DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/05/2026 has been entered.
An Office Action was mailed 11/26/2025. Applicant filed a Response, amended claims 1 and 18, and cancelled claims 9 and 17, on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 18-19 are pending.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantiani et al, US 6,231,657 B1 (Cantiani) in view of Lillandt et al, US 2017/0183555 A1 (Lillandt).
Lillandt was cited in the PTO-892 mailed 06/16/2025.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-6, Cantiani teaches a composition comprising amorphous cellulose nanofibrils, carboxycellulose with a degree of substitution of less than or equal to 0.95 as an additive, and optionally at least one co-additive (Cantiani; col. 3, lines 10-15).
The cellulosic nanofibrils treated are obtained from cells preferably consisting of about 80% primary walls, particularly in parenchymal cells such as from sugar beet pulp (i.e., parenchymal cellulose material derived from plant pulp of claim 4) (Cantiani; col. 3, line 62-col. 4, line 2).
Beet root pulp (i.e., claim 5, step a1: providing a parenchymal cell containing plant pulp) is first subjected to known treatments comprising:
a first acidic or basic extraction, after which a first solid is recovered; and
optionally, a second extraction of the first solid residue carried out under alkaline conditions to form a second solid residue,
wherein during the first acidic or basic extraction (a), partial hydrolysis takes place with release and solubilization of most of the pectins and hemicelluloses (i.e., claim 5, step a2: subjecting the parenchymal cell containing plant pulp to biochemical treatment resulting in partial degradation and/or extraction of pectin and hemicellulose) (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 20-34).
The acidic extraction is performed in an aqueous solution at a pH of 1-3, and the basic extraction is carried out in an alkaline solution of base such as sodium hydroxide (claim 6) (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 44-61).
The second solid residue is then washed, optionally bleached to form a third residue which is diluted with water before homogenization (i.e., claim 1, step a: providing a mixture of an aqueous liquid and a plant or micro-organism derived cellulose material, wherein said material is in a non-activated or non-fibrillated form) (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 35-41 and col. 5, lines 49-52).
The homogenization step corresponds to blending, mixing, or any operation of high mechanical shear, at high speed and pressure, to form nanofibrils (i.e., claim 1, step c: subjecting the … mixture or slurry … to a fibrillation treatment so as to produce a microfibrillated cellulose from the non-fibrillated cellulose) (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 20-23 and 41; and col. 5, line 49-col. 6, line 29).
In one particularly suitable embodiment, at least some of the additive is added to the suspension after homogenization after at least one concentration step (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 58-62). The concentration step in carried out until a solids content of about 35% by weight is obtained, more particularly 5-25%, which falls completely with the claimed dry matter content of at least 5 wt% (i.e., claim 1, step d: concentrating the composition obtained in step c) to a dry matter content of at least 5 wt.%). (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 58-62 and col. 9, lines 9-11).
The at least one additive added after at least one concentration step is preferably carboxymethyl cellulose (i.e., claim 1, step e: blending a … quantity of the carboxycellulose with the concentrate as obtained in step d; and claim 3 wherein the carboxycellulose is carboxymethyl cellulose) (Cantiani; col. 6, lines 36-44 and col. 8, lines 58-62).
In Examples 3-6, carboxymethyl cellulose is dissolved in water and added to a nanofibril stock dispersion. The mixture is dried in an oven at 40oC, and then blended in a coffee mill to obtain a powder (i.e., claim 1, step f: processing the concentrate into a powder by subjecting it to … thermal drying and milling or grinding to obtain a composition comprising a cellulose component and a carboxycellulose) (Cantiani; col. 9, lines 57-60; col. 12, line 44- line 34-col. 16, line 67).
Although Cantiani does not explicitly teach simultaneous thermal drying and milling/grinding as recited claim 1, step f, the selection of the order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
The compositions and suspensions obtained by redispersion can be used in many sectors in which it is desired to have a shear-thinning rheological profile, such as fluids used in petroleum exploration, formulations for cosmetics and/or detergency or food sectors (Cantiani; col. 10, lines 53-59).
