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 .
The amendment filed 15 June 2026 has been received, entered and considered. The following information has been made of record in the instant amendment:
1. Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 13, and 15-16 have been canceled.
2. No new Claims have been added.
3. Claims 1, 3, 8-12, and 14 have been amended.
4. Remarks drawn to rejections under 35 USC 103.
The rejection of Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 10-12 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuorinen et al (WO 2019/238327 A1; cited in IDS filed 01/19/2023; of record) in view of Choi et al (Applied Surface Science, 2008, 255, 2466-2473; of record) has been rendered moot by cancelation.
The rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 10-12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuorinen et al (WO 2019/238327 A1; cited in IDS filed 01/19/2023; of record) in view of Choi et al (Applied Surface Science, 2008, 255, 2466-2473; of record) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment and is replaced by the obviousness rejection set forth below.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, 14 and 17-18 are pending in the case. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-12 and 14 are under examination.
The following rejections are necessitated by Applicant's amendment filed 15 June 2026 wherein the limitations in pending claims 1, 3, 8-12, and 14 have been amended.
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 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, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuorinen et al (WO 2019/238327 A1; cited in IDS filed 01/19/2023; of record) in view of Choi et al (Applied Surface Science, 2008, 255, 2466-2473; of record) and further in view of Conrads et al (Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 2000, 9, 441-454, newly cited necessitated by amendment) and Allam (Energy Procedia 1, 2009, 461-470; newly cited necessitated by amendment).
Vuorinen teaches a method of making a nanocellulose support wherein a dispersion of the nanocellulose is applied on a support and then the dispersion is dried (page 32, lines 15-32; method of claim 1-steps 1 and 2). The nanofibrillar cellulose may be formed as a layer on a support like paper, board, gauze or other nonwoven (page 34, lines 23-25). The nanofibrillar cellulose can be anionically modified (page 75, claim 1 of Vuorinen; as in claim 3 and 12). The coated product contains 0.1-20% of the nanofibrillar cellulose (page 37, line 1). The nanofibrillar cellulose is in water. Therefore, the nanofibrillar cellulose can be made as 0.01% to 5% solution in water (as in claims 5 and 14).
Vuorinen does not teach applying a nanocellulose solution to a bottom surface of a container as in claim 1, activating a hydroxyl group hidden inside the nanocellulose thin film by using O2 plasma irradiation to expose the hydroxyl group to an outside of the nanocellulose thin film such that a hydrophilicity of the nanocellulose thin film is increased as in claim 1, the method of claim 10, and the limitations of claim 11.
Choi teaches that irradiation of cellulose with electron beam improved the surface properties and preserves the fiber’s mechanical and thermal properties (Abstract). From this teaching one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that irradiation of the nanocellulose of Vuorinen with electron beam from any other source can also be used.
Conrads teaches that plasmas are generated by supplying energy to a neutral gas causing the formation of charges. Electrons and ions are produced in the gas phase when photons/electrons of sufficient energy collide with the neutral atoms in the feed gas (Introduction). From the teaching of Conrads it can be seen that any gas including O2 can be used to generate a plasma containing electrons. Since electrons are generated, an O2 plasma can be used to generate electron beam and the irradiation can be performed toward an inside of the container to which the nanocellulose solution can be applied at the bottom surface of the container as in step 1 of claim 1. This would be obvious to the artisan from the teaching of Vuorinen, Choi and Conrads.
Therefore, electron beam irradiation of the nanocellulose of Vuorinen using O2 plasma irradiation would activate an OH group hidden inside, and the nanocellulose solution would penetrate into the nanocellulose thin film after the electron beam irradiation and push the air bubbles inside the nanocellulose thin film outward so as to remove the air bubbles as in claims 1 and 10. The fibers are irradiated with the beam current being 4.95 mA and a transport velocity of 10m/min (Choi, page 2467, left col., part 2.1). One of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the process parameters for oxygen flow rate, power and time as in claim 1 using this teaching of Choi and Conrads.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, since Vuorinen teaches coating a surface with the nanocellulose, which is then irradiated with electron beam (Choi and Conrads), one of ordinary skill in the art can use the same method for making the nanocellulose support using the steps as in claim 10 by substituting the support of Vuorinen with the beads and dropping the bead in a container and dropping a surface treated nanocellulose solution into the container, drying the combination to get a nanocellulose film on the surface of the bead and then irradiating with the O2 plasma (electron beam) to activate the hydroxyl groups hidden inside the nanocellulose as in claims 1 and 10. It would be obvious to use the beads as in claim 11. It is well within the skill level of the artisan to use the steps recited in claim 10 to make the nanocellulose support based on the combined teachings of Vuorinen, Choi and Conrads.
One of ordinary skill in the art will use oxygen to generate the plasma since oxygen is readily available and is produced in a large scale from air with up to 97% purity (Allam, page 462, part 3.1).
MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in (G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings nanocellulose is known to applied to a surface (Vuorinen), and electron beam irradiation improves the surface properties of the nanocellulose (Choi). Oxygen gas can be used to produce an electron beam (Conrads, Allam). Thus, it is obvious to combine prior art elements and arrive at the instant methods of producing nanocellulose support.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look for nanocellulose coated products with improved properties for the uses taught by Vourinen (pages 3-5).
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection under 35 USC 103 of record arguing that Vuorinen does not disclose applying a nanocellulose solution to a bottom surface of a container, drying the applied solution at a drying temperature of 60 degrees to 90 degrees, and then performing O2 plasma irradiation toward an inside of the container under the specific conditions recited in amended claim 1.
Choi relates to electron beam irradiation of henequin materials and investigates surface morphological, mechanical, and thermal characteristics of such irradiated fibers. Choi does not disclose a nanocellulose thin film formed on a bottom surface of a container. Choi also does not disclose O2 plasma irradiation, much less the flow rate, power and time.
Vuorinen does not disclose the bead-specific process as in amended claim 10. Choi also does not disclose or suggest the bead-specific process steps as in claim 10. The rejection of claim 10 appears to rely on impermissible hindsight.
As none of the cited prior art, individually or in combination, disclose the above noted features, the inventions of claims 1 and 10 and dependents thereof are not rendered obvious. (Remarks-pages 6-10).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The art rejection above is made of record in view of the amendments.
Vuorinen teaches a method of making a nanocellulose support wherein a dispersion of the nanocellulose is applied on a support and then the dispersion is dried as in claim 1 and the limitations of claims 5 and 14. Vuorinen may not disclose applying a nanocellulose solution to a bottom surface of a container, drying the applied solution at a drying temperature of 60 degrees to 90 degrees, and then performing O2 plasma irradiation toward an inside of the container under the specific conditions recited in amended claim 1. However, the drying temperature, is a matter of choice and can be chosen by the artisan since it is an aqueous solution that needs to be evaporated. It would be obvious to the artisan to apply the nanocellulose solution to the bottom surface of a container and then drying it at the temperature range recited and then performing O2 plasma irradiation toward an inside of the container under the specific conditions recited in amended claim 1. This also applies to claim 10.
Choi teaches irradiation of cellulose with electron beam. Even though there is no express teaching by Choi that electron beam irradiation of cellulose activates a hydroxyl group hidden inside the nanocellulose thin film by using electron beam irradiation to expose the hydroxyl group to an outside of the nanocellulose thin film such that a hydrophilicity of the nanocellulose thin film is increased, one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize and also have a reasonable expectation of success that electron beam irradiation of cellulose will activate a hydroxyl group hidden inside the nanocellulose thin film by using electron beam irradiation to expose the hydroxyl group to an outside of the nanocellulose thin film such that a hydrophilicity of the nanocellulose thin film is increased as claimed. The nanocellulose solution would also penetrate into the nanocellulose thin film after the electron beam irradiation and pushed air bubbles inside the nanocellulose thin film outward so as to remove the air bubbles as in claims 1 and 10.
Conrads teaches the use of gas to generate plasma, which contains electrons. Therefore, the artisan can use O2 plasma to generate the same electrons and irradiate the nanocellulose thin film that can be formed at the bottom of a container. This need not be suggested by Choi.
The same can be done using beads as in claim 10. In order to attach the nanocellulose to the beads it would be obvious to the artisan to drop the beads into a container comprising the nanocellulose solution, and perform the rest of the steps as in claim 10. Sieving the beads can also be done in order to get uniform bead sizes coated with the nanocellulose. So is washing the beads with sterilized water in order to remove any unwanted material. These steps can be conceived and performed by one of ordinary skill in the art without express teachings in the prior art. The rejection of claim 10 does not rely on impermissible hindsight. It is based on the teachings of the prior art, the steps of which can be modified to apply to the beads as in claim 10.
The combined teachings of the cited references do render the instant claims obvious. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
1. Elected claims 1, 3, 5, 10-12 and 14 (Group I) are rejected.
2. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 (Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 13, and 15-16 have been canceled.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHY KRISHNAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/GANAPATHY KRISHNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights