Detailed Office Action
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/23/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7, and 12 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 are pending with claims 12, 13, and 16 withdrawn from consideration.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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
In light of amendment the art rejections towards claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 18 have been withdrawn. The Examiner agrees that the closest prior art WHORTON fails to disclose the specific articles of the claim.
Applicant argues that WHORTON method would not produce at least 20 seconds of absorption time. The applicant argues that WHORTON only discloses oil sorption capacity.
WHORTON produces a fluffed pulp with the same water-resistant additives AKD and wax. WHORTON additionally shows that the pulp produced floats on water. It is able to float on water because it is not absorbing the water [pg. 9 line 15]. This same floating property is shown in the instant invention in instant Figure 2. WHORTON additionally suggests that the pulp is sufficiently hydrophobized [claim 5 and 7]. Finally, the amount of size is at least 50 lbs. per ton (about 25 kg per metric ton) [claim 11] which is greater than the instant example amount of 5 and 7 kg/ton [instant table 1] which suggests at least as high if not higher absorption time than what is produced by the applicant’s method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 line 8 “ forming a single-use article” should be “forming the article” as “an article” is already mentioned in the preamble. Further this would match later in the same line 8 “wherein the article” is claimed.
Claims 4 and 6 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
In claim 7 lines 2-3 “ forming a single-use article” should be “forming the article” as “an article” is already mentioned in line 2. Further this would match later in line 3 “wherein the article” is claimed.
Claim 18 depends from claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
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 2, 8- 10, 14, and 15 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 claims 2, 8, and 9, WHORTON discloses kraft wood pulp [pg. 4 lines 18-25] that is wet by being dispersed in water (wherein the dried pulp is obtainable by 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 (drying the wet pulp [pg. 6 lines 5-10]). WHORTON then discloses fiberizing the dry pulp in a Fitz mill (defibrillating dried pulp, 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. WHORTON additionally suggests that the pulp is sufficiently hydrophobized [claim 5 and 7]. Finally, the amount of size is at least 50 lbs. per ton (about 25 kg per metric ton) [claim 11] which is greater than the instant example amount of 5 and 7 kg/ton [instant table 1] which suggests at least as high if not higher absorption time than what is produced by the applicant’s method.
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_image1.png
232
308
media_image1.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_image2.png
184
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 claims 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.
Conclusion
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