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 .
Response to Amendment
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on October 6, 2025. In particular, claim 1 which has been amended to limit the lyotropic cellulose derivative to molecular weights between 40 to 200 kDa. This combination of limitations was not present at the time of the previous office action. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiba et al (Preparation of Cholesteric (hydroxypropyl) cellulose/polymer networks and ion-mediated control of their optical properties, Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7, 3076-3082).
Regarding claim 1-4, Chiba teaches an optically active composition (Abstract) comprises a solvent (water, methanol), a lyotropic cellulose derivative such as hydroxy propyl cellulose (page 3077, experimental section), and a polyethylene glycol (tetra (ethylene glycol) diacrylate). Wherein the polyethylene glycol is present in less than 15 % by weight (page 3077, experimental section). The optically active ink includes a chiral nematic phase comprising the cellulose derivative (Abstract). Chiba teaches that the weight average molecular weight of the cellulose derivative is 15.3 x 104 (153 kDa) (page 3077, experimental section).
While Chiba does not explicitly call the composition an “ink”, given that it is liquid and dries into a film with color, it fulfills the general structure of an ink and as such, the composition reads on that limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (A bio-inspired cellulose nanocrystal-based nanocomposite photonic film with hyper-reflection and humidity-responsive actuator properties, J. Mater. Chem. C, 2016, 4, 9687-9696) in view of Habibi et al, Cellulose Nanocrystals, Chem. Rev. 2010, 110, 3479-3500.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches an optically active composition (page 9687) comprising a solvent (water), a lyotropic cellulose derivative (cellulose nanocrystals) and a polyethylene glycol in an amount of about 15 % by weight or less (page 9688) wherein the optically active ink includes a chiral nematic phase comprising the cellulose derivative (page 9687).
While Wu does not explicitly call the composition an “ink”, given that it is liquid and dries into a film with color, it fulfills the general structure of an ink and as such, the composition reads on that limitation.
Wu teaches that the cellulose nanocrystals are made from the hydrolysis of cotton pulp (Section 2.2), however, Wu fails to teach the molecular weight of the cellulose nanocrystals.
Habibi teaches that cellulose nanocrystals made from the hydrolysis of cotton have a typical degree of polymerization of 250 (page 3484, col. 1). Given that cellulose has a repeating unit of d-glucose units which have a molecular weight of 180, the molecular weight can be calculated to be approximately 45,000 or 45 kDa.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cellulose nanocrystal of Wu have the molecular weight as taught by Habibi. Given that this is the typical molecular weight of a cellulose nanocrystal derived from the hydrolysis of cotton, one would have been motivated to do so in order to use the typical molecular weight in order to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches that the polyethylene glycol has a molecular weight of 400 Da (page 9688).
Regarding claims 6-7, Wu teaches that the polyethylene glycol comprises a reactive functionality such as an acrylate (page 9688).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant’s argument: Chiba has a weight average molecular weight of 15.3 kDa.
Examiner’s response: Chiba teaches that the weight average molecular weight of the cellulose derivative is 15.3 x 104 (153 kDa) (page 3077, experimental section) which is within the recited range.
Applicant’s argument: Wu fails to teach the molecular weight of the cellulose nanocrystal used.
Examiner’s response: This is remedied by the secondary reference, Habibi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights