DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on November 11, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuromiya et al (JP 2019/154289 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Nikkola et al (WO 2019/110868 A1) and Hamabe et al (US 2018/0201770 A1), as evidenced by ASTM International (Designation: D1909 - 13 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Tables of Commercial Moisture Regains and Commercial Allowances for Textile Fibers, p.1-3).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-4: Kuromiya teaches a composite resin composition containing a resin (para. 0009), a fibrous filler with defibrated sites at the end in a length direction dispersed in the resin (para. 0009) that is in contact with the surface of the molded body (para. 0024), and a volatile agent (para. 0009), such as an insect repellant, insecticide, aroma, or an agricultural chemical (para. 0027), supported on the fibrous filler. Kuromiya also teaches that the fibrous filler may be a cellulose (para. 0018) and is included at a loading of 1-70% by mass (para. 0027). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of fibrous filler and would have been motivated to do so since Kuromiya teaches this amount is acceptable to achieve the disclosed invention.
Kuromiya further teaches that the fibers are in contact with each other (para. 0024, Fig. 1), and that the fibers have defibrated ends and central portions that are not defibrated (Fig. 2). Kuromiya teaches that the volatile chemical may be exposed to the surface of the resin in the non-fibrillated portions of the fibrous filler (para. 0026), which indicates that the central/non-fibrillated portion of at least one fiber is exposed on the surface of the molded body.
Kuromiya does not explicitly teach that the water content of the fibers is at least 5%, as defined by ASTM D 1909. However, Kuromiya discloses cellulose containing fibers, such as cotton, hemp, jute, and rayon (para. 0018). ASTM International teaches that these fibers have a moisture content/moisture regain of between 7% and 13.75% (p.2, Table 1).
Kuromiya is silent to the hydrolyzable coating resin and the relationship between melting temperatures of the base resin and coating resin and the carbonization temperature of the fibrous filler.
Nikkola teaches a cellulose-containing masterbatch with a hydrolysable resin coating the cellulose fibers (p.28, lines 35-37, polylactic acid thermoplastic compatibilizer), wherein the coating resin improves the compatibility between the cellulose fibers and the base resin (p.4, lines 15-17). Nikkola also teaches that the melting temperatures of both the base resin and the coating resin are lower than the degradation temperature of the cellulose fibers to avoid charring (p.3, lines 32-37). Nikkola and Kuromiya are analogous art because they in the same field of endeavor, i.e. resin composites containing a cellulose fibrous filler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the fibrous filler with a hydrolyzable resin and select resins with melting points below the carbonization temperature of the fibrous filler to make the fibrous filler more compatible with the base resin and to avoid charring of the molded article.
Nikkola does not explicitly disclose that the melting temperature of the coating resin is higher than the melting temperature of the base resin. However, the reference teaches a polylactic acid coating resin and a polyolefin base resin (p.1, lines 36-37), both of which are cited in the instant specification as an exemplary coating resin and base resin, respectively. Therefore, the relationship between the melting points of the coating resin and the base resin is implicitly disclosed by Nikkola.
Kuromiya is silent to the defibrated site being 5-50% of the fiber length of the fibrous filler.
Hamabe teaches a composite material comprising a resin and a fibrous filler (para. 0018) such as a cellulose-containing fiber (para. 0024), wherein a fiber length direction end is defibrated and the defibrated site is 5-50% of the total fiber length, which allows for a composite with optimal mechanical properties from the balance of surface area and aspect ratio of the fibers (para. 0026). Hamabe and Kuromiya are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely resin composites containing a cellulose fibrous filler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fibrous filler wherein the defibrated portion is 5-50% of the fiber length in the composition taught by Kuromiya because a defibrated portion in that amount will result in superior mechanical properties.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuromiya et al (JP 2019/154289 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Nikkola et al (WO 2019/110868 A1) and Hamabe et al (US 2018/0201770 A1), as evidenced by ASTM International (Designation: D1909 - 13 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Tables of Commercial Moisture Regains and Commercial Allowances for Textile Fibers, p.1-3) and Rocca-Smith et al (Beyond Biodegradability of Poly(lactic acid): Physical and Chemical Stability in Humid Environments, 5 Feb 2017, ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, vol. 5, p.2751-2762).
Kuromiya, Nikkola, and Hamabe teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Nikkola teaches a PLA coating resin but does not explicitly teach its decomposition in an environment with a humidity of 50% or more.
Rocca-Smith demonstrates that PLA naturally decomposes in environments with 50% or higher humidity, as shown by the decrease in molecular weight over time in humid environments (p.2755, Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that the hydrolyzable coating of Nikkola would change the mode of operation of Kuromiya's invention and thus render the combination non-obvious: There is no evidence that the addition of the hydrolyzable resin would prevent the physical control of the release of the volatile medical agent, and the motivation for adding the hydrolyzable resin is not directed toward the mode of release of the volatile medical agent. Therefore, the original mode of operation would be maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767