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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lintinen et al. (WO 2019/081819).
Considering Claims 10, 13, and 15: Lintinen et al. teaches a process comprising providing a lignin is dissolved form; functionalizing the lignin by reacting the lignin with formaldehyde (16:31-17:5); providing the functionalized lignin into a mixture of water, tetrahydrofuran, and ethanol (17:7-10:15); removing part of the organic solvent (12:6-11); and heat-curing the dispersion to form stable crosslinked particles (12:19-25). The particles as functionalized with aldehyde groups (17:27-28).
Lintinen et al. teaches the distillation as occurring over several stages (19:19-27), where the first stage reads on the removal of part of the organic solvent, and the additional phases reading on heat curing the lignin particles. The dispersion contains 13 weight percent of tetrahydrofuran, 11 weight percent of ethanol. The first distillation stage removes a majority of the tetrahydrofuran with lesser amounts of ethanol (Example 3). Thus, the partial removal of the solvent removes at least 6.5 weight percent of tetrahydrofuran (i.e. the majority) and some of the ethanol. The total amount of solvent removed is between 6.5% by weight and 24% by weight (the total amount of solvent in the dispersion), each weight percent being calculated as a percentage of the total mass of the dispersion.
Considering Claim 11: Lintinen et al. teaches the lignin as being kraft lignin/recovered from lignocellulose in an alkaline medium (Example 1).
Considering Claim 12: Lintinen et al. teaches providing the lignin in a dissolved form in an alkaline aqueous solution (16:31-17:5).
Considering Claim 14: Lintinen et al. teaches the concentration of water as being 76% of the solvents (Example 1).
Considering Claim 16: Lintinen et al. teaches the lignin content as being 2.8 weight percent and the amount of the organic solvent as being 24 weight percent, which is greater than 60% of the weight of the lignin particles (Example 1 and 3). Lintinen et al. teaches the recovery of the solvents by evaporation at room temperature (Example 2).
Considering Claim 17: The second stage of heating occurs at 76ºC in Lintinen et al. (Example 3).
Considering Claim 18: Lintinen et al. teaches drying the particles by spray drying (14:1-7).
Considering Claim 19: Lintinen et al. teaches preparing an adhesive from the composition (16:20-21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering Claim 1: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed aqueous dispersion, where the lignin has at least 90% of the reactive groups of the lignin have reacted to form covalent bridges between lignin particles. The closest prior art is Lintinen et al. (WO 2019/081819), discussed in the previous action.
Lintinen et al. teaches an aqueous dispersion (1:5-7) of aldehyde functionalized (17:27-28) spherical colloid lignin (8:6-7), where the spherical particles are homogeneous (11:11-13) and crosslinked (17:19-25). Lintinen et al. does not teach the degree of crosslinking, and the curing conditions are distinct from the curing conditions of the original specification that result in the fully crosslinked particles. There is no reasonable expectation that the process of Lintinen et al. would necessarily result in the fully crosslinked lignin particles as defined in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
The applicant’s argument that Lintinen et al. does not teach the partial removal as comprising removing 5 to 30% by weight of the one or more organic solvents calculated from the mass of the dispersion is not persuasive. Lintinen et al. teaches the distillation as occurring over several stages (19:19-27), where the first stage reads on the removal of part of the organic solvent, and the additional phases reading on heat curing the lignin particles. The dispersion contains 13 weight percent of tetrahydrofuran, 11 weight percent of ethanol. The first distillation stage removes a majority of the tetrahydrofuran with lesser amounts of ethanol (Example 3). Thus, the partial removal of the solvent removes at least 6.5 weight percent of tetrahydrofuran (i.e. the majority) and some of the ethanol. The total amount of solvent removed is between 6.5% by weight and 24% by weight (the total amount of solvent in the dispersion), each weight percent being calculated as a percentage of the total mass of the dispersion.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights