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 Arguments
With their response dated 12/9/2025 the applicants filed terminal disclaimer which was approved. Amendment to claim 7 obviated statutory double patenting rejection. Terminal disclaimer over the same application obviated non-statutory rejection of record.
The 112 1st paragraph rejection of claims 7 and 8 is withdrawn.
Applicants amended the claim to require that a maximum exothermic peak in a differential thermal analysis (DTA) curve by differential thermal analysis method be 300oC or higher. The applicants are correct in their statement that Nishida teaches only TG and DTG but not DTA. However the DTA property is viewed as inherent for following reason.
The TG, DTG and DTA measurements are well established in the art. Exothermic peak in all three reflect a release of heat (exothermic reaction) during thermal event (oxidation or decomposition) that causes change in weight (TG, DTG) and temperature difference (DTA) as the sample is heated appearing as a downward deflection. DTA/DSC curves and peak on the DTG curve correlate with weight loss on the TG curve. It signifies a reaction generating heat and mass change.
If measurements are directed to melting/crystallization with no change in molecular weight only DTA peak will appear. In other words there is no mass loss for TG and DTG response to occur.
In case of decomposition or oxidation, where there is change in mass all three peaks will occur. One of ordinary skill in the art would be very familiar with this process and would know that in the event of exothermic event, where mass loss is present both DTA and DTG peaks will occur around the same temperature range because exothermic mass change results in simultaneous generation of heat. While the DTA peak can be offset by kinetic factors, which offset is not signification because the DTG and DTA correspond to the same underlying physical and/or chemical process.
In summary since the process of Nishida is exothermic, the change in molecular weight occurs simultaneously with generation of heat, DTG and DTA will inherently be in the same range.
Consequently applicants arguments are not persuasive and amendment is directed to an inherent property. The rejections of record are restated here to reflect the amendment to the claims.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishida (WO 2013/076960 full translation attached).
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 6, Nishida discloses molded article comprising biomass material and either thermoplastic or thermosetting material (abstract, [0039-0040]). Biomass has moisture content of 5-7 % [0005, 0032, 0052].
Mesophilic aerobic bacteria content is not provided, as such there is no reason to assume that any bacteria is present. Additionally it should be noted that Mesophilic bacteria is most active at 21-32oC, while it may survive at temperature range of 4-43oC, the heat treatment process of Nishida is performed at 170oC, which would decompose the bacteria. As such absence of bacteria is viewed as inherent based on the process.
The composition of Nishida further has peak between 300-400oC (Abstract, [0026]). While Nishida reports the exothermic peak in terms of DTG, the DTA peak will inherently be in the same range, because exothermic change in molecular weight occurs simultaneously with generation of heat. Additionally, please refer to the response to applicants arguments.
With respect to claim 3, Nishida teaches fruits of oil palm. The parts utilized include also bamboo fibers [0007], stems and leaves of oil palm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (WO 2013/076960) in view of Sankyo (JP 2014-025053).
Discussion of Nishida from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. Nishida teaches that biomass utilized therein comprises cellulose to which the thermal differential peak claimed is attributed to cellulose.
Specifically, the components of the plant that comprises cellulose and hemicellulose are in the fiber form [0027] that decompose to provide biomass include leaves and stems. The oil residue is dried and solidified or pulverized into powder, which is used as raw material. The biomass is mixed with resin and is melt molded. Resins of Nishida as listed in [0039-0040] and the ratio of biomass to the resin is 5:95 to 80:20 resulting in a composition that has good bending strength (flexural modulus directed to bending resistance) and bending modulus (when subject to flexural stress).
Nishida discloses specific industrial biowaste as mentioned in paragraph 1, based on location (Malaysia and Indonesia) and the crops that are grown there. Nishida however, does not prohibit use of any other biomass to be used.
Sankyo discloses other sources of biomass that can be utilized in making composites with the same type of polymers as Nishida.
With respect to claim 4, the sources of the plant biomass which is also in form of a powder include tea leaves, coffee beans along with other fruits are pulverized [0037] to particle size of 300-700 microns which overlaps with the particle size of the biomass powder of Nishida. The size of the particles size is important in both references to avoid clogging of the extruder.
With respect to claim 5, the plant powder and polymer along with additives are melted and extruded into pellets [0048] to make masterbatch (p. 17 production of masterbatch) which is then mixed with polypropylene (example 1) to obtain pellet. Lastly the pellet is utilized to obtain molded article.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to form pellets from the composition of Nishida using other biomass sources such as coffee and tea. Pellets are produced for variety reasons. One is depicted in Sankyo which is to produce masterbatch. Second compositions are often kept in pellet form for storage purposes. Additionally, using pulverized tea and coffee components would also provide molded article with good mechanical properties
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (WO 2013/076960) in view of Fukuchi (JP 07-136629).
Discussion of Nishida from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. Nishida discloses option for treating biomass before it is utilized in the composite. Specifically, [0032] discloses keeping the biomass in a vessel (tank) under steam conditions at a temperature range of 170-250oC (heating) [0031] in presence of a gas. The removal of decomposed product is done by steam. The biomass is then dried.
Nishida teaches that the processing conditions depends on following: the type of steam saturated steam or normal pressure steam; the temperature of the treatment. Other conditions include treatment amount, treatment time, conditions for discharging decomposition [0032-0033].
Nishida fails to explicitly teach the ion content of the gas as well as the rate at which the gas is fed and exhausted from the vessel.
Fukuchi discloses a tank for biomass treatment, which includes ventilation system. Specifically ozone gas is fed to the vessel containing the biomass, where the components are sterilized and the odor is eliminated [0014]. The ozone gas is then exhausted from the system.
In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize gas such as ozone to sterilize and eliminate odor of the biomass. The rate at which the gas is supplied, varies on the amount of the biomass, temperatures and reaction conditions. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to modify the rates and ion content in order not to clog the filters within the equipment.
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 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 January 7, 2025