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 .
Applicant’s amendment dated 12 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 14-21 as amended are pending, with claims 5, 9, 10, and 14-20 withdrawn.
All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0237750 (“Zou”) in view of US 2019/0040158 (“McAlpine”).
As to claims 1-3 and 6, Zou teaches a film formed from cellulose nanocrystals a polymer of PVOH (polyvinyl alcohol), which are polymers of ethylenically unsaturated monomers as required by claims 1 and 6 (abstract).
Zou does not teach the recited characteristics of claims 1-3. However, McAlpine teaches cellulose nanocrystals having zeta potential about -38 mV on average (para. 0072), which is within the range of claims 1 and 2. McAlpine teaches the nanocrystals are prepared by reacting cellulose with transition metal catalyst and hypohalite solution (abstract), specifically hypochlorite salts (para. 0045). The reactions do not include N-oxyl compounds (paras. 0062-0069), and it is therefore reasonable to presume the resulting CNC is substantially free of such compounds. The treatment is presumed to be oxidation, being a reaction with hypochlorite salt, and resulting in carboxyl group content, including carboxyl group content in the recited range (table 8, 13) of claim 3, and thus the use of such hypochlorite salt may be used to provide cellulose nanocrystals of the recited zeta potential and carboxy content. McAlpine teaches the utility of such zeta potential in avoiding settling (table 2). The use of such methods of McAlpine is an obvious modification for providing cellulose nanocrystals of favorable zeta potential. Note that condition (II) of claim 1 is optional.
As to claim 7, Zou teaches the use of the polymer to cellulose nanocrystal (nanocellulose) calculated in the recited range (para. 0049).
As to claim 21, Zou in view of McAlpine does not discuss the conversion of hydroxyl groups at the second and third position of a glucopyranose group. However, McAlpine teaches cellulose nanomaterial formed by oxidizing cellulose (which includes glucose, thus glucopyranose units), with hypohalite (para. 0033), same as recited, and it is therefore reasonable to presume such treatment oxidizes the recited hydroxyl groups.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/123150 A1 (“Miyoshi”) in view of US 2019/0040158 (“McAlpine”).
The citations to WO 2018/123150 A1 are to English equivalent US 2021/0198455.
As to claims 1-3, Miyoshi teaches a resin composition of cellulose, including cellulose whiskers and fibers of nanoscale (para. 0127), thus nanocellulose, and polymer. Miyoshi teaches the resin may include polyolefin resins as preferred polymers (paras. 0095-0096), which are polymers of ethylenically unsaturated monomers.
Miyoshi does not teach the nanocellulose having the recited characteristics of claims 1-3. However, McAlpine teaches cellulose nanocrystals having zeta potential about -38 mV on average (para. 0072), which is within the range of claims 1 and 2. McAlpine teaches the nanocrystals are prepared by reacting cellulose with transition metal catalyst and hypohalite solution (abstract), specifically hypochlorite salts (para. 0045). The reactions do not include N-oxyl compounds (paras. 0062-0069), and it is therefore reasonable to presume the resulting CNC is substantially free of such compounds. The treatment is presumed to be oxidation, being a reaction with hypochlorite salt, and resulting in carboxyl group content, including carboxyl group content in the recited range (table 8, 13) of claim 3, and thus the use of such hypochlorite salt may be used to provide cellulose nanocrystals of the recited zeta potential and carboxy content. McAlpine teaches the utility of such zeta potential in avoiding settling (table 2). The use of such methods of McAlpine is an obvious modification for providing cellulose nanocrystals of favorable zeta potential. Note that condition (II) of claim 1 is optional.
As to claim 4, Miyoshi teaches the use of crystalline cellulose of preferably lower than 500 (para. 0302) where such degree of polymerization increases workability in resins (para. 0280). Miyoshi does not discuss the use of oxidized cellulose. McAlpine teaches the nanocrystals are prepared by reacting cellulose with transition metal catalyst and hypohalite solution (abstract), specifically hypochlorite salts (para. 0045). The reactions do not include N-oxyl compounds (paras. 0062-0069), and it is therefore reasonable to presume the resulting CNC is substantially free of such compounds. The treatment is presumed to be oxidation, being a reaction with hypochlorite salt, and thus the use of such hypochlorite salt may be used to provide oxidized cellulose nanocrystals of the recited zeta potential and carboxy content. McAlpine teaches the utility of such zeta potential in avoiding settling (table 2), and as such the use of oxidized nanocellulose in the recited zeta potential range is an obvious modification suggested by McAlpine.
As to claim 7, while not exemplified, Miyoshi teaches a composition having 1 to 30 % of cellulose formulation preferably, and 70 to 98% resin, preferably (paras. 0384-0385), where the cellulose formulation preferably includes 30 to 90 mass percent of cellulose (para. 0353), which calculates to approximately 230 to 3260 parts of polymer to 100 parts of nanocellulose. Miyoshi teaches these amounts provide moldability and thermoplasticity while providing additional strength and modulus (paras. 0384-0385). As such, the use of polymer with respect to cellulose, including in the recited range, is an obvious modification suggested by Miyoshi.
As to claim 8, Miyoshi teaches combining the cellulose with an organic component for improving dispersibility of the cellulose (para. 0269), thus a modification of the nanocellulose. Miyoshi teaches surfactants including cationic surfactants (para. 0178), thus quaternary ammonium, and anionic surfactants such as sodium fatty acid salts (metallic soaps), and alkylamino fatty acid sodium salts, thus amines (para. 0177). Therefore, Miyoshi teaches the utility of modifying nanocellulose with the recited substances for improving dispersibility.
As to claim 21, Miyoshi in view of McAlpine does not discuss the conversion of hydroxyl groups at the second and third position of a glucopyranose group. However, McAlpine teaches cellulose nanomaterial formed by oxidizing cellulose (which includes glucose, thus glucopyranose units), with hypohalite (para. 0033), same as recited, and it is therefore reasonable to presume such treatment oxidizes the recited hydroxyl groups.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the utility of the specific nanocellulose taught by McAlpine does not suggest increase in strength obtaining in the applicant’s invention. This is not persuasive because the lack of settling of a reinforcing filler such as nanocellulose, thus its distribution, would be understood to be relevant to the reinforcing effect of such filler.
Applicant further argues that the cellulose of McAlpine does not meet the claims, because McAlpine teaches the use of hypochlorite in combination with a catalyst. It is noted that the use of hypochlorous acid or its salt by itself is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, applicant’s assertion that the hypochlorite in McAlpine is used to oxidize the metal catalyst rather than the cellulose is contradicted by the clear teaching of McAlpine, para. 0033.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights