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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1 - 12 in the reply filed on 4/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that WO 201214037 to Alberts et al., hereinafter “Alberts” does not teach the mechanical property of flexural strength and said property is not inherent. See the Rule 132 Declaration to Noordzij. This is found persuasive. The restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/29/25 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “extent of polymerization” was interpreted as the degree of conversion.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012140237 A1 to Alberts et al., hereinafter “Alberts” and as evidenced by the NPL titled Cotton Properties, 2026.
Alberts is directed to a composite material comprising a bio based particulate or fibrous filler and a specific polymer (page 2 lines 1 – 5).
Regarding claims 1 - 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 19, in one embodiment, Alberts teaches that the materials of the present invention can be used in a complex shaped object such as seats (furniture), (page 19, lines 24 – 26) and (page 23, lines 10 – 15).
Alberts teaches the formulation of a composite material comprising a bio-filler. This composite comprises 10 - 98 wt. % of a bio-based filler and 2 wt.% of a polyester derived from an aliphatic polyalcohol with 2 - 15 carbon atom and a polyacid comprising at least 10 wt. % of tricarboxylic acid (page 2, 25 - 31). The polyester does not contain aromatic structures, N or S heteroatoms (page 3, 1 - 5). The polyacid is an aliphatic polycarboxylic acid containing only C, H, and O atoms (Page 10, 15 - 20). In one embodiment the alcohol and acid are mixed and reacted at temperatures of 50 - 200C for 5 min. to 1 hr. where 2 - 10 wt. % water is added (less than 20 wt. %) (page 17, 5 - 16). Alberts teaches techniques where the polymer is processed at high temperatures with the filler thereby allowing a relatively high degree of polymerization (extent of polymerization) at acceptable viscosity (page 17, 18 - 26).
In Example 7, Alberts teaches the formation of a composite comprising stacks of cotton sheets impregnated with glycerol / citric acid resin as prepared in Example 2 at a temperature of 75C. The mixing time in Example 2 is 15 minutes (first step) therefore the extent of polymerization will be above 0 to less than 1 (uncured to less than fully cured). Glycerol is an aliphatic polyalcohol with 3 carbons. The stack was cured at 120C under a pressure of 10 bars for 12 hours (second curing step). A cured material resulted that had a density greater than 1g / ml (Example 7). In this case, the precursor monomers were polymerized (polymerization step) then the pressing and curing steps were preformed simultaneously. As no water was added the water content was below 20%.
Alberts is silent as to the void fraction. However, it would be obvious to those of ordinary skill to adjust the pressing step of the composite to achieve the desired degree of porosity of the cured composite material. Also see claims 3 and 16.
As to claim 5, Alberts discloses that the fibrous filler comprises 10 – 98% of the composite material therefore 90 – 2% of the composite will comprise the polyester resin (page 2, lines 25 – 31).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 6, Alberts is silent as to the evaporation of water however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the water generated as a result of the condensation reaction forming the polyester resin would be evaporated during the curing process.
As to claim 4, the NPL titled Cotton Properties discloses that the average length of cotton fibers is 0.5 – 1.25 in (1.27 – 3.175 cm). This is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, Alberts teaches that the polymer / filler composite is cured at temperatures of 20 – 200C at a pressure of 1 – 100 bar (page 15, lines 3 – 6).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). MPEP 2144.05
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 15 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 6PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/PAS/ 5/15/26
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights