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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dale (US 2016/0362834 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dale teaches papermaking additive compositions and methods for increasing the separation of cellulose fibers from pulp (Abstract), wherein the additive compositions include surfactants ([0048]) including bio-based surfactants including inter alia sodium stearate, laureates and lauric acid derivatives, polyethoxylated tallow amine ([0049]), products expressly described as bio-based surfactants at ([0050]), cocamides and lecithins ([0051]), bio-based non-ionic surfactants ([0052]), all of the products containing or based-on sorbitol, sorbitan, glycerol, sucrose, ricinoleate, and various fatty acids and fatty amines, etc. at ([0052]). Dale teaches the addition of the additive composition to the pulp slurry during a pulping and/or a paper production phase ([0065]) within a papermaking mill, which is specifically described as comprising the steps of 1) pulping, 2) forming, 3) pressing, 4) drying, and 5) calendaring ([0019]). The process of Dale therefore reads on the claimed process step “a).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale (US 2016/0362834 A1) in view of Weinstein (US 2006/0162887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dale teaches papermaking additive compositions and methods for increasing the separation of cellulose fibers from pulp (Abstract), wherein the additive compositions include surfactants ([0048]) including bio-based surfactants including inter alia sodium stearate, laureates and lauric acid derivatives, polyethoxylated tallow amine ([0049]), products expressly described as bio-based surfactants at ([0050]), cocamides and lecithins ([0051]), bio-based non-ionic surfactants ([0052]), all of the products containing or based-on sorbitol, sorbitan, glycerol, sucrose, ricinoleate, and various fatty acids and fatty amines, etc. at ([0052]). Dale teaches the addition of the additive composition to the pulp slurry during a pulping and/or a paper production phase ([0065]) within a papermaking mill, which is specifically described as comprising the steps of 1) pulping, 2) forming, 3) pressing, 4) drying, and 5) calendaring ([0019]). The process of Dale therefore reads on the claimed process steps “a).”
The process disclosed by Dale corresponds to the process for papermaking which is contemplated by the instant Specification, which also describes pulping (e.g., p. 6, first paragraph), forming (e.g., p. 6, lines 25-27), pressing (e.g., p. 6, lines 33-34), drying (e.g., p. 7, lines 1-3), and calendaring (e.g., p. 8, line 26). Furthermore, the papermaking process of Dale involves a pulp containing 99% water ([0019]) which is formed into a continuous mesh of fibers which explicitly involves draining water from the pulp ([0019]). Afterwards, the mesh is pressed and dried to a water content of about 6% ([0019]). It is expected that the mesh must encounter at least a transitional water content within the claimed range of “30-70 wt%,” at some point within these processes; However, Dale is silent with regard to the particularly claimed water content.
In the same field of endeavor, Weinstein teaches an automatic paper manufacturing machine (Abstract), which automatically controls the amount of press section dewatering (Abstract). Weinstein teaches suitable water contents for pressed paper sheets may range from 45 to 60 % ([0003]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to press the paper web of Dale to a water content of 45-60%, as Weinstein recognizes this as a sutiable water content for pressed paper sheets. This range overlaps the claimed range of “30 to 70 wt%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
Regarding claims 5-6, as described above, Dale teaches the addition of the additive composition to the pulp slurry during a pulping and/or a paper production phase ([0065]) within a papermaking mill, which is specifically described as comprising the steps of 1) pulping, 2) forming, 3) pressing, 4) drying, and 5) calendaring ([0019]), steps 3 and 4 of which read on the claimed “compressing” and “drying” steps, respectively.
Regarding claims 9-11, as described above, Dale teaches the use of sodium stearate as a surfactant ([0049]). Sodium stearate meets the claimed imitations requiring “an alkyl chain having at least 12 carbon atoms” and “an alkyl chain having 16-20 carbon atoms” because sodium stearate comprises an alkyl chain of 18 carbons.
Regarding claims 12-13, Dale teaches the incorporation of ranges of surfactant incorporation including 0.01 to 10.0 % by weight ([0055]), which overlaps the claimed ranges of “5 wt% or less” and “2 wt% or less,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 15, Dale teaches that the cellulosic material comprises fibers (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Dale teaches a paper material formed from the inventive process, which comprises fibers (Abstract), which read on the claimed “treated cellulose particles.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale (US 2016/0362834 A1) in view of Jiang (US 2014/0000827 A1).
Regarding claim 4, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Dale differs from claim 4 because it is silent with regard to the spraying of the surfactant onto the cellulosic sheet.
In the same field of endeavor, Jiang teaches methods of forming cellulosic materials which may be in the form of a sheet (Abstract), comprising forming a web of pulp and then applying at least one debonding surfactant thereto (Abstract). Jiang further teaches that the surfactant may be applied to the web by spraying from a formation shower ([0064]). Jiang further expounds that the spray-on method improves sheet breaking during formation ([0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the surfactant of Dale within the formulation of Dale via the spray-on method of Jiang for the purpose of reducing undesirable web breakage during formation.
Claims 7, 17-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale (US 2016/0362834 A1) in view of Medoff (US 2003/0187102 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dale teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Dale differs from claim 7 because it is silent with regard to the claimed step of separating treated cellulose particles from the particle sheet.
In the same field of endeavor, Medoff teaches compositions and composites made from cellulosic materials (Abstract), wherein the cellulosic material may be paper or paper products ([0006]). Medoff further teaches the shearing/cutting of the paper or paper products ([0005], [0011]) to form a texturized fiber product whose internal fibers are exposed ([0012]). Medoff teaches that this process forms a fiber product which is suitable for subsequent compounding with thermoplastic polymers to form cellulosic composites (Abstract, [0005], and [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to texturize the fibers of Dale, as taught by Medoff, for the purpose of preparing them such that they are suitable for forming cellulosic composites. The texturization process of Medoff reads on the claimed “separating” process because Medoff states that the texturization process involves shearing the product ([0026]) which appears to produce substantially individual fibers (c.f. Sheet 2, Figure 2, apparently depicting individual fibers, which are stated as being texturized cellulosic fibers formed from a paper product ([0046])).
