DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/8/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 12-14, and 16-33 are withdrawn. Claim 15 is cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 16-34 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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that Examiner reaches combined qualities of the prior arts based on hindsight bias.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that BERGLUND does not disclose adhesive properties of the material based on the properties of the material and the hemicellulose content.
In response to applicant's argument that BERGLUND does not teach the adhesive properties of the composition, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that BERGLUND does not teach or suggest the use of a grass species having C-4 leaf anatomy as a cellulose source and combination with AMIRALIAN would not be obvious.
In response, the examiner acknowledges the amended claims present no new matter and remove limiting ranges further clarifying ranged limitations.
Regarding the C-4 leaf anatomy teaching, the Examiner agrees that BERGLUND does not teach the use of C-4 leaf as a source of cellulose. BERGLUND teaches the use of native cellulose to make the nanofibrillated cellulose substance. BERGLUND teaches the term "native cellulose" shall be understood to relate to cellulose with the same crystal structure as in plants (i.e. cellulose type I)”. BERGLUND further teaches an example of cellulose material with lower lignin content than hemicellulose [0048] (0.7% lignin and 13.8% hemicellulose, respectively). AMIRALIAN teaches the use of C4 leaf anatomy or a nanocellulose material derived from a plant material having a lesser amount of lignin than hemicellulose [abstract]. The definition of native cellulose taught by BERGLUND includes cellulose with similar characteristics (plant derived or similar and lignin/ hemicellulose content) to the C4 leaf anatomy taught by AMIRALIAN. One skilled in the arts at the time of invention would find it obvious to combine the arts of BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN based on the common use of plant based cellulose with similar lignin to hemicellulose content. One would be further motivated to combine the art based on the common field of endeavor that being the manufacture of nanocomposite materials derived from plant based cellulose.
Applicant also argues that neither BERGLUND nor AMIRALIAN teach the nano-cellulose material in a gel with hemicellulose content greater than 10%.
Regarding the hemicellulose of the combined art, BERGLUND teaches a general use of plant based material. AMIRIALIAN further defines the material to be a C4 leaf anatomy with higher hemicellulose content than lignin [abstract]. AMIRALIAN further teaches the gel is derived from plant material with 30% or higher hemicellulose content [abstract]. This value is within the argued range, greater than 10%.
Applicant also argues that neither BERGLUND nor AMIRALIAN teach the nano-cellulose material in use as adhesive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the teaching of adhesive manufacturing, BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN do not teach the composite material as an adhesive. BERGLUND teaches an example of nanocellulose material [abstract] with lower lignin content than hemicellulose [0048] (0.7% lignin and 13.8% hemicellulose, respectively). AMIRALIAN teaches the use of C4 leaf anatomy or a nanocellulose material derived from a plant material having a lesser amount of lignin than hemicellulose [abstract]. AMIRALIAN also teaches this NFC has a hemicellulose content of 25% to 55% [abstract]. Neither BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN teach the composite material as an adhesive. MITANI (JP 2017177621 A) teaches the use of plant based lignocellulosic material [0002] to form a molded product [abstract]. MITANI also teaches the composite material contains a self-adhesion quality that is attributed to the decomposition of hemicellulose within the cellulosic material [0018]. MITANI further teaches that the hemicellulose is not completely decomposed but is deposited on the surface of the material making the adhesion possible [0018]. MITANI teaches that the product has good moldability [0026] with a smooth surface [0025]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to use the hemicellulose decomposition from fiber treatment technique taught by MITANI into the hemicellulose decomposition from fiber treatment of BERGLUND to produce a self-adhesive material. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantage of the smooth surface and moldability as taught by MITANI.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over BERGLUND (US 20140079931) in view of AMIRALIAN (WO 2016090425 A1) and MITANI (JP 2017177621 A) as evidenced by K. DIMIC-MISIC (Micro- and Nanofibrillated Cellulose as a Rheology Modifier Additive in CMC-Containing Pigment-Coating Formulations).
