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 .
Status of Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to remove the phrase “the first source of fibers has a high anionic charge”. Furthermore, applicant has amended Claim 1 to replace the phrase “maize fibers” with “maize pieces”. This makes it clear that the fibers do not need to have the dimensions claimed but rather the cuts of plant waste. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 4 has been amended to remove “LV-8111 ATC” and “the flocculating agent is LV-SF BH”. Now Claim 4 requires “a coagulant” which has a definite meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections/Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “wherein the fibers are derived from cotton waste”. Regarding the antecedent basis for the phrase “the fibers” Claim 1 recites “a first source from maize plant waste and cellulosic fibers from a second source”. In other words the phrase “the fibers” may reasonably relate to either the first source or the second source of fibers. However, since fibers cannot be both maize (corn) derived and cotton derived simultaneously and because cotton is listed as a possible fiber for the second source of fibers it is understood that Claim 2 refers to “the second source of fibers” when it recites “the fibers”. Nonetheless correction to clearly refer to “the second source of fibers” instead of the more general “the fibers” recited is required to enhance clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the phrase “a high-charge cationic agent”. However, neither the specification nor the claims provides sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to properly access the cationic charge required to qualify as, meet, or infringe “high-charge”. In other words “high-charge” is an indefinite term of degree (MPEP 2173.05(b).I), rendering Claim 3 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. See also MPEP 2173.02.
Claim 4 depends upon Claim 3 and similarly recites “the high-charge cationic agent”; Claim 4 is rejected for similar reasons as those detailed above.
Claim 5 depends upon Claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL – “Strength Properties of Paper from Pulp Blend of Kenaf Bark and Corn Husk: A Preliminary Study” Fagbemi et al. Claim 1 requires “A lignocellulosic composite comprising: a first source from maize plant waste and cellulosic fibers from a second source, wherein the first source of maize waste fiber consists of at least part of the stalk and leaves in a proportion by weight of 65 to 90% of the total weight of fiber; and the second source of fiber from waste of a plant species consists of 35 to 10% of the total weight of fibers, with a width, lumen and thickness less than those of the fibers from the first source”. Fagbemi et al. discloses a mixture of 75% corn husk fiber and 25% kenaf fiber “Pulps of corn husk and kenaf bark (3% consistency) were blended together in ratios, 50% -50%, 75% -25% and 25% - 75%” [Page 4126, Section 2.3]. Both the husk of corn and the bark of kenaf are understood to be waste. Fagbemi et al. does not explicitly teach that the width, lumen, and thickness of kenaf fibers are smaller than the width, lumen, and thickness of corn husk fibers, however these properties (width, lumen, and thickness) are considered inherent to the fiber. Furthermore support that kenaf fibers have lower width, lumen, and thickness can be found in the present application specification, specifically Table 1 [0014].
Claim 1 further requires “the fibers produced being contained in a matrix maize-based paste with mechanical properties with fibers having greater tensile strength, which come from the second source of fibers, forming self-linkages, establishing hydrogen-bridge bonds providing for fibers union interaction with fibers of greater mechanic strength than the second source of fibers”. Fagbemi et al. discloses the second source of fibers (kenaf) having greater tensile strength than the first source of fibers “The tensile index, and tear index of paper from 100% kenaf bark were 7.79 Nm/g and 20.72 mN.m2/g respectively. These values were much higher than that of paper from 100% corn husk with tensile index (2.77 Nm/g) and tear index (10.73 mN.m2/g).” [Page 4126, Section 3.1].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the fibers from the first source of fibres are waste of maize pieces with an average length of 3 to 5 cm and diameter between 1 to 3 cm”. Fagbemi et al. does not disclose the size that the pieces are cut to, indicating only “manually chopped kenaf bark and corn husk” [Page 4125, Section 2.2] without indicating further the size of the manual chopping.
