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 .
Detailed Action
Status of Application
1. Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. 1.114, the Amendment and Applicants’ Arguments/Remarks, all filed 13 February 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19-20, and 24-37 are currently pending. Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-23 have been cancelled. Claims 8-9 and 19-20 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 12, and 26-27 have been amended. Claims 28-37 are newly added. Claims 1, 5, 12, 15-16, and 24-37 are examined on the merits within.
Continued Examination Under 37 C.F.R. 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 February 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 13 February 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 11-12, 14-16, 18 and 22-27 has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection of Ishizuka et al. has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C.103 Rejection of Ishizuka et al. in view of Mukai et al. has been modified to now recite Mukai et al. (JP2013014741) in view of Ishizuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0223067) and DeCarlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164311). The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of Ishizuka et al. in view of Mukai et al. and Watanabe et al. has been modified to now recite Mukai et al. (JP2013014741) in view of Ishizuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0223067) and DeCarlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164311) in view of Watanabe et al. (JP2017186187).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 5, 24, 26, 30-31, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP2013014741) in view of Ishizuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0223067) and DeCarlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164311).
Mukai et al. teach modifying a resin with a cellulose nanofiber. See paragraph [0001]. The resin may be polylactic acid. See paragraph [0016]. The composition may additionally comprise a colorant. See paragraph [0042]. Mukai et al. teach the cellulose fiber is highly crystalline with type 1 crystal structure. See paragraph [0038]. Cellulose can be oxidized using an N-oxyl compound such as TEMPO as an oxidation catalyst to obtain reaction product fibers. See paragraph [0031]. The production method comprises the steps of (a) preparing an emulsion comprising cellulose nanofibers, resin particles and a liquid medium, and then (b) removing the liquid medium from the emulsion by drying. See paragraph [0043].
Mukai et al. do not teach a porous particle.
Ishizuka et al. teach porous particles of substantially spherical shape. See abstract. The porous particles may or may not contain a component other than a polymer. The other components may be nanofibers such as cellulose nanofiber. See paragraph [0036]. The material of the porous polymers may be an organic polymer, an inorganic polymer or an organic-inorganic hybrid polymer. See paragraph [0031]. Examples include divinylbenzene polymers. See paragraph [0031]. The dispersion preparation step is performed by mixing a thermosetting composition containing at least a solvent serving as a porogen with a hydrophobic organic solvent (dispersion medium) to which the block copolymer (dispersant) has been added previously to disperse the thermosetting composition in the hydrophobic organic solvent in the form of particles. The thermosetting composition is an epoxy resin raw material composition containing an epoxy resin raw material, a curing agent, and a porogen. Thereafter, the polymerization step is performed by heating the dispersion. Then, epoxy resin porous particles are obtained through polymerization. Thereafter, the porogen, the solvent, the unreacted substances, and the like are removed from the porous particles. See paragraph [0115].
DeCarlo et al. teach that the chemical nature of chitosan provides many possibilities for covalent and ionic modifications which allow extensive adjustment of mechanical and biological properties. See paragraph [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to add a porogen to the processing step of Mukai et al. to prepare an emulsion comprising cellulose nanofibers, resin particles, porogen and a liquid medium since this is a known effective manner of forming porous particles when attaching cellulose components. One would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to form porous particles having through holes that are not closed as taught by Ishizuka et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute one polymer for another (i.e., polylactic acid for divinylbenzene) to yield predictable results because both Ishizuka et al. and Mukai et al. are directed to the effective combination of polymers and cellulose nanofibers. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the content of ionic groups to control the mechanical and biological properties of the particle as taught by DeCarlo et al. Since the prior art makes obvious the composite particle of claim 1, the properties should be the same, i.e., light diffusion index of 0.6 or more.
6. Claim(s) 28, 32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP2013014741) in view of Ishizuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0223067) and DeCarlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164311) as applied to claims 1, 5, 24, 26, 30-31, and 36 above and further in view of Watanabe et al. (JP2017186187).
Mukai et al., Ishizuka et al., and DeCarlo et al. do not teach chitin.
Watanabe et al. teach porous silica particles as a scrubbing agent in cleansing cosmetics. See paragraph [0001]. The porous silica-based particles having naturally occurring polymers. See paragraph [0011]. The naturally occurring polymers are biodegradable including alkyl cellulose derivatives, polyamino acids, and polysaccharides. The naturally occurring polymer can be cellulose nanofibers. See paragraph [0014]. Example 6 comprises using a polymer dispersion of cellulose and xanthan gum (biodegradable polymer) composite particles with porous silica based particles. The composition may additionally comprise colorants, UV absorbers, fragrances, etc. See paragraph [0043]. The silica based particles may also contain fine particles containing at least one of titanium oxide, iron oxide, zinc oxide, ultramarine, Prussian blue, and an organic pigments. See paragraph [0016]. The fine particles have a particle size in the range of 100 nm to 1000 nm. See paragraph [0016]. Silver nitrate is added to the porous particles. See paragraph [0013]. Example 7 uses chitosan. The particle has a circularity in the range of 0.7 to 1. See paragraph [0018]. The specific surface area is 2.2 g/cm3. See paragraph [0021].
It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to substitute one fiber material for another to yield predictable results since Watanabe et al. used chitosan and cellulose interchangeably. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the pore diameter, specific surface area, and circularity to optimize the formulation to achieve the desired effect.
7. Claim(s) 12, 15-16, 25, 27, 29 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (JP2013014741) in view of Ishizuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0223067) and DeCarlo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0164311) and Watanabe et al. (JP2017186187).
Mukai et al. teach modifying a resin with a cellulose nanofiber. See paragraph [0001]. The resin may be polylactic acid. See paragraph [0016]. The composition may additionally comprise a colorant. See paragraph [0042]. Mukai et al. teach the cellulose fiber is highly crystalline with type 1 crystal structure. See paragraph [0038]. Cellulose can be oxidized using an N-oxyl compound such as TEMPO as an oxidation catalyst to obtain reaction product fibers. See paragraph [0031]. The production method comprises the steps of (a) preparing an emulsion comprising cellulose nanofibers, resin particles and a liquid medium, and then (b) removing the liquid medium from the emulsion by drying. See paragraph [0043].
Mukai et al. do not teach a porous particle.
Ishizuka et al. teach porous particles of substantially spherical shape. See abstract. The porous particles may or may not contain a component other than a polymer. The other components may be nanofibers such as cellulose nanofiber. See paragraph [0036]. The material of the porous polymers may be an organic polymer, an inorganic polymer or an organic-inorganic hybrid polymer. See paragraph [0031]. Examples include divinylbenzene polymers. See paragraph [0031]. The dispersion preparation step is performed by mixing a thermosetting composition containing at least a solvent serving as a porogen with a hydrophobic organic solvent (dispersion medium) to which the block copolymer (dispersant) has been added previously to disperse the thermosetting composition in the hydrophobic organic solvent in the form of particles. The thermosetting composition is an epoxy resin raw material composition containing an epoxy resin raw material, a curing agent, and a porogen. Thereafter, the polymerization step is performed by heating the dispersion. Then, epoxy resin porous particles are obtained through polymerization. Thereafter, the porogen, the solvent, the unreacted substances, and the like are removed from the porous particles. See paragraph [0115].
DeCarlo et al. teach that the chemical nature of chitosan provides many possibilities for covalent and ionic modifications which allow extensive adjustment of mechanical and biological properties. See paragraph [0004].
Watanabe et al. teach porous silica particles as a scrubbing agent in cleansing cosmetics. See paragraph [0001]. The porous silica-based particles having naturally occurring polymers. See paragraph [0011]. The naturally occurring polymers are biodegradable including alkyl cellulose derivatives, polyamino acids, and polysaccharides. The naturally occurring polymer can be cellulose nanofibers. See paragraph [0014]. Example 6 comprises using a polymer dispersion of cellulose and xanthan gum (biodegradable polymer) composite particles with porous silica based particles. The composition may additionally comprise colorants, UV absorbers, fragrances, etc. See paragraph [0043]. The silica based particles may also contain fine particles containing at least one of titanium oxide, iron oxide, zinc oxide, ultramarine, Prussian blue, and an organic pigments. See paragraph [0016]. The fine particles have a particle size in the range of 100 nm to 1000 nm. See paragraph [0016]. Silver nitrate is added to the porous particles. See paragraph [0013]. Example 7 uses chitosan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to add a porogen to the processing step of Mukai et al. to prepare an emulsion comprising cellulose nanofibers, resin particles, porogen and a liquid medium since this is a known effective manner of forming porous particles when attaching cellulose components. One would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to form porous particles having through holes that are not closed as taught by Ishizuka et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute one polymer for another (i.e., polylactic acid for divinylbenzene) to yield predictable results because both Ishizuka et al. and Mukai et al. are directed to the effective combination of polymers and cellulose nanofibers. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the content of ionic groups to control the mechanical and biological properties of the particle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to add inorganic metal or organic colorants to the composition made obvious by Ishizuka et al. and Mukai et al. because Mukai et al. teach colorants as additives in polymer cellulose nanofiber combinations and Watanabe et al. teach inorganic metals and organic pigments are effectively combined with polymers and cellulose fibers. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the shape and size of the particles to effectively incorporate them within the porous polymer particles to achieve the desired effect. It would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to substitute one fiber material for another to yield predictable results since Watanabe et al. used chitosan and cellulose interchangeably.
Examiner’s Note: Claims 33 and 34 are free of the prior art.
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 1, 5, 12, 15-16, and 24-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,608.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12,195,608 are directed to composite particles comprising a core particle and fine fibers of cellulose or chitin nanofibers wherein the fine fibers are inseparably bonded to a surface of the core particle. The only difference lies in the fact that U.S. Patent No. 12,195,608 further defines diameters of the chitin nanofiber. However this component is further defined in the dependent claims of the instant application. Thus the two are not patentably distinct.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
10. Applicant has requested that the provisional rejections be held in abeyance until patentable subject matter is identified. However, this request cannot be considered, especially in view that no patentable subject matter has yet been identified.
The obviousness double patenting rejections are hereby maintained.
Correspondence
11. No claims are allowed at this time.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5).
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, Robert Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615