For claim 1, BERGLUND teaches a cellulose based aerogel [0008] within an aqueous solution [0029]. BERGLUND teaches the use of native cellulose to make the nanofibrillated cellulose substance. BERGLUND teaches the term "native cellulose" shall be understood to relate to cellulose with the same crystal structure as in plants (i.e. cellulose type I)”. BERGLUND further teaches an example of cellulose material with lower lignin content than hemicellulose [0048]. Though BERGLUND teaches the use of plant cellulose BERGLUND does not teach the use of a C4 anatomy fiber specifically. AMIRILIAN teaches a similar nanocellulose gel [0103]and also teaches the fiber used in the product originates from C4 leaf anatomy (wherein the cellulose nanofibers are derived from a grass species having C4-leaf anatomy) [0016]. AMIRALIAN teaches the use of C4 leaf anatomy or a nanocellulose material derived from a plant material having a lesser amount of lignin than hemicellulose [abstract]. The definition of native cellulose taught by BERGLUND includes cellulose with similar characteristics (plant derived or similar and lignin/ hemicellulose content) to the C4 leaf anatomy taught by AMIRALIAN. One skilled in the arts at the time of invention would find it obvious to combine the arts of BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN based on the common use of plant based cellulose with similar lignin to hemicellulose content. One would be further motivated to combine the art based on the common field of endeavor that being the manufacture of nanocomposite materials derived from plant based cellulose.
Regarding the hemicellulose content AMIRILIAN teaches that the hemicellulose composition is 42% [0081]. This is within the range of the instant range. Using hemicellulose from C4 leaf as taught by AMIRILIAN as the native cellulose taught by BERGLUND in the same BERGLUND process would produce a hydrogel with excellent strength of the overall structure by increasing the stiffness and tensile strength [0008 AMIRILIAN]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time to combine the arts to produce a hydrogel with superior properties sourced from alternative materials. (A material containing cellulose nanofibres, the material comprising a gel material comprising cellulose nanofibres in an aqueous medium, the cellulose nanofibres having 10% or more by weight hemicellulose).
Regarding the teaching of adhesive manufacturing, BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN do not teach the composite material as an adhesive. BERGLUND teaches an example of nanocellulose material [abstract] with lower lignin content than hemicellulose [0048] (0.7% lignin and 13.8% hemicellulose, respectively). AMIRALIAN teaches the use of C4 leaf anatomy or a nanocellulose material derived from a plant material having a lesser amount of lignin than hemicellulose [abstract]. AMIRALIAN also teaches this NFC has a hemicellulose content of 25% to 55% [abstract]. Neither BERGLUND and AMIRALIAN teach the composite material as an adhesive. MITANI teaches the use of plant based lignocellulosic material [0002] to form a molded product [abstract]. MITANI also teaches the composite material contains a self-adhesion quality that is attributed to the decomposition of hemicellulose within the cellulosic material [0018]. MITANI further teaches that the hemicellulose is not completely decomposed but is deposited on the surface of the material making the adhesion possible [0018]. MITANI teaches that the product has good moldability [0026] with a smooth surface [0025]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to use the hemicellulose decomposition from fiber treatment technique taught by MITANI into the hemicellulose decomposition from fiber treatment of BERGLUND to produce a self-adhesive material. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the advantage of the smooth surface and moldability as taught by MITANI. This teaches the limitation of (wherein the material containing cellulose nanofibers is self-adhesive material).
For claim 2, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches a diameter of less than 40 nm. This range is within one of the ranges taught by the instant claim, less than 50nm. (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cellulose nanofibres have a diameter of less than 100nm).
For claim 3, BERGLUND and AMIRILIAN teach as above. BERGLUND teaches a process to create a hydrogel. BERGLUND does not teach MFC created from C4 leaf anatomy. AMIRILIAN teaches a similar composition with C4 leaf anatomy plants instead of the softwood taught by BERGLUND. AMIRILIAN teaches a hemicellulose content of 42% [0081]. This substitution would bring the hemicellulose content closer to that of the instant claim range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cellulose nanofibres have 15% or more by weight hemicellulose.)
For claim 4, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches a solution with MFC derived from softwood. AMIRILIAN teaches a similar composition with C4 leaf anatomy plants instead of softwood. AMIRILIAN teaches a composition of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin [0038], and nano fibers extracted from the solution [0045]. (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cellulose nanofibres include cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and extractives.)
For claim 5, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND uses softwood as the source of cellulose and other derivatives. BERGLUND does not teach the exact composition of the claim due to the use of softwood as the cellulose source. AMIRILIAN teaches a similar composition to BERGLUND except for the use of C4 anatomy plants as the source of cellulose as opposed to BERGLUND’s softwood. AMIRILIAN teaches a composition that closely matches that of the instant claim. AMIRILIAN teaches hemicellulose composition of from 25% to 50% and a lignin composition of 23% [0038]. Though AMIRILIAN does not speak to the quantity of extract, AMIRILIAN does teach that nanofiber extracted from the solution is an included extract in the composition. The majority of the composition taught by AMIRILIAN is within range of the instant application. (A material as claimed in claim 4 wherein the cellulose nanofibres comprise from 10 to 25%, by weight, lignin, 35 to 70% by weight cellulose and 2 to 10%, or 2 to 8% extractives.)
For claim 6, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches a low density aerogel with a density of 14 kg/m3 which is equivalent to 14 mg/ml. This is within the range of the instant claim of 2 to 15mg/ml. (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the gel contains from 2 mg/ml (w/V) cellulose nanofibres to 20% w/V cellulose nanofibres.)
For claim 7, BERGLUND and AMIRILIAN teach as above. BERGLUND does not teach modifiers being added to the solution. AMIRILIAN teaches that fibers may be modified prior to use. This includes nanofibrillation. Nanofibrillated fiber may be used as rheology modifiers as evidence by LASEUGUETTE. (A material as claimed in any claim 1 wherein the gel material has rheology modifiers added to the gel in order to effect or controlled the rheology of the gel.)
For claim 8, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches that water may be used as the aqueous medium [0029].(A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the aqueous medium comprises water.)
For claim 9, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches that water may be used as the aqueous medium [0029]. BERGLUND also teaches that the use of NaClO in the solution. NaClO is an alkali solution. (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the aqueous medium comprises water and an alkali).
For claim 10, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches that during formation the material is made neutral by adding more of aqueous medium [0049]. This means the solution goes from a pH of 10 to a pH of 7 during production [0073]. (A material as claimed in claim 9 wherein the aqueous medium has a pH of greater than 7.)
For claim 11, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND teaches a material made from the same process of alkali treatment with alkalinity, pH, that overlaps with that of the instant application thus meeting the range of the alkalinity equivalency of the instant claim as well.(A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the aqueous medium comprises an aqueous medium remaining with the cellulose nanofibres following treatment of a plant material to form the cellulose nanofibres following a mild alkali treatment, the mild alkali treatment including treating the plant material with an alkali solution having an alkalinity equivalent to 2% to 15% NaOH.)
For claim 34, BERGLUND, AMIRILIAN, and MITANI teach as above. BERGLUND is silent on the plant of origin used to make the nanofiber. AMIRILIAN teaches the same options for starting materials as the instant application [0038]. This includes spinifex, Triodia, Monodia, Symplectrodia or T. basedowii, T. longiceps. T. Pungens and T. shinzii. (A material as claimed in claim 1 wherein the cellulose nanofibres are derived from a drought-tolerant grass species, or an arid grass species, or from Australian native arid grass known as "spinifex" of genera which include Triodia, Monodia, and Symplectrodia or from T. pungens, T. shinziizor T. basedowii,orT.longiceps.)
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 on (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