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 .
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujii, et. al., (JP2019001876, herein Tsujii, US20200115471 is used as English equivalent), in the view of Tsujii-1, et. al., (WO2017094812, herein Tsujii-1, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as evidenced by Kara et. al, (2025). "Effects of wastepaper pulp and its level on the properties of particleboard," BioResources 20(4), 10756–10770; and Dislaire, Mechanical and hygroscopic properties of molded pulp products using different wood-based cellulose fibers, Polymers 2021, 13, 3225.
Regarding claim 1, Tsujii teaches the “fine cellulose fiber(s) as referred to herein means fine cellulose fiber(s) that are/is obtained by defibrating a plant raw material such as pulp and that have/has a fiber diameter of no less than 1 nm and no greater than 15 μm” [0022]; The average length of the fine cellulose fibers is no less than 1 μm and no greater than 5,000 μm [0039] overlap the claimed ranges; the fiber diameters of the pulp are no less than 10 μm and no greater than 100 μm [0052], which overlaps the fiber length of the raw material pulp. Tsujii further teaches the raw pulp is selected from multiple kinds of pulp used in combination, including: wastepaper pulp [0053] and bleached hardwood kraft pulp [0053], before the defibration, with the length range of 0.1-0.3 mm for wastepaper pulp, as evidenced by Kara et. al, (2025). "Effects of wastepaper pulp and its level on the properties of particleboard," BioResources 20(4), 10756–10770, [P10758; Para. 5], and bleached hardwood kraft pulp has the mean length of 711 μm [Page 3, Table 1], therefore, the wastepaper pulp with 0.1-0.3 mm length range read on the fine fiber, and wastepaper pulp [0053] and bleached hardwood kraft pulp [0053] used as raw pulp materials, which further collectively meet waste paper pulp; hardwood bleached kraft pulp [Instant App. US20230287147; 0023, 0025]. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select wastepaper pulp [0053] and bleached hardwood kraft pulp [0053] and optimize the mixing ratio of the two pulps, which can lead to the desired fiber length distribution before defibrillation with the optimized fine fiber percentage, which can improve efficiency of the reaction in further treatment [0052], wherein, the varying pulp fiber dimensions interact differently with surrounding fluids, hence, can lead to the controlled viscosity, and then upon further apply the as-formed fibers with dimensions of the “fine cellulose fiber(s) as referred to herein means fine cellulose fiber(s) that are/is obtained by defibrating a plant raw material such as pulp and that have/has a fiber diameter of no less than 1 nm and no greater than 15 μm” [0022]; The average length of the fine cellulose fibers is no less than 1 μm and no greater than 5,000 μm [0039]; the fiber diameters of the pulp are no less than 10 μm and no greater than 100 μm [0052] into the cellulose fiber composition formation, because doing so would achieve the formation of fine cellulose fibers that are superior in handling properties and that can suitably be used as a reinforcing material for a resin [0010], as taught by Tsujii.
Tsujii teaches the using water as a dispersion medium, the pulp was mixed with urea, and citric acid was added. The mixture was dried overnight at 105° C., thereafter heat treated at a reaction temperature of 140° C. for 4 hours of reaction time, and washed. [0117] which reads on the carbamate-modified pulp formation process from the instant application, hence, can further lead to the claimed hydroxyl groups substituted with carbamate groups at a rate of substitution of 1.0 to 2.0 mmol/g.
Tsujii is silent on the fibrious cellulose’s features including: having a degree of crystallinity of 50% or higher, wherein a ratio of the average fiber length of the fibrous cellulose to an average fiber length of raw material pulp is less than 30. However, Tsujii-1 teaches the crystallinity is preferably 50% or more [P11; Para 4] lies in the claimed range; cellulose fibers; fiber length of approximately 5 μm [P2; Para. 1]; The average fiber length of the cellulose fiber raw material used in the present invention is preferably 0.5 mm or more [P9; Para. 2], hence, the ratio between the average fiber length of the fibrous cellulose and average fiber length of raw material is 5/500=0.01, lies in the claimed range. Tsujii and Tsujii-1 are considered to be in the same field of endeavor, that of the acid modified polypropylene-based resin composite development via fibrous cellulose selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsujii to utilized the ratio of the ratio between the average fiber length of the fibrous cellulose and average fiber length of raw material is 5/500=0.01 with a reasonable expectation of success, and would have been motivated to do as Tsujii-1 discloses that such amounts are suitable for the invention, because doing so would further achieve the optimized product process via the specified cellulose fiber selection, which can lead to the desired property of “excellent strength and elastic modulus” [P22; Para. 3].
In the case where the claimed ranges "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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the Tsujii and Tsujii-1 teach all of the claimed ingredients, in the claimed amounts as set forth above, and Tsujii teaches the composition as being made by a substantially similar process as of fine cellulose fiber(s) that are/is obtained by defibrating a plant raw material such as pulp [0022]. The original specification does not provide any disclosure on how to obtain the claimed properties outside the components of the composition itself, wherein, the instant application discloses the microfiber cellulose may be obtained by defibrating (making finer) a cellulose raw material [Instant App. US20230287147; 0023]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. 5% weight-loss temperature would necessarily arise from a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching enabling a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, absent undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 3, 6, Tsujii teaches fine cellulose fibers which may be involved in the first aspect of the invention are superior in the ability to homogeneously disperse in a resin [0012].
Regarding claim 4, Tsujii teaches using water as a dispersion medium, the pulp was mixed with urea in a mass ratio of 100:40 (40% urea content with respect to 100% pulp) [0108] lie in the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 5, 7, Tsujii teaches maleic acid modified polypropylene [0145].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsujii, et. al., (JP2019001876, herein Tsujii, US20200115471 is used as English equivalent), and Tsujii-1, et. al., (WO2017094812, herein Tsujii-1, a machine translation is being used for citation purpose) as evidenced by Kara et. al, (2025). "Effects of wastepaper pulp and its level on the properties of particleboard," BioResources 20(4), 10756–10770; and Dislaire, Mechanical and hygroscopic properties of molded pulp products using different wood-based cellulose fibers, Polymers 2021, 13, 3225.
In this case, the applicant’s arguments are directed toward the amendment to independent claim 1, which has been addressed by the rejection set forth above.
In particular, Tsujii explicitly teaches the raw pulp is selected from multiple kinds of pulp used in combination, including: wastepaper pulp [0053] and bleached hardwood kraft pulp [0053], before the defibration, with the length range of 0.1-0.3 mm for wastepaper pulp, as evidenced by Kara et. al, (2025). "Effects of wastepaper pulp and its level on the properties of particleboard," BioResources 20(4), 10756–10770, [P10758; Para. 5], and bleached hardwood kraft pulp has the mean length of 711 μm =0.711 mm [Page 3, Table 1], therefore, the wastepaper pulp with 0.1-0.3 mm length range read on the fine fiber, upon optimizing the mixing ratio of the two pulps, which can lead to the desired fine fiber percentage in the raw pulp before defibrillation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented
in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (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.
/Z. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights