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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on January 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al (JP 2019/178267 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claim 1: Sakamoto teaches an additive composition comprising cellulose nanofibers (para. 0013) and a phosphorus-based nucleating agent (para. 0030, phosphoric acid compounds) that reads on instant formula (1) (para. 0035-36, formula (4) and formula (5)).
Regarding Claim 3: Sakamoto teaches an alcohol compound that may be used in combination with the phosphorus-based nucleating agent (para. 0030, dibenzylidene sorbitol structure compounds; para. 0032-33, formula (1) and formula (2)).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al (JP 2019/178267 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claim 6: Sakamoto teaches a resin composition comprising cellulose nanofibers (para. 0013), a nucleating agent (para. 0030) that reads on instant formula (1) (para. 0035-36, formula (4) and formula (5)), and a synthetic resin (para. 0049).
Regarding Claim 7: Sakamoto teaches a molded article (para. 0066).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al (JP 2019/178267 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Fukushima et al (US 2018/0230293 A1).
Sakamoto teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as set forth above. However, Sakamoto is silent to the antioxidant.
Fukushima teaches an additive composition comprising a phenolic antioxidant, which is a well-known additive for resin compositions and provides an excellent antioxidative effect (para. 0043-46). Sakamoto and Fukushima are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely additive compositions comprising nucleating agents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a phenolic antioxidant in the additive composition taught by Sakamoto to prevent oxidative degradation of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument asserting that Sakamoto does not include working examples of a composition with the claimed aromatic phosphate metal salt nucleating agent, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not teach away from the broader disclosure. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. See MPEP 2123.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s allegations of unexpected results, with evidence provided by the declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132: The declaration and arguments are directed toward the nucleating agents taught by Sakamoto, which is subject to a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, as set forth above. Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). MPEP 2131.04. Examiner reminds applicant that the claimed nucleating is explicitly in Sakamoto. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 was specifically directed toward the presence of an antioxidant, which is not addressed in the allegations of unexpected results.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsuboi (US 2012/0296017 A1) teaches a composition comprising a resin, a cellulose fiber, and a phosphorus-based nucleating agent.
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 CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 (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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767