Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 109/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 15 and 17 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-14 and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending.
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 does not require the actual production of nanocellulose only the steps that produce a pulp which can later be turned into nanocellulose via acidification.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection warning has been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 12 are now rejected under 112(b) based upon the instant amendment
Art rejections
The applicant argues that MITCHELL does not teach mechanically internally fibrillating the fibers between the subjecting to a base and the drying (step (a) and step (c)).
The Examiner agrees. Therefore MITCHELL meets the claimed language of “less than 10 seconds” which includes “0” seconds of internal fibrillation
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets this as “mechanically internally fibrillating in the dried terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass for less than 10 seconds”. The applicant has support for this in instant specification paragraphs [0023-0024].
In claim 1 step (e) line 11 the Examiner believes the applicant meant to refer to “step (d)” and not “step (c)”.
In claim 1 step (g) line 16 the Examiner believes the applicant meant to refer to “step (f)” and not “step (e)”.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (i)" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this should be the first or second. For purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the claim as "the second terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (i)"
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass pulp of step (h)" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should recite “the first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (h)"
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner interprets this as “mechanically internally fibrillating in the dried terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass for less than 10 seconds”. The applicant has support for this in instant specification paragraphs [0023-0024].
In claim 12 step (e) line 10 the Examiner believes the applicant meant to refer to “step (d)” and not “step (c)”.
In claim 12 step (g) line 15 the Examiner believes the applicant meant to refer to “step (f)” and not “step (e)”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the terrestrial-based or marine-based cellulosic biomass pulp of step (i)" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. . This should recite “the second terrestrial-based or marine-based cellulosic pulp of step (h)"
Claims 13,14, and 16 depend from claim 12 and are similarly rejected
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.
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:
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL
As for claims 1, MITCHELL discloses treating terrestrial biomass to produce cellulose including microcrystalline cellulose (A process for treating a terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass to provide a biomass cellulosic pulp suitable for conversion to nanocellulose fibers) [abstract, 0023, 0054].
MITCHELL discloses that the biomass treated has been dried (a) removing residual moisture from the terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass to provide dried terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass) [0031 and 0060: "dried wheatgrass"].
MITCHELL discloses the terrestrial biomass is adjusted to a pH range of 7 to 13 and a narrower range of 10-12 which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness (c) subjecting the dried terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass to a first basic solution and adjusting the pH to from about 11 to 13) [0037 and 0061].
MITCHELL discloses that the alkali step can be run at 20 to 90 degrees C (68 to 194 degrees F) which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness. MITCHELL further disclose the alkali stage can last 1 hour (60 minutes) which falls within the claimed range (d) heating the terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass of step (c) to a temperature of from about 130°F to about 150°F for about 20 to about 50 minutes) [0034, 0038, and 0061].
MITCHELL discloses that subsequent to the alkali treatment an oxidation treatment occurs with a treatment time of a few second to 1 hour which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claim or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness (e) subjecting the terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass of step (c) to an oxidation agent for about 40 to about 90 minutes to provide a first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp) [0062].
The resulting biomass cellulosic pulp undergoes the same steps (c) to (d) a second time and a solid fraction comprising cellulose and a liquid fraction comprising hemicellulose, lignin and sugar are separated (f) subjecting the first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp to a basic solution and adjusting the pH to from about 11 to 13; (g) heating the first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (e) to a temperature of from about 1300F to about 1500F for about 30 to about 50 minutes; (h) subjecting the first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (g) to an oxidation agent for about 40 to about 90 minutes; and (i) separating the first terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp of step (h) to provide a second terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass cellulosic pulp and a terrestrial-based or marine-based biomass extract) [0062 “the solid fraction is then treated again to raise the pH …treated with oxidation agent … and rerun through fractionation”].
As for claim 5, MITCHELL discloses sodium hydroxide [0037] and discloses hydrogen peroxide [0046].
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL, in view of Chemical pulping B edited by GULLICHSEN, hereinafter GULLICHSEN
As for claims 2 and 9, MITCHELL discloses bleaching of pulps but does not disclose the temperature and time of bleaching [0051]. GULLICHSEN discloses chlorine dioxide bleaching for 30 to 80 minutes which encompasses the claimed range and 40-60 degrees C (104 – 140 degrees F) which overlaps the instant claimed range [pg. A642 Table 3]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the known bleaching of GULLIUCHSEN to the pulp of MITCHELL to be bleached. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as chlorine dioxide is able to delignify pulp without the environmental concerns of chlorine only bleaching according to GULLICHSEN [pg. A641 section 2.2]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL suggest the use of ECF bleaching [0051] and ECF bleaching uses chlorine dioxide (e.g. no elemental Cl2).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 3 and 4, MITCHELL produces a pulp and states the pulp can be bleached. It mentions washing in conjunction with bleaching [0051]. However, the claim appears to require the washing prior to bleaching. SMOOK discloses washing of pulp after it has been digested [pg. 100 col. 2] with a vacuum washer [pg. 101 col. 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to wash the pulp MITCHELL using a vacuum washer of SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SMOOK remove residual liquor that may contaminate subsequent processing steps (such as bleaching of MITCHELL) [pg. 100 col. 2]. The vacuum washer of SMOOK can remove 99% of washable solids when used in series [pg. 101].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL mentions the bleached pulp can be washed [0051].
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL, Chemical pulping B edited by GULLICHSEN, hereinafter GULLICHSEN, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 3 and 4, MITCHELL produces a pulp and states the pulp can be bleached. It mentions washing in conjunction with bleaching [0051]. However, the claim appears to require the washing prior to bleaching. SMOOK discloses washing of pulp after it has been digested [pg. 100 col. 2] with a vacuum washer [pg. 101 col. 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to wash the pulp MITCHELL/GULLICHSEN using a vacuum washer of SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SMOOK remove residual liquor that may contaminate subsequent processing steps (such as bleaching of MITCHELL) [pg. 100 col. 2]. The vacuum washer of SMOOK can remove 99% of washable solids when used in series [pg. 101].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL mentions the bleached pulp can be washed [0051].
Claims 6, 7, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL, in view of U.S. 2022/0127788 NELSON, hereinafter NELSON.
As for claims 6, 7, and 12, MITCHELL teaches all the features as per supra. MITCHELL discloses that the final pulp may be bleached [0051] and then used for other uses including making microcrystalline cellulose [0054]. MITCHELL does not disclose that the cellulose pulp can be made into nanocellulose using sulfuric acid.
NELSON discloses that nanocellulose includes microcrystalline and nanocrystalline cellulose [0255]. NELSON discloses that sulfuric acid can be used to form the nanocellulose [0244, 0254].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply sulfuric acid treatment of NELSON to the pulp of MITCHELL to form the MCC/nanocellulose. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL does not give any limitations on the forming of the MCC and acid hydrolysis with sulfuric acid is a known way of producing nanocelluloses.
As for claim 8, when the pulp has not been bleached there will be a remainder of lignin present. NELSON further discloses lignin containing and coated nanocellulose [0055] and that it can be coated thereon to form a more hydrophobic nanocellulose [0246-0247]
As for claims 16, MITCHELL discloses sodium hydroxide [0037] and discloses hydrogen peroxide [0046].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL and U.S. 2022/0127788 NELSON, hereinafter NELSON, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Chemical pulping B edited by GULLICHSEN, hereinafter GULLICHSEN
As for claim 13, MITCHELL discloses bleaching of pulps but does not disclose the temperature and time of bleaching [0051]. GULLICHSEN discloses chlorine dioxide bleaching for 30 to 80 minutes which encompasses the claimed range and 40-60 degrees C (104 – 140 degrees F) which overlaps the instant claimed range [pg. A642 Table 3]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the known bleaching of GULLIUCHSEN to the pulp of MITCHELL/NELSON to be bleached. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as chlorine dioxide is able to delignify pulp without the environmental concerns of chlorine only bleaching according to GULLICHSEN [pg. A641 section 2.2]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL suggest the use of ECF bleaching [0051] and ECF bleaching uses chlorine dioxide (e.g. no elemental Cl2).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2015/0152598 MITCHELL, hereinafter MITCHELL, and U.S. 2022/0127788 NELSON, hereinafter NELSON, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claim 14, MITCHELL produces a pulp and states the pulp can be bleached. It mentions washing in conjunction with bleaching [0051]. However, the claim appears to require the washing prior to bleaching. SMOOK discloses washing of pulp after it has been digested [pg. 100 col. 2] with a vacuum washer [pg. 101 col. 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to wash the pulp MITCHELL/NELON using a vacuum washer of SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SMOOK remove residual liquor that may contaminate subsequent processing steps (such as bleaching of MITCHELL) [pg. 100 col. 2]. The vacuum washer of SMOOK can remove 99% of washable solids when used in series [pg. 101].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MITCHELL mentions the bleached pulp can be washed [0051].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748