DETAILED ACTION
This communication responds to the Amendment filed November 28/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 12-17 were withdrawn without traverse in the reply filed on 9/18/2024. Claim 9 was canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 18-20 are under examination.
The rejections of claims 1-7 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Banerjie et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0258259 A1 in view of Immonen et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0331518 A1 set forth in the Office Action dated June 27,2025 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s responsive amendment.
The rejections of claims 1-7 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over unpatentable over Banerjie or Nelson et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0168363 (hereinafter, "Nelson"), in view of Menceloglu et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0033093 Al (hereinafter, "Menceloglu") set forth in the Office Action dated June 27,2025 are WITHDRAWN due to Applicant’s responsive amendment.
This action is final.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A nanocellulose-containing composite product comprising:
(a)
from about 0.05 wt.% to about 50 wt.% nanocellulose, wherein said nanocellulose has a crystallinity of at least 70%;
(b)
from about 0.05 wt.% to about 10 wt.% compatibilizer,
wherein said compatibilizer is selected from the group consisting of succinic anhydride, alkenyl succinic anhydrides, alkyl ketene dimers, olefin-styrene copolymers, olefin-styrene-glycidyl copolymers, olefin-styrene-glycidyl-methacrylate copolymers, and combinations or reaction products thereof,
wherein said alkenylsuccinic anhydrides have the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
130
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is selected from H, C1-C24 linear or branched alkanes, C2-C24 linear or branched alkenes, C6-C24 linear or branched aromatics, or a combination thereof; and wherein R2 is selected from H, C1-C24 linear or branched alkanes, C2-C24 linear or branched alkenes, C6-C24 linear or branched aromatics, or a combination thereof; and
(c)
from about 50 wt.% to about 99.9 wt.% matrix material.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnerjie et al. (US 2018/0258259) in view of Rui et al. (Advanced Materials Research, 2013, ISSN 1662-8985, Vols. 652-654, pp 418-422).
Regarding claims 1-3, Barnejie et al. teach a polymer composite comprising a polymer (matrix material), nanocellulose and a compatibilizer, wherein the nanocellulose comprises cellulose nanocrystals and/or cellulose nanofibrils, while the compatibilizer comprises a maleated polymer (abstract, claim 1). Barnejie et al. further teach the composite comprises about 0.01 to about 99 wt.% of nanocellulose, with some embodiments containing 0.01 wt.% to 10 wt.% of nanocellulose. The composite also includes about 0.01 to about 10 wt.% of compatibilizer (claim 10, [0078], [0081], [0028], [0069]), implying a polymer content of about 0.1 wt.% to about 99.9 wt.% and a ratio of nanocellulose to compatibilizer from about 0.001 to about 990 or 1 to 100, which overlaps with the claimed amounts (about 0.05 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of nanocellulose, 0.05-10 wt.% of compatibilizer and 50-99.9 wt.% of matrix material of instant claim 1, 0.1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of nanocellulose of instant claim 2 and ratio of nanocellulose to compatibilizer from about 0.1 to about 10 wt.% of compatibilizer of instant claim 3). Furthermore, 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).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Barnejie et al. Additionally, Barnejie et al. teach the nanocellulose is produced under conditions associated with the AVAP process in presence of an acid catalyst. This involves mechanically treating the cellulose rich solids to produce cellulose fibrils and /or cellulose crystal, thereby generating a nanocellulose material with a crystallinity of at least 60% ([0068],[0073], [0150]-[0153]).
Barnejie et al. and the claim differ in that Barnejie do not teach the exact claimed range for the crystallization of the nanocellulose as recited in the instant claim.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Barnejie et al. overlap the instantly claimed range (at least 70 %) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Barnejie et al. are further silent on the claimed compatibilizer.
Rui et al. teach that compatibilizers are widely used in wood (primary component is cellulose)-plastic composites to improve the dispersibility of wood flour within the polymer matrix and to enhance interfacial adhesion. This is achieved through the functional groups that react with the hydroxyl groups of wood flour to form covalent bonds. Rui et al. further teach glycidyl methacrylate (GMA)-Styrene-g-Polypropylene as an example of a compatibilizer (p.418). Given that the cellulose is similar to the wood flour (hydroxyl groups), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the GMA-St-g-PP into the polymer composite of Barnejie due to its functionality, which enable it to react with both the hydroxyl groups on cellulose and functional groups on the matrix polymer forming a strong interface that result in improved mechanical properties and water resistance of the composite (p.418), thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Barnejie in view of Rui et al. teach the composite consisting essentially of a cellulose, compatibilizer and a matrix material as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Barnejie et al. teach a nanocellulose containing composite, wherein the nanocellulose comprises cellulose nanocrystals and/or cellulose nanofibrils, microfibrillated cellulose, nanofibrillated cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, nanocrystalline cellulose (claim 1, [0075]), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Barnejie et al. teach a nanocellulose containing composite comprising nanocellulose and lignin, wherein the lignin is either chemically bonded to the nanocellulose and/or physically deposited on the nanocellulose ([0081]-[0083]), thereby reading on the lignin -containing cellulose of instant claim 6 and the lignin-coated nanocellulose of instant claim 7, as required by the instant claims .
Regarding claims 18-20, Barnejie et al. teach the nanocellulose containing composite, wherein the matrix material is selected from polyolefins, polyethylene, polystyrene, polylactide, styrenic rubbers, synthetic rubbers, natural rubbers (abstract, [0063]), as required by the instant claims.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnerjie et al. (US 2018/0258259) in view of Miao et al. (Polymer 101 (2016) 338-346).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 8, the limitations of the nanocellulose-containing composite comprising 0.05-50 wt.% of nanocellulose having a crystallinity of at least 70 wt.% and 0.05- 10 wt.% of compatibilizer is discussed in the paragraph 7 and incorporated herein by reference.
Barnejie et al. are further silent on the claimed compatibilizer.
However, Miao et al. teach cellulose nanocrystals are modified via surface grafting of (2-Dodece-1-yl) succinic anhydride (DDSA), wherein DDSA reads on the claimed formula when R1 is a hydrogen and R2 is a C1-C24 linear alkane, as required by the instant claim 8. Miao et al. further teach DDSA-CN improve the dispersion of the cellulose in a matrix material as well the interface between them, resulting in the enhancement of mechanical properties of the composite (abstract). Considering Barnejie teaches a maleic anhydride polymer as a compatibilizer in cellulose-polymer composites, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the (2-Dodece-1-yl) succinic anhydride (DDSA) as a compatibilizer into the composite of Barnejie due to its functionality that enable the reaction of the long alkyl chain with non- polar matrix polymers and the interaction of the succinic anhydride group with the hydroxyl groups of cellulose, providing a predictable result of improved interfacial adhesion between the cellulose and the polymer matrix and enhanced mechanical properties of the composite (abstract), thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4-7, see the rejection of claims 4-7 at paragraph 7.
Regarding claims 18-20, see the rejection of claims 18-20 at paragraph 7.
Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnerjie et al. (US 2018/0258259) in view of Miwa et al. (Macromolecules, Vol. 34, No. 7, 2001).
Regarding claims 1-3, the limitations of the nanocellulose-containing composite comprising 0.05-50 wt.% of nanocellulose having a crystallinity of at least 70 wt.% and 0.05- 10 wt.% of compatibilizer is discussed in the paragraph 7 and incorporated herein by reference.
Barnejie et al. are further silent on the claimed compatibilizer.
Miwa et al. teach the difficulty of compatibilizing propylene with polar materials (i.e. cellulose) and the use of graft copolymers such as polytyrene-g-polypropylene (St-g-PP) to improve compatibility of immiscible polymers (introduction,p.2089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the St-g-PP as a compatibilizer into the composite of Barnejie to improve the compatibility between the cellulose and polymer matrix, with the predictable result of enhanced mechanical properties, thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4-7, see the rejection of claims 4-7 at paragraph 7.
Regarding claims 18-20, see the rejection of claims 18-20 at paragraph 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Barnejie in view of Miao et al. fails to teach or suggest the alkenylsuccinic anhydride according to the claimed formula as recited in the instant claim 1, wherein R1 is s selected from C2-C24 linear or branched alkanes, C4-C24 linear or branched alkenes, C8-C24 linear or branched aromatics, C5-C15 linear or branched alkanes, as recited in the instant claims 10 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments set forth in its 11/28/2025’ Remarks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763