Regarding claim 17, as described above, Medoff teaches the compounding of the texturized fibers with thermoplastic resins to form cellulosic composites (Abstract, [0004. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ the texturized fibers resulting from modification of Dale in view of Medoff to form cellulosic composites because Medoff recognizes textured cellulosics as suitable for the formation of cellulose-based composites.
Regarding claims 18-19, Medoff teaches that the resins used to form the composites are thermoplastic resins including polyolefins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene ([0016]).
Regarding claims 20-21, Medoff further teaches the incorporation of fillers including inter alia calcium carbonate ([0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Medoff exemplifies the use of 11 wt% and 16 wt% of inorganic filler (calcium carbonate) within the inventive formulations (p. 8, Examples 5 and 6). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate a range of inorganic fillers including 11 and 16 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of “5-15 wt%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dale (US 2016/0362834 A1) in view of Medoff (US 2003/0187102 A1) and further in view of Ton-That (US 2005/0009960 A1)
Regarding claim 22, Dale as modified by Medoff teaches all of the limitations of claim 20, as described above. Dale as modified by Medoff differs from claim 22 because it is silent with regard to the specific incorporation of calcium oxide as the inorganic filler.
In the same field of endeavor, Ton-That teaches a thermoplastic composite containing a polyolefin and a cellulosic fiber (Abstract), and further including fillers such as a basic (i.e., alkaline) reactive filler such as calcium oxide ([0031]). Ton-That specifically teaches that the incorporation of calcium oxide improves tensile and flexural properties compared to when calcium carbonate is used ([0049]). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the calcium carbonate within the formulation of Dale as modified by Medoff with calcium oxide for the purpose of improving the mechanical properties of the cellulose-based composite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments, regarding 35 USC 102/103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the major purpose of prior art document Dale is contrary to the aim of the instant disclosure. Applicant asserts that Dale does not contemplate surfactants remaining within the product thereof, and therefore Dale fails to read on the claimed process/ composition.
Applicant’s argument appears to hinge on allegations that Dale seeks to maximize hydrogen bonding within the inventive fibers, whereas the instant disclosure seeks to minimize hydrogen bonding. Applicant points to a series of passages within Dale, including paragraphs [0023], [0072]-[0074], and [0078].
As an initial matter, it is important to note that Dale does not directly refer to hydrogen bonding within the entire inventive disclosure – indeed, the word “hydrogen” is completely absent within the entire document.
Further regarding the allegations that Dale seeks to maximize hydrogen bonding between fibers, it should be noted that the instant disclosure, according to Applicant’s remarks on p. 7, last paragraph, seeks to separate fibers and prevent clumping, pursuant to improved cellulose-polymer interactions when compounding with a thermoplastic resin. Contrary to Applicant’s stance, Dale specifically states an intention to increase separated fibers ([0023]). Applicant argues that the phrasing within Dale which states an intention to “increase surface area of fibers to promote bonding” is referring to an intention to increase hydrogen bonding; however, it is the Office’s position that Dale does not pursue the increase of hydrogen bonding; rather, the partially detached and bloomed fiber strands serve as physical catch-points which allow fibers to physically entangle with one another to produce a web of fibers. This physical process does not require the formation of hydrogen bonds.
Applicant further emphasizes Dale’s intention to not “sacrifice fiber integrity and strength.” However, these characteristics do not denotatively refer to hydrogen bonding. In contrast, as described above, Dale contemplates the defibration of the cellulose ([0024]) just as the instant disclosure does (c.f. Example 1 of the instant Specification, where separation efficiency of individual fibers is specifically measured and compared). Because Dale seeks to separate and individualize the cellulose fibers, the passage of Dale which concerns maintaining fiber integrity and strength is properly interpreted as referring to preventing any undue chain scission or damaging of the cellulose fibers’ backbones. This is not contrary to the Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant points to the passages within Dale which refer to the usefulness of surfactants for improving the efficiency of chemical reactions which assist in purifying cellulose from woody biomass (e.g., the surfactants help to remove lignin, etc. from the cellulose). However, while these surfactants may play a role in the invention of Dale which is not contemplated by the Applicants, the surfactants of Dale overlap in scope with those as claimed (e.g., see rejection of claim 11, above). The surfactants of Dale would therefore be capable of performing the same function as claimed.
Applicant finally argues that Dale does not teach the presence of surfactants remaining in the pulp at the end of treatment. However, as described above, Dale does teach the addition of these surfactants, and doesn’t require the removal thereof. The composition of Dale therefore includes those which contain the claimed surfactants.
As a final note, Applicant appears to argue that separating cellulose fibers would increase hydrogen bonding sites when referring to Dale (c.f. p. 11, final paragraph). This is despite Dale not referencing hydrogen bonding, as described above. However, when referring to the instant Application, Applicant appears to argue that separated fibers are less prone to clumping and will have reduced hydrogen bonding interactions when paired with a surfactant (c.f. p. 7, final paragraph). As described above, Dale teaches the incorporation of the same surfactants as claimed, and does not require the removal thereof. It therefore stands to reason that the cellulose polymers of Dale will possess the reduced hydrogen bonding characteristic described by the Applicant. Importantly, prior art may be analogous to the claimed invention if it is from the same field of endeavor, even if it addresses a different problem (see MPEP 2141.01(a).I.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762