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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1–13 in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 20–25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, solely in Figure 1, the reference numbers 10, 20 and 30 all appear to point at the blank space of the figure, while the specification states that element 10 is water, and elements 20 and 30 are nanocellulose and carboxy methyl cellulose, respectively. While it can be inferred that arrows 20 and 30 are meant to extend to the elements currently labeled as 21/22 and 11/31/32, this is not immediately clear based on the current drawing. Elements 10 and 30 seem to terminate in the same general area, which may lead to confusion as to which is referring to water. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
General: Paragraph numbers should be at least 4 digits long, including leading zeroes (see 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6)), i.e., instead of [30], the paragraph number should be written as [0030];
Paragraph 0093: Element 11 is referred to as “water particles”. Since particles imply solid phase, and that doesn’t appear to be what is depicted or described, the Examiner recommends “water molecules” instead;
Paragraph 0154: The sentence begins “Compared to, A pitch P…”. This is grammatically incorrect. Based on the context, the Examiner believes the sentence should read, “Pitch P of the total heat exchanging element shown in FIG. 7 may be further reduced compared to that in the total heat exchange element shown in FIG. 6, and accordingly, a height H may be reduced.” In other words, “Compared to, A” can be deleted, and the word “pitch” should be capitalized. This proposed revision is based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the context; if Applicants disagree with the proposed revision, they can amend in any way that properly conveys their intended meaning, so long as the grammar is correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 2, 9 and 10, “the cellulose” is used, while parent claim 1 recites “cellulose” and “carboxy methyl cellulose”. This could potentially lead to indefiniteness, since “cellulose” and “carboxy methyl cellulose” are both types of cellulose, therefore making it unclear which species “the cellulose” refers to. However, Applicants are consistent in referring to “cellulose” and “carboxy methyl cellulose” as such in their claims (see, e.g., claim 12 referring explicitly to “the carboxy methyl cellulose”, to the extent that the Examiner feels it is clear that “the cellulose” always limits “cellulose” from claim 1, and “the carboxy methyl cellulose” always limits “carboxy methyl cellulose” from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the carboxy methyl cellulose is provided to prevent water from spreading to an object to be adhered.” Recitations of “purpose” are treated the same as recitations of “intended use” under MPEP 2111.02(II); such recitations are not considered to limit the structure of the invention, and so claim 12 does not provide any meaningful limitations to the scope of the invention. The subject matter of claim 12 will be considered to be met by any prior art teaching the inclusion of carboxy methyl cellulose, whether or not that prior art provides a specific reason for its inclusion.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadeem et al. (Carbohydrate Polymers 2020, 250, 116911, hereinafter “Nadeem”).
Regarding claim 1, Nadeem teaches an adhesive containing a solid content, wherein the solid content comprises cellulose and carboxy methyl cellulose (see generally abstract; the adhesive capabilities of cellulose and carboxy methyl cellulose are intrinsic to the materials themselves, so the preamble’s recitation of “An adhesive” is considered to be inherently met; see MPEP 2112.01(II) regarding the inseparability of a chemical composition from its properties).
Regarding claim 2, Nadeem further teaches the limitation wherein the cellulose and carboxy methyl cellulose (hereinafter CMC) are both contained in about 0.1 to 5% by weight of the adhesive (see Section 3.2, ll. 1–7; CMC and cellulose are combined at a 1:1 ratio to achieve a total solids content of 1.5 wt.%, which means CMC and cellulose each comprise 0.75 wt.% of the overall adhesive composition [1.5 wt.% ÷ 2 species at equal proportions = 0.75 wt.% each]).
Regarding claim 12, Nadeem teaches the inclusion of CMC, which is sufficient to meet the limitations of this claim (see the above Claim Interpretation section regarding claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Nadeem further teaches the limitation wherein the adhesive is water-based, and a content of water is in a range of from about 88.0 to 99.6% by weight of the adhesive. Specifically, Nadeem teaches the cellulose/CMC composition as being dispersed in water to a total solids content of 1.5 wt.% (see Section 3.2, ll. 1–7). Since no other components are explicitly recited, water must comprise 98.5 wt.% of the composition, which falls within the claimed range.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeem, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto (JP-2011-237157-A, hereinafter “Okamoto”).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Nadeem teaches the adhesive of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the adhesive further contains an inorganic moisture absorbent. Okamoto teaches a heat exchanging element (the same field of endeavor as the present invention, wherein an adhesive is used to produce a multi-layered cellulose laminate and thus requires a high degree of moisture control to deal with condensation) wherein the sheet member of the exchanger comprises cellulose paper (see Okamoto, paragraph 0006), to which an inorganic moisture absorber is added (see paragraphs 0018 and 0026), which meets the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, the moisture absorber is explicitly taught to be lithium chloride or silica gel (see paragraph 0026), two of the species recited in claim 4.
Nadeem teaches a composition comprising cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose with inherent adhesive properties, and Okamoto teaches a heat exchanger made from a multi-layered cellulose laminate. These two references are considered analogous to each other because the disclosure of Nadeem is reasonably pertinent to the problems faced by Okamoto (i.e., Nadeem teaches enhanced moisture resistance by virtue of the inclusion of CMC, while Okamoto teaches a water-sensitive material that will be exposed to condensation through use; see MPEP 2141.01(a)(1) teaching “reasonably pertinent” as one of the criteria used to establish analogy). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the composition of Nadeem can be modified according to the disclosure of Okamoto, by including an inorganic moisture absorbent in the cellulose/CMC composition; this modification aligns with KSR Rationale C: use of a known technique (incorporating an inorganic moisture absorbent to mitigate condensation in cellulose laminates) to improve similar products (a cellulose/CMC adhesive which can be used in cellulose laminates) to improve moisture tolerance. The modification of Nadeem by Okamoto teaches all the limitations of claims 3 and 4, thus rendering the claims prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Nadeem teaches the adhesive of claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of an antimicrobial agent. Okamoto teaches the inclusion of an antimicrobial agent (see Okamoto, paragraph 0010 teaching an “antibacterial agent”, which is a type of antimicrobial agent), which meets the limitations of claim 6. Furthermore, Okamoto explicitly teaches the use of silver zeolite as an antimicrobial agent (see paragraph 0038; this is considered a porous inorganic antimicrobial agent loaded with silver), which meets the limitations of claim 7.
It is well understood that bacteria and other microbes thrive in moist environments, such as the heat exchanger taught by Okamoto (see Okamoto, paragraph 0010 teaching the inclusion of an antibacterial agent, which would not be necessary unless there were risk of bacterial growth). The modification of Nadeem by Okamoto most closely aligns with KSR Rationale D: applying a known technique (incorporating an antimicrobial agent into a moisture-rich environment which would otherwise promote bacterial growth) to a known product (a cellulose/CMC adhesive which can be used in cellulose laminates) ready for improvement in order to yield predictable results (Nadeem does not disclose any antimicrobial agents, meaning the composition of Nadeem is ready for improvement; the successful inclusion of antimicrobial agents in the product of Okamoto suggests a reasonable expectation of success if Nadeem were to be modified according to Okamoto).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeem and Okamoto, as applied to claims 3 and 6 above, respectively, and further in view of Combs (US 2015/0090156 A1, hereinafter “Combs”).
Regarding claim 5, Nadeem, as modified by Okamoto, teaches the adhesive of claim 3, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the inorganic moisture absorbent is contained in about 0.1 to 1% by weight of the adhesive. Combs, however, discloses the compositional ranges of various additives in a cellulose-based adhesive, and teaches water-resistance additives (which have a significantly synonymous function with Okamoto’s moisture absorbents; water-resistance additives repel moisture while absorbents absorb it, but both serve to prevent moisture from reaching the hydrophilic cellulose present in Nadeem’s, Okamoto’s and Combs’ disclosures) as being present in the claimed amount (see Combs, paragraph 0059 teaching water-resistance additives; also see paragraph 0061 teaching additives in an amount of from 0.1–75 wt.%; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Nadeem, as modified by Okamoto, teaches an adhesive composition comprising a moisture absorbent, but fails to teach an amount of moisture absorbent. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to modify Nadeem according to Okamoto would need to look to Combs to know how much moisture absorbent is required. The water-resistance additives disclosed by Combs are functionally synonymous with the moisture absorbent taught by Okamoto, and so a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that if Nadeem were modified to use moisture absorbents as taught by Okamoto, in the amounts taught by Combs, there would be a reasonable expectation of success because Okamoto and Combs both teach moisture-limiting additives in cellulose-based compositions, thus arriving at the claimed invention. Claim 5 is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Nadeem, as modified by Okamoto, teaches the adhesive of claim 6, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the antimicrobial agent is contained in about 0.1 to 1% by weight of the adhesive. Combs, however, discloses the compositional ranges of various additives in a cellulose-based adhesive, and teaches antimicrobial additives as being present in the claimed amount (see Combs, paragraph 0059 teaching antibacterial and antifungal additives [both are types of antimicrobial agents]; also see paragraph 0061 teaching additives in an amount of from 0.1–75 wt.%; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Nadeem, as modified by Okamoto, teaches an adhesive composition comprising antimicrobial agents, but fails to teach an amount of antimicrobial agent. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to modify Nadeem according to Okamoto would need to look to Combs to know how much antimicrobial agent is required. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that if Nadeem were modified to use antimicrobial agents as taught by Okamoto, in the amounts taught by Combs, there would be a reasonable expectation of success because Okamoto and Combs both teach antimicrobial agents in cellulose-based compositions, thus arriving at the claimed invention. Claim 8 is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeem, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Nadeem fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the cellulose has a diameter in a range from about 1 to 50 nm. It is noted that “about” is not defined in Applicants’ specification, but it does suggest that the endpoints of the range are flexible, especially absent any quantitative comparisons of sizes within and outside of the claimed range. Nadeem does, however, teach cellulose as having a diameter of around 73 nm (see section 3.1, highlighted text). Under MPEP 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges don’t overlap with prior art, but are merely close. In the instant case, a diameter of up to “about 50 nm” is considered sufficiently close to “around 73 nm”, especially absent any evidence of criticality, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The diameter of cellulose fibers is considered an optimizable parameter, wherein smaller diameters yield higher surface-area-to-volume ratios, which is an important consideration when dealing with surface modifications and interactions of cellulose fibers. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably arrived at the claimed range through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Thus, claim 9 is considered to be prima facie obvious over Nadeem.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeem, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghanadpour et al. (Biomacromolecules 2015, 16, 3399–3410, hereinafter “Ghanadpour”).
Regarding claim 10, Nadeem teaches the adhesive according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the cellulose is endowed with a phosphoric acid functional group. Ghanadpour teaches phosphorylated cellulose nanofibers which grant flame-retardant properties to materials prepared with the phosphorylated cellulose (see generally abstract). While Nadeem fails to explicitly discuss the importance of flame-retardant properties, it is well-known in the art that cellulose is a highly flammable substance. Flame retardancy is therefore a generally desirable property for cellulose-based materials, and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably seek to impart flame retardancy to any cellulose composition as a matter of routine material optimization because it allows the cellulose to be employed in a wider range of applications without risk of combustion. Nadeem, as modified by Ghanadpour, meets the limitations of claim 10, thus rendering the claim prima facie obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeem and Ghanadpour, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wagenknecht et al. (DD-279487-A1, hereinafter “Wagenknecht”).
The equation used in the following rejection is adapted from Missoum et al. (Soft Matter 2012, 8, 8338, Appendix, hereinafter “Missoum”), which is cited as evidentiary support and only applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 11, neither Nadeem nor Ghanadpour explicitly teaches the concentration of carboxymethyl groups (in the case of Nadeem) or phosphate groups (in the case of Ghanadpour). However, both references provide a degree of substitution for these moieties, from which concentration can be calculated.
The degree of substitution (DS) is defined as the number of substituents per anhydroglucose unit (AGU), wherein cellulose is just a polymer of repeating AGU monomers. The equation used to convert DS to mmol/g is as follows:
D
S
×
1000
m
m
o
l
m
o
l
(
M
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
+
D
S
×
M
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
o
f
s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
)
=
m
m
o
l
/
g
In the above equation (adapted from Missoum, see page 2 for the original and the modified equations; the original contained an additional calculation to specifically solve for concentration of just carbon in the substituted cellulose), the degree of substitution is divided by the mass of a substituted monomer, which means it’s the molar mass of the monomer itself, plus a weighted mass of the substituent. The molar mass of the monomer (AGU) is taken to be 162 g/mol (the mass of glucose, minus the mass of a single water molecule, which is lost upon polymerization). The molar mass of the substituent is taken to be the molar mass of all atoms of the substituent minus 1 g/mol; AGU bonds to substituents through hydroxyl (–OH) groups in the AGU, but loses the hydrogen upon bonding (–O–); since hydrogen has a molar mass of 1 g/mol, the mass of the bonded substituent is 1 g/mol less than the mass of the substituent itself. Carboxymethyl binds as (Cellulose–O–CH2COOH), wherein CH2COOH has a mass of 58 g/mol, which becomes 57 g/mol once bonded. Phosphate binds as (Cellulose–O–PO3H2), wherein PO3H2 has a mass of 81 g/mol, which becomes 80 g/mol once bonded.
Nadeem teaches a DS of carboxymethyl to be between 0.38 and 1.4 (see section 3.1, highlighted text), which is converted to concentration with the following calculation:
0.38 ×1000
mmol
mol
(162
g
mol
+
0.38 ×57
g
mol
)
=2.07 mmol/g
1.4 ×1000
mmol
mol
(162
g
mol
+
1.4 ×57
g
mol
)
=5.79 mmol/g
Ghanadpour teaches a DS of phosphate to be between 0.014 and 0.047 (see Conclusions, highlighted text), which is converted to a concentration range with the following calculations:
0.014 ×1000
mmol
mol
(162
g
mol
+
0.014 ×80
g
mol
)
= 0.086 mmol/g
0.047 ×1000
mmol
mol
(162
g
mol
+
0.047 ×80
g
mol
)
=0.28 mmol/g
As can be seen from these equations, Nadeem teaches a DS range which corresponds to a concentration range of 2.07–5.79 mmol/g, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5–3.0 mmol/g (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges; also see MPEP 2123, which states that a reference’s nonpreferred and alternative embodiments should be considered as part of a prior art’s broad disclosure). However, Ghanadpour teaches a range of 0.086–0.28 mmol/g, which is less than the claimed concentration of phosphate.
Wagenknecht also teaches a method of phosphorylating cellulose (see generally abstract), and provides several example reactions to achieve varying degrees of phosphorylation. The DS taught by Wagenknecht ranges from 0.46–1.39 (see the final sentences of Examples 1 through 4; this DS range corresponds to a phosphate concentration of 2.31–5.09 mmol/g using the same equations as above, which overlaps with the claimed concentration range; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Ghanadpour teaches phosphorylation as a beneficial modification, thus motivating the use of phosphorylated cellulose in combination with Nadeem’s teachings. The degree of substitution is a result-effective variable which, absent any evidence of criticality, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to adjust through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). Wagenknecht establishes that a higher DS for phosphorylated cellulose is known and achievable. This modification of references meets all the limitations of claim 11, thus rendering the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 6:30-4:30.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731