Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 4/3/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, and 11 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-18 are pending with claims 12, 13, 16-18 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the 112(b) rejections to claims 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.
In light of amendment the Examiner withdraws SEEHAN as it is not a fluff pulp but instead a pulverized powder.
Applicant argues that WHORTON briefly mentions fluffing but WHORTON actually forms a pulverized powder because it states it is “finely divided”.
WHORTON never refers to the pulp after flash drying or milling as a powder. WHORTON means by finely divided separating the fibers from each other.
For example in Example 5 WHORTON discloses that the fitz mill fluffs the pulp [pg. 10 lines 5-10]. A pulp that is fluffed is a fluff pulp. Notably a fitz mill is a hammermill used for making fluff pulp as evidenced by [U.S. 4,343,680 FIELD et al. col. 2 lines 23-30]. The process of fluffing is stated to increase surface area [pg. 8 line 23]. The act of dividing compressed pulp and increasing surface area is the definition of fluffing [see e.g. The Handbook of Pulp and Paper Terminology by SMOOK].
PNG
media_image1.png
184
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, WHORTON fluffs the pulp by flash drying the pulp it forms a dry fluff pulp. The act of flash drying is known to produce fluff pulp as evidenced by SMOOK [pg. 129 col. 2].
Therefore WHORTON suggests both a dried fluff pulp and modified defibrated fluff pulp.
Applicant argues that WHORTON absorbing oil and pressed into fuel blocks is not relevant for preparing single use articles.
Them pressed fuel block is the single use article. The applicant’s claims do not limit the single use article to cutlery, trays, or cups. The Examiner does not read limitations from the specification into the claim. A fuel brick is under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim a single-use article.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1,2, 4, 7- 10, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CA 982951 WHORTON et al., hereinafter WHORTON (cited in IDS).
As for claim 1-3, 8, 9, and 11, WHORTON discloses kraft wood pulp [pg. 4 lines 18-25] that is wet by being dispersed in water (adding a hydrophobization agent to wet pulp [pg. 5 lines 21-22]). WHORTON discloses adding rosin size to hydrophobize the pulp [pg. 5 lines 22-30]. WHORTON additionally discloses AKD and wax (wherein the hydrophobization agent comprises or is a resin, wax, a wet glue resin, alkenyl succinic anhydride (ASA), alkyl ketene dimer (AKD), or any mixture or combination [pg. 7 lines 1-10]). WHORTON discloses flash drying the pulp (wherein the dried pulp is intended for defibrillating into fibers thereby obtaining the modified pulp [pg. 6 lines 5-10]). WHORTON then discloses fiberizing the dry pulp in a Fitz mill (the method further comprises defibrillating the dried pulp into fibers, thereby obtaining the modified pulp ([pg. 8 lines 21-23]).
It is the Examiners position that as substantially the same method is performed with substantially the same chemicals on substantially the same starting material (chemical wood pulp) that substantially the same absorption time will be present. This is supported by WHORTON stating the pulp floats on water (therefore water is not penetrating) [pg. 9 line 15]; this matches the example of instant Figure 2.
Alternatively, the goal of WHORTON is to make hydrophobic cellulose. This is done by adding the hydrophobic agent. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of hydrophobic agent added through routine experimentation to obtain the desired level of hydrophobization.
The Examiner notes that “rosin” of WHORTON meets “resin acid” of the claim. Rosin is defined as the following by The Handbook of Pulp & Paper Terminology by SMOOK
PNG
media_image2.png
232
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For example in Example 5 WHORTON discloses that the fitz mill fluffs the pulp [pg. 10 lines 5-10]. A pulp that is fluffed is a fluff pulp. The process of fluffing is stated to increase surface area [pg. 8 line 23]. The act of dividing compressed pulp and increasing surface area is the definition of fluffing [see e.g. The Handbook of Pulp and Paper Terminology by SMOOK].
PNG
media_image1.png
184
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 14, a fitz mill shreds the dry sheets into finely divided pulp. The act of fluffing is also known as dry shredding.
As for claims 7, 14, and 15, WHORTON discloses making oil absorbent pulp particles which are used once to absorb oil [pg. 2 lines 20-27]. WHORTON also discloses absorbing oil onto the pulp and pressing it into bricks for fuel [pg. 9 lines 5-6]. The fuel bricks are a single use article.
As for claim 10, it is the Examiners position that as substantially the same method is performed with substantially the same chemicals with substantially the same starting material (chemical wood pulp) that substantially the same absorption capacity will be present or be an obvious variant thereof.
As for claim 18, WHORTON discloses absorbing oil onto the pulp and pressing it into bricks for fuel [pg. 9 lines 5-6].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CA 982951 WHORTON et al., hereinafter WHORTON (cited in IDS), in view of U.S. 5,484,509 FAMILI et al., hereinafter FAMILI
As for claim 6, WHORTON discloses the features as per above including adding rosin size (with alum), wax, and AKD to size pulp. WHORTON does not explicitly disclose the pH of the process. FAMILI discloses that rosin size with alum works at a pH of 4.5-6.5 which overlaps the instant claimed range (so called acidic paper making). FAMILI states that rosin size does not work at a pH of 6.5 to 9. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the pH that rosin/alum size can work at and not the pH it does not work well at.
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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights