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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, and election of the polyvinyl alcohol species, in the reply filed on 22 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 9, 10, and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 December 2025.
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 and 6-7 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).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 8 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.
Conclusion
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