Cantiani does not explicitly teach claim 1, step b: blending a quantity of carboxymethyl cellulose with the first mixture or slurry, to form a second mixture or slurry, wherein the second mixture or slurry of step b) comprises the plant or micro-organism derived cellulosic material and the carboxymethyl cellulose in a ration (w/w) within the range of 93/7 to 99.5/0.5 as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Lillandt teaches a method for producing a suspension of microfibrillated cellulose comprising the following steps:
obtaining an aqueous suspension of natural cellulose fibers,
adding an additive comprising at least one natural polymer to the suspension of natural cellulose fibers,
feeding the obtained mixture comprising natural cellulose fibers and the additive into a homogenizer or a fluidizer, and
obtaining the suspension of microfibrillated cellulose (Lillandt; [0010-0014]).
The term “natural cellulose fibers” denotes cellulose fibers originating from seed plant material, such as from sugar beets (Lillandt; [0019]). The fibers may undergo conventional pulp processing such as washing and bleaching, but are otherwise chemically, enzymatically and mechanically untreated/unmodified (Lillandt; [0019]).
“Microfibrillated cellulose” is used synonymously with the terms “cellulose microfibrils,” “microfibrillar cellulose,” and “nanofibrillated cellulose” (Lillandt; [0021]).
According to a preferred embodiment, the natural polymer is carboxymethyl cellulose (i.e., claim 3 wherein the carboxycellulose is carboxymethyl cellulose) (Lillandt; [0023]). The natural polymer may be added in an amount of 2-75 weight%, preferably 5-60 weight%, more preferably 7-50 weight%, calculated from the total solid dry content of the suspension of natural cellulose fibers (Lillandt; [0025]). These weight percents overlap in scope with the claimed weight ratios of cellulose material to carboxymethyl cellulose of 93/7 to 99.5/0.5 (i.e., 0.5-7 weight% carboxymethyl cellulose, based on the total of cellulose material and carboxymethyl cellulose).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Lillandt teaches that it has been surprisingly discovered that it is possible to produce microfibrillated cellulose in a homogenizer or fluidizier without clogging problems by simply adding an additive, such as a natural polymer, to the aqueous suspension of natural cellulose fibers before the suspension is fed into the homogenizer or fluidizer. No pretreatment of the cellulose fibers is necessary, which makes the process effective and economical. Because no chemical additives are used, the produced microfibrillated cellulose is suitable for uses demanding high purity such as food products (Lillandt; [0018]).
The microfibrillated cellulose may be used, for example, as a viscosity modifier in oil drilling and mining applications. It may be used in food products, cosmetics and/or pharmaceuticals, or for rheology control (Lillandt; [0035]).
Lillandt is analogous art it teaches blending a quantity of carboxymethyl cellulose with an aqueous composition comprising non-activated, non-fibrillated plant-derived cellulose in the claimed weight ratios, followed by a fibrillation treatment so as to produce a microfibrillated cellulose (corresponding to steps a, b, and c of claim 1).
In light of the motivation provided by Lillandt to add carboxymethyl cellulose to an aqueous suspension of untreated plant-derived cellulose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add carboxymethyl cellulose to the aqueous suspension of plant-derived cellulose of Cantiani, before homogenization and in a weight ratio as claimed, in order to prevent clogging during the fibrillation of cellulose in a homogenizer, obtain a process that is effective and economical, and obtain a high purity microfibrillated cellulose, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, i.e., including step b) : blending a quantity of carboxymethyl cellulose with the first mixture or slurry, to form a second mixture or slurry, wherein the second mixture or slurry of step b) comprises the plant or micro-organism derived cellulosic material and the carboxymethyl cellulose in a ration (w/w) within the range of 93/7 to 99.5/0.5.
Regarding claim 2, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Cantiani teaches dissolving carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) in water prior to mixing with the cellulose mixture (Cantiani; Examples 3-6; col. 12, lines 38-39; col. 13, lines 41-42; col. 15, lines 44-45; and col. 15, lines 53-54).
Lillandt teaches that the natural polymer additive is preferably water-soluble (Lillandt; [0023]). Lillandt teaches that because the process employs only aqueous solutions, the resulting microfibrillated cellulose is of high purity (Lillandt; [0018]).
Cantiani in view of Lillandt do not explicitly teach dissolving carboxycellulose in water before blending with the non-fibrillated suspension of cellulose as claimed.
Because Lillandt teaches that only aqueous solutions are used and prefers the use of a water-soluble polymer (i.e., CMC), and because Cantiani teaches dissolving CMC in water prior to the later CMC addition step, the Examiner maintains that dissolving CMC in water prior to addition to the first aqueous mixture of non-fibrillated cellulose in the processes of Cantiani in view of Lillandt would have been an obvious process variant to one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby resulting in an equivalent second mixture as claimed, i.e., a mixture of non-fibrillated plant-derived cellulose and CMC in water, absent a showing otherwise.
Regarding claim 7, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The nanofibrils forming part of the compositions are obtained by a treatment including a homogenization step, wherein the homogenization step corresponds to blending, mixing, or any operation of high mechanical shear (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 20-41 and col. 5, line 59-col. 6, line 14).
Regarding claim 8, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The compositions and methods of Cantiani produce and use cellulose nanofibrils (Cantiani; see for example Abstract and col. 3, lines 10-32). The nanofibrils forming part of the compositions are obtained by a treatment including a homogenization step, wherein the homogenization step corresponds to any operation of high mechanical shear (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 20-41 and col. 5, line 59-col. 6, line 14).
Cantiani does not explicitly teach wherein in the second mixture, subjected to high mechanical shear process, produces a composition having a median major dimension D[4,3] within the range of 25-75µm, as measured by laser diffractometry.
With respect to the difference, Lillandt teaches that all conventional homogenizers and fluidizers may be used, including those suing a high shear rate (Lillandt; [0030]).
“Microfibrillated cellulose” is used synonymously with the term “nanofibrillated cellulose.” Microfibrillated cellulose has a diameter of 2-60nm, and a length (i.e., median major dimension) of several micrometers, preferably less than 500 µm, more preferably 2-200µm, even more preferably 10-100µm, and most preferably 10-60µm (Lillandt; [0021]). The microfibrillated/nanofibrillated diameter lengths of Lillandt overlaps in scope with the median major dimension range as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the length of the nanofibrils of Cantiani, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the preferred fibrillated cellulose dimensions taught by Lillandt.
Although there is no disclosure of the measurement of D[4,3] via laser diffractometry, given that the Cantiani discloses varying the particle size and processes equivalent to the presently claimed, and absent evidence criticality how the particle dimensions are measured, it is an examiner's position that the processes and particle sizes disclosed by Cantiani meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The concentration step takes place by filtration, centrifugation, or evaporation, such as filtering under pressure (i.e., mechanical or non-thermal de-watering) (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 11, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Cantiani teaches two categories of carboxymethyl cellulose based upon degree of polymerization and viscosity. Depending upon which category is used, the amounts thereof range from less than or equal to 30% by weight, or between 10-30% by weight (i.e., relative to the total weight of the plant or micro-organism-derived cellulose material) (Cantiani; col. 6, lines 40-col. 7, line 2). These weight percents overlap in scope with the claimed weight ratio of cellulose component to carboxycellulose of 20/80 to 80/20 (i.e., 20-80 weight% carboxycellulose).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 18, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. For a basic extraction, the pulp is added to an alkaline solution of a base, such as sodium hydroxide, wherein the concentration of the base is between 1% and 2% by weight (Cantiani; col. 4, lines 56-61). When a second extraction is carried out sodium hydroxide is used in a concentration less than about 9% by weight, preferably between 1% and 6% by weight. After this second extraction, a solid residue of cellulosic material is recovered (Cantiani; col. 5, lines 20-29).
Cantiani in view of Lillandt does not explicitly teach wherein the aqueous alkaline solution of sodium hydroxide has a pH in the range of 10-12.
While Cantiani does not explicitly disclose an alkaline pH range as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the alkaline pH range, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain basic extraction of a solid cellulosic residue which can be efficiently homogenized to form cellulose nanofibrils.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantiani in view of Lillandt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pykäläinen et al, EP 2752521A1 (Pykäläinen).
Regarding claim 12, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Cantiani teaches that the concentration step may take place by filtration, centrifugation or evaporation, such as with filters under vacuum or pressure, spraying towers, ovens or microwaves (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 63-67). Drying is carried out by any means which is known to those skilled in the art including evaporation in an oven via a conveyor belt, rotating ovens, or fluidized beds (Cantiani; col. 9, lines 57-64).
Cantiani in view of Lillandt do not explicitly teach concurrent drying and grinding using an air turbulence mill.
With respect to the difference, Pykäläinen teaches a method of manufacturing a fiber-based product, wherein the staring materials include nanofibrillar cellulose (Pykäläinen; [0001], [0018] and claim 6). The method includes a dewatering (i.e., concentrating) and/or drying step, which can be done with a device selected from a group including a fluidized bed dryer, a cyclone drying (i.e., rotating dryer), an air turbulence mill, and other suitable drying devices. The drying device can act as a grinder and vice versa (Pykäläinen; [0028]).
Pykäläinen is analogous art as it teaches methods for processing nanofibrillar cellulose which include dewatering (i.e., concentrating) and/or drying and milling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an air turbulence mill for the concentration and/or drying and milling steps of Cantiani in view of Lillandt, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because Cantiani teaches that any suitable drying device can be used, and Pykäläinen teaches the equivalence between using the claimed air turbulence mill and the drying devices of Cantiani (e.g., rotating ovens or fluidized beds). Further, because Pykäläinen teaches an air turbulence mill as suitable for the drying and milling of cellulose nanofibrils, those skilled in art would have a reasonable expectation of success upon performing such a substitution.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantiani in view of Lillandt as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of ErtelAlsop, “What is a filter press” (ErtelAlsop).
With respect to claim 19, Cantiani in view of Lillandt are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Cantiani teaches that the concentration step takes place by filtration, centrifugation or evaporation of the water from the suspension, wherein filters under pressure are disclosed (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 63-66).
Cantiani in view of Lillandt do not explicitly teach de-watering using a filter press as claimed.
With respect to the difference, ErtelAlsop teaches that a filter press is a piece of equipment designed for batch process filtration to separate solids and liquids using pressure filtration. Filter presses have been widely used since the mid-1800’s in many industries (ErtelAlsop; page 1, paragraph 1).
ErtelAlsop is analogous art as it teaches the use of a filter press to separate solids and liquids.
Given that Cantiani discloses a concentration step that overlaps the presently claimed mechanical de-watering step, including filtering under pressure, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use filtering under pressure, which is both taught by Cantiani and encompassed within the scope of the present claims. Further, in light of the motivation provided by ErtelAlsop that filter presses are well-known pieces of equipment that have been widely used to separate solids and liquids using pressure filtration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use a filter press in the concentration step of Cantiani in view of Lillandt in order to achieve filtering under pressure, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,197, Theeuwen et al (Theeuwen) in view of Cantiani.
Regarding claim 1, patented claim 1 of Theeuwen claims a process for producing a composition comprising: blending a quantity of carboxycellulose with a mixture of an aqueous liquid and a non-fibrillated plant or micro-organism derived cellulose material (i.e., the claimed steps a and b); subjecting the mixture to mechanical or enzymatic fibrillation treatment (i.e., the claimed step c); mechanically dewatering (i.e., concentrating) the composition to a dry matter content of at least 5 wt% (i.e., the claimed step d); and blending a further quantity of the carboxycellulose with the composition (i.e., the claimed step e). Patented claim 12 claims wherein the blend produced in step b) comprises the cellulose material and the carboxycellulose in a ratio (w/w) within the range of 93/7 to 99.5/0.5.
Further, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Theeuwen does not claim the instant step f) of processing the concentrate into a powder by subjecting it to a simultaneous thermal drying and milling/grinding operation.
With respect to the difference, Cantiani is relied upon as discussed above as teaching a method of treating parenchymal cellulose by blending with a quantity of carboxymethyl cellulose in one or various steps, homogenizing, and concentrating. As final steps, Cantiani teaches thermal drying, such as in an oven, and milling to produce a powder (Cantiani; col. 9, lines 57-67 and Examples 3-6). Cantiani teaches that by using the methods as described, the resulting compositions can be dried and then redispersed, retaining the rheological properties of the initial, non-dried suspensions (col. 3, lines 34-45). This is an advantage over the prior art wherein drying typically adversely affects redispersion and the rheological profile (Cantiani; col. 59-col. 3, line 10).
Cantiani is analogous art as it teaches a process of producing a composition comprising carboxycellulose and a plant or micro-organism derived cellulose material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further dry and mill the compositions in the processes of patented claim 1 of Theeuwen because Cantiani teaches that related processes, such as those using a carboxycellulose additive, allows for both drying and milling to obtain a usable product which can be effectively redispersed without altering the rheological properties thereof. Therefore, those skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success upon performing drying and milling in the patented processes of Theeuwen based upon the teachings of Cantiani.
Although patented claim 1 of Theeuwen in view of Cantiani does not explicitly teach simultaneous thermal drying and milling/grinding as recited claim 1, step f, the selection of the order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Regarding claim 2, patented claim 4 claims wherein the carboxycellulose is dissolved in water before being blended with the aqueous mixture.
Regarding claim 3, patented claim 5 claims wherein the carboxycellulose comprises carboxymethylcellulose.
Regarding claim 4, patented claim 6 claims wherein the cellulose material comprises parenchymal cellulose material derived from a plant pulp.
Regarding claim 5, patented claim 7 claims wherein cellulose material is produced by subjecting the parenchymal cell containing plant pulp to biological or chemical treatment resulting in partial degradation and/or extraction of pectin and hemicellulose.
Regarding claim 6, patented claims 8-9 claim wherein said bio/chemical treatment comprises an acid treatment, wherein the parenchymal cellulose material is combined with an acidic aqueous solution having a pH within the range of 1-3; and/or an alkaline treatment, wherein the parenchymal cellulose material is combined with an alkaline aqueous solution (patented claim 8), wherein the aqueous alkaline solution is sodium hydroxide having a pH within the range of 10-12 (patented claim 9).
Regarding claim 7, patented claim 10 claims wherein the dewatering (i.e., concentrating) comprises subjected the composition to a high mechanical shear process, so as to produce a microfibrillated cellulose.
Regarding claim 8, patented claim 11 claims wherein the cellulose is subjected to a high mechanical shear process, so as to produce a composition having a D[4,3] within the range of 25-75 pm, as measured by laser diffractometry.
Regarding claim 10, patented claim 13 claims wherein the dewatering step comprises using a filter press.
Regarding claim 11, patented claim 14 claims wherein the further addition of carboxycellulose results in a ratio (w/w) of the cellulose component and the carboxycellulose within the range of 20/80 to 80/20.
Regarding claim 18, patented claim 9 claims wherein the aqueous alkaline solution is sodium hydroxide having a pH in the range of 10-12.
Regarding claim 19, patented claim 13 claims wherein the dewatering utilizes a filter press.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,197 (Theeuwen) in view of Cantiani as applied to claim 1-11 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Pykäläinen et al, EP 2752521A1 (Pykäläinen).
Regarding claim 12, patented claim 1 in view of Cantiani is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the composition is mechanically de-watered, dried and milled to obtain a usable product which can be effectively redispersed without altering the rheological properties thereof.
Cantiani further teaches that the concentration step may take place by filtration, centrifugation or evaporation, such as with filters under vacuum or pressure, spraying towers, ovens or microwaves (Cantiani; col. 8, lines 63-67). Drying is carried out by any means which is known to those skilled in the art including evaporation in an oven via a conveyor belt, rotating ovens, or fluidized beds (Cantiani; col. 9, lines 57-64).
Patented claims 1-14 in view of Cantiani do not explicitly teach concurrent drying and grinding using an air turbulence mill.
With respect to the difference, Pykäläinen teaches a method of manufacturing a fiber-based product, wherein the staring materials include nanofibrillar cellulose (Pykäläinen; [0001], [0018] and claim 6). The method includes a dewatering (i.e., concentrating) and/or drying step, which can be done with a device selected from a group including a fluidized bed dryer, a cyclone drying (i.e., rotating dryer), an air turbulence mill, and other suitable drying devices. The drying device can act as a grinder and vice versa (Pykäläinen; [0028]).
