ENHANCED CELLULOSE NANOFIBRILS (CNF)

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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 24, 2026, has been entered. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spender et al. (hereinafter Spender), WO 2018/045248 A1. With regard to claims 1-6, Spender teaches coating cellulosic-based materials, including cellulose nanofibrils, also known as microfibrillated cellulose, nanofibrillated cellulose, etc., with saccharide fatty acid ester (SFAE); see ¶-[0011], [0018], [0020] and teaches on ¶-[0108] that SFAE includes several glycerides1, triglycerides and on ¶-[0123] teaches that the fatty acid esters (SFAE) can include fatty acid salts as-well, such as calcium stearate. Spender also teaches ratio of the CNFs and SFAE falling within the range of claims 3-4; see ¶-[00110]-[00111], which teaches ratios form 99.075:0.025 through 50:50 (1:1), since it shows SFAE amounts of 0.025 % w/wt to 50% w/wt. Spender teaches the mixing of CNFs dispersion and SFAE solutions of claim 5 and the concentration of said mixture by reducing the water content of claim 6; see ¶-[0009] and [00110] which teach the cellulose material in a solution, actually dispersion since cellulose is not water soluble, and ¶-[0074], [00105], [00143], [00144] which teaches SEFOSE (a SFAE) solution and ¶-[0126] which teaches that the substrate is dried, i.e., reducing the water content. Claims 5-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spender, cited above. Claims 5-7 are product by process claims and Spender, teach compositions which are made the same, claims 5 and 6, or a bit different, claim 7, but the end result seems to be the same as claimed. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the event any differences can be shown for the product -by-process claims 5 through 7 as opposed to the product taught by the references Guoyong and Spender such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing unexpected results, see In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). As the afore mentioned claims are product by process claims, it is deemed that "[A]ny difference imparted by the product by process claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicants to establish that their product is patentably distinct, ..." In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685, and In re Fessmann, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324. Further, "[P]rocess limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product." In re Luck, 177 U.S.P.Q. 523 (1973). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Enhanced Cellulose Nanofibrils (CNF).” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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. /JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748 JAF 1 US Patent Application Publication No. 20210347999 A1, teaches on Table 1 that SFAE contains unreacted glycerides in about 40 to 60% by weight; see SE-15.