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 .
Election/Restrictions
Group II (claims 6 and 14-17) and Group III (claim 7) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/8/2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/4/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 2, 8-9, 11 and 14 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, 12-13 and 15-17 is/are pending with claim(s) 6-7 and 15-17 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10 and 12-13 is/are under examination in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, filed on 1/13/2025, with respect to 102 and 103 rejections has been fully considered but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikkola et al (US 20220235186 A1) in view of Tsujii et al (US 20200115471 A1) and Liu et al (US 20210198476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nikkola teaches a natural fiber plastic composite precursor material comprising cellulosic fibers having an average fiber length less than 1 mm and a thermoplastic polymer [abstract] used for cellulose reinforced composite [0039].
Nikkola does not teach that the fibrous cellulose having an average fiber width of 0.1 to 19 um, and having hydroxyl groups partially or fully substituted with carbamate groups at a rate of substitution with the carbamate groups of 1.0 mmol/g or higher.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsujii teaches a composite comprising fine cellulose fibers and a resin [abstract]. The fine cellulose fibers have an average fiber diameter of 0.1 µm to 10 µm [0039], a degree of substitution with carbamate group of 0.37 [Production Example 8, Table 1] which is equivalent to 2.3 mmol/g (considering the molecular weight of anhydroglucose unit in cellulose = 162 g/mol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the natural fiber plastic composite precursor material according to Nikkolas including cellulosic fibers having diameter of 0.1 µm to 10 µm and a degree of carbamate substitution of 2.3 mmol/g, as Tsujii demonstrates these values to be suitable for similar resin-cellulose composite. This represents the use of a suitable range of cellulose fiber diameter and degree of carbamate substitution in resin-cellulose fiber composite which are compositionally similar to those of Tsujii and which is used in similar application. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-21 (2007). See MPEP 2141.
The cellulosic fibers diameter of 0.1 µm to 10 µm and a degree of carbamate substitution of 2.3 mmol/g meet the claimed width of 0.1-19 µm and rate of carbamate substitution of 1.0 mmol/g or higher.
Nikkola teaches that the thermoplastic polymer is preferably provided in a powder form [0070]. The thermoplastic polymer include PET, PVC, etc. [0069]. These polymers are art recognized as non-interactive with the fibrous cellulose, and therefore read on the claimed resin powder. Nikkola teaches that the powder has an average particle size of 100 to 800 micrometers [0075].
Nikkola does not teach the recited inorganic powder.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a cellulose resin composite comprising an inorganic filler such as silica to improve the strength of the product [0014-0015]. The silica filler is in powder form with size of 300 mesh [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add the silica powder filler into Nikkola’s cellulose resin composite in order to improve the strength of the product. The silica powder is art recognized as non-interactive with the fibrous cellulose, and therefore read on the claimed inorganic powder.
300 mesh is equivalent to about 45 micron. Therefore, a ratio of an average particle size of the inorganic powder to an average particle size of the resin powder is 1:2.2 to 1:18, as calculated by the examiner, falling within the claimed range of 1:0.1 to 1:10000.
Nikkola does not teach any water in the natural fiber plastic composite precursor material. Therefore, the water content is negligible.
Regarding claim 3, Nikkola teaches that the lignin content in the cellulosic fiber material is preferably under 1 wt% [0054].
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Nikkola is silent about the claimed brightness value measured in Japanese standard JIS P 8148. However, Nikkola teaches bleaching to enhance brightness and brightness may be advantageous in fiber-based polymer composite objects [0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the brightness by bleaching through routine experimentation to arrive at the claimed 50% or higher, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the desired advantages in the fiber-based polymer composite objects. See MPEP 2144.05. "[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 Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276 (CCPA 1980). "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 12-13, according to the applicant, the fine fiber percentage refers to the percentage in terms of mass of the pulp fibers having a fiber length of 0.2 mm or shorter [0071 spec.].
Nikkola teaches that cellulosic fibers have an average fiber length of less than 1 mm and preferably the length of at least 80% (w/w) of the fibers is in said range [0057]. This means that there can be as much as 20% of the fibers having lengths longer than 1 mm. In other words, the fine fiber percentage can be 80% or lower, meeting the claimed 99% or lower.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762