide) of number average molecular weight of from 88 to 1200 g/mole, wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) is comprised of repeating alkylene oxide units, and wherein each alkylene oxide unit independently has from 2 to 4 carbons; and R12 is H, a C1-C8 alkyl group, or a C1-C8 alkylene group”. ZORN teaches the composition of the invention improves the wet tear strength and burst pressure of the resultant paper. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the alkylene oxide component of ZORN into the dispersion of NYANDER to improve the final paper strength overall. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved wet tear strength and burst pressure as taught by ZORN.
For claim 18, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 17, as above. ZORN further teaches the molecular weight of the poly(alkylene oxide) component is typically below 1000 (g/mol) [0092]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein Rll is a poly(alkylene oxide) of number average molecular weight of from 132 to 1100 g/mole”.
For claim 19, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 17, as above. ZORN teaches the glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) with 2 Carbons can be used alone (equivalent to 100%) [0059]. This value is within the claimed range of “wherein at least 90 weight percent of the alkylene oxide units of the poly(alkylene oxide) have 2 carbons, based on the total weight of the poly(alkylene oxide)”.
For claim 20, NYANDER and ZORN teach the composition of claim 17, as above. ZORN further teaches the use of alkylene oxides including glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) which has a poly(alkylene oxide) with 2 Carbon atoms and a Hydrogen atom in the placement of R12 [0059]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein R12 is H, CH3, or C2H5”.
For claim 28, NYANDER teaches the method of making the fibrous substrate of claim 26, as above. NYANDER teaches the fiber and crosslinking agent are combined and formed into a paper [0012-0017]. NYANDER does not teach adding additive to the formed fibrous substrate. ZORN teaches a similar use of ethylenically unsaturated monomers [0055], colloids [0091], crosslinking polymer [0019], and fiber [0112]. ZORN further teaches the composition can be used as a coating [0112]. This teaches the limitation of “the method comprising forming the fibers and the binder into the fibrous substrate, followed by adding the additive to the fibrous substrate”. ZORN teaches the composition of the invention improves the wet tear strength and burst pressure of the resultant paper. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the alkylene oxide component of ZORN into the dispersion of NYANDER to improve the final paper strength overall. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved wet tear strength and burst pressure as taught by ZORN.
Claim(s) 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NYANDER (US 20060254464 A1) in view of MILLER (US 20130284668 A1).
For claim 25 NYANDER teaches the composition claim 24, as above. NYANDER also teaches the invention is used on machines making wood-free printing products [0080]. NYANDER does not specify the type of non-wood fiber used. MILLER teaches a similar composition of fiber [0103], filler [0104], colloidal components [0065], and crosslinking agents [0063] like NYANDER. MILLER also teaches the use of ethylenically unsaturated anhydride monomers like NYANDER [0038]. MILLER teaches the composition can successfully use synthetic fibers and glass as an alternative to cellulosic fiber to form a paper [0102 and 0104]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the at least one additional type of fibers comprises at least one of glass fibers or synthetic fibers”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to try the fiber component of MILLER into the dispersion of NYANDER to produce a paper. One would be motivated to try the fiber substitution with a reasonable expectation of success based on the successful substitution of fiber in a similar composition to produce a paper as taught by MILLER.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NYANDER (US 20060254464 A1) in view of LALEG (US 20080302496 A1).
For claim 8, NYANDER teaches the composition of either claim 1, as above. NYANDER does not teach the use of latex for the colloidal component. NYANDER teaches the use of silica sol for the colloidal component. LALEG teaches a similar retention aid made with particles of colloidal silica [0040] in anionic polymer dispersions [abstract]. LALEG also teaches the use of latex structures in the dispersion [abstract]. LALEG teaches the use of styrene-butadiene based latex dispersions aid in the production of filler for the retention aid [0032]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the colloidal dispersion of a polymer comprises at least one of acrylic latex, styrene-butadiene resin latex, vinyl chloride copolymer latex, or vinylidene chloride copolymer latex”. LALEG teaches the advantage of including latex structures is the improved retention of filler particles [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the latex component of LALEG into the dispersion of NYANDER to improve the retention overall. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved filler retention as taught by LALEG.
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