Pykäläinen is analogous art as it teaches methods for processing nanofibrillar cellulose which include dewatering (i.e., concentrating) and/or drying and milling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an air turbulence mill for the concentration and/or drying and milling steps of claims 1-4 of Theeuwen in view of Cantiani, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because Cantiani teaches that any suitable drying device can be used, and Pykäläinen teaches the equivalence between using the claimed air turbulence mill and the drying devices of Cantiani (e.g., rotating ovens or fluidized beds). Further, because Pykäläinen teaches an air turbulence mill as suitable for the drying and milling of cellulose nanofibrils, those skilled in art would have a reasonable expectation of success upon performing such a substitution.
Response to Arguments
1) The Amendments filed 02/05/2026 have overcome the objection to claim 1 previously of record.
2) The Amendments filed 02/05/2026 have also overcome 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 18 previously of record.
3) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-8, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-18 over Cantiani (US6,231,657); of claim 12 over Cantiani in view of Pykalainen et al. (EP 2752521A1) ("Pykalainen"); and of claim 19 over Cantiani in view of ErtelAlsop, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Cantiani, alone or in combination with Pykalainen or ErtelAlsop, does not teach a process as presently claimed. Specifically, the claims as amended clearly require wherein the cellulose material of step a) is in a non-activated or non-fibrillated form; wherein the slurry of step a) comprising non-activated or non-fibrillated cellulose is then blended with carboxymethyl cellulose in step b); and wherein the mixture of step b) is then fibrillated to produce microfibrillated cellulose from the non-fibrillated cellulose in the presence of carboxymethyl cellulose.
Instead, Cantiani teaches adding carboxymethyl cellulose to the cellulose after fibrillation. Cantiani does not teach or suggest wherein carboxymethyl cellulose is added to non-fibrillated cellulose, followed by fibrillation, as presently claimed. Therefore, Cantiani does not teach or suggest processes as currently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search, a new grounds of rejection is made over Cantiani in view of Lillandt as set forth above.
4). Regarding the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections over U.S. Patent No. 11,739,197 in view of Cantiani, and over U.S. Patent No. 11,739,197 in view of Cantiani and in further view of Pykäläinen, Examiner acknowledges that Applicant respectfully defers the filing of a terminal disclaimer until such time that the present application or at least subject-matter contained therein is indicated to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Windebank et al, US 2017/0306057 A1, teaches a method for improving dispersibility of dried or at least partially dried microfibrillated cellulose (Windebank; [0003]). The method comprises dewatering and drying steps (Windebank; [0004-0012]). The dried or at least partially dried microfibrillated cellulose may comprise an additive which enhances a mechanical and/or physical property of the re-dispersed microfibrillated cellulose, wherein the additive may be carboxymethyl cellulose (Windebank; [0013], [0098] and [0204]). An Atritor dryer-pulverizer, which is an air-swept mill or dryer having the ability to introduce a stream of hot air for drying and milling materials, is used to process and dry the microfibrillated cellulose and calcium carbonate additives. Other equivalent mills are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (Windebank; [0231]).
Paltakari et al, WO 2010/092239 A1, teaches a process for producing modified nanofibrillated cellulose wherein a cellulose derivative or polysaccharide derivative is adsorbed onto the fibers in a suspension, followed by mechanical disintegration (page 3, lines 26-33). Celluloses include plant-derived, or from algae, fungi or bacteria (page 8, line 35-page 9, line 2). Carboxymethyl cellulose is the preferred cellulose derivative (page 9, lines 4-14). The process results energy savings by reducing the mechanical treatment (page 12, lines 4-13).
Kim et al, “Carboxymethyl Cellulose Enhanced Production of Cellulose Nanofibrils,” teaches that adsorption of carboxymethyl cellulose onto a cellulose surface is well-known as a pretreatment for native cellulose to produce CNF in combination with a high-pressure homogenization process (page 2, para 1).
Chen et al, “Preparation and properties of microfibrillated cellulose with different carboxyethyl content,” teaches that carboxyethyl pretreatment of cellulose before grinding and homogenization to prepare microfibrillated cellulose resulted in cellulose that was easier to swell and fibrillate, greatly reducing the frequency in grinding and energy consumption (Abstract and page 617, para 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732