Claim 1 further requires “the second source of fibers is waste of one or more vegetal species selected from any of the following: cotton waste; Miscanthus; hemp; bagasse; sugarcane cane leaf, sorghum, and panicum cut in pieces with a length of between to 2 to 4 cm.”. Fagbemi et al. discloses kenaf fibers which are sometimes referred to a Deccan hemp, however they do not disclose the length the fibers were cut to.
Regarding the features not taught by Fagbemi et al. namely the dimensions that the fibers are cut to, MPEP 2144.04.IV teaches that changes in size/proportion of a device are not patentable absent evidence (not found in the application-as-filed) that the range claimed is critical to the function of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim Objection/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art to Claim 2 is given by NPL – “Strength Properties of Paper from Pulp Blend of Kenaf Bark and Corn Husk: A Preliminary Study” Fagbemi et al. by virtue of teaching Claim 1.
Claim 2 requires “the fibers are derived from cotton waste resulting from cotton ginning, composed of fibril and cotton seed fibers.”. Fagbemi et al. is silent towards cotton as a source of fibers.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to Claim 3 is given by Fagbemi et al. by virtue of teaching a paper product made from a mixture of corn fibers and a second source of fibers.
Claim 3 requires “shredding a mixture of husk and cane of a corn plant to obtain a mass of waste from a first source of shredded fibers comprising a set of pieces having an average length of 3 to 5 cm and a diameter of between 1 to 3 cm”. Fagbemi et al. discloses “Isolation of fibres from air-dried and manually chopped kenaf bark and corn husk was achieved” [Page 4125, Section 2.2], however it unclear if this manual chopping process would have produced corn fibers chopped with a length between 3 to 5 cm and a diameter between 1 to 3 cm.
Claim 3 further requires “submerging the mass of waste from the first source of shredded fibers in a pan with an aqueous liquid, at a temperature ranging from room temperature to 90°C and for a large time ranging from 30 to 70 minutes;”. Fagbemi et al. discloses “Isolation of fibres from air-dried and manually chopped kenaf bark and corn husk was achieved through the soda pulping process in a 5L conventional autoclave.” [Page 4125, Section 2.2], however neither a time nor a temperature was given for the pulping process.
Claim 3 further requires “adding a proportion of 65 to 90% of corn fiber and 35% to 10% of fibers having pieces with a length of between 2 to 4 cm from a second source to the pan, agitating for a lapse of time ranging from 30 to 60 minutes, and with a range of at a temperature of between room temperature and 60°C, segregating separating all the fibers from both fiber sources and mixing them resulting in a mixture of fibers;”. Fagbemi et al. discloses a mixture of 75% corn husk fiber and 25% kenaf fiber “Pulps of corn husk and kenaf bark (3% consistency) were blended together in ratios, 50% -50%, 75% -25% and 25% - 75%” [Page 4126, Section 2.3], however does not further disclose mixing times or temperatures.
Claim 3 further requires “placing the mixture of fibers in a refiner with water at 5% by weight of a total weight of the fibers, resulting in reciprocal anchoring centers between fibers within the mixture of fibers, creating a series of fibers mesh portions, keeping the mixture of fibers in suspension under agitation;”. Fagbemi et al. does not disclose this step.
Claim 3 further requires “placing the wet mixture into a cyclonic purification device”. Fagbemi discloses purification by washing “After pulping, the cooked materials were thoroughly washed with water to remove residual cooking liquor” [Page 4125, Section 2.2] but does not disclose a cyclonic purification device.
Claim 3 further requires “adding a high-charge cationic agent and a flocculating agent, and removing the water from the bottom of the agitator;”. Fagbemi discloses removing water “The screened pulp was washed, pressed, drained and allowed to dry” [Page 4125, Section 2.2], but does not disclose a cationic agent or flocculating agent.
Claim 3 further requires “draining water up to a volume of remaining water ranging from 0.15 to 0.5% by weight of mixture of fibers”. Fagbemi et al. discloses a larger amount of residual water “The screened pulp was washed, pressed, drained and allowed to dry to a moisture content of 10% at room temperature” [Page 4125, Section 2.2].
Claims 4 and 5 depend on Claim 3 and would be allowable for similar reasons.
As potentially allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736