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. Status of Application Claims 1-23 are pending and presented for examination. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “dimethyl, propionic acid” should correctly be “dimethyl propionic acid”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 1. Claims 5-9, 17 and 20-22 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “or more”, and the claim also recites 65-98 wt % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination, purposes the claim has been interpreted as a range from 65-100 wt %. In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “or more”, and the claim also recites 67-85 wt % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination, purposes the claim has been interpreted as a range from 67-100 wt %. In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “or more”, and the claim also recites 94-98 wt % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination, purposes the claim has been interpreted as a range from 94-100 wt %. In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “or greater”, and the claim also recites 70-98 wt % which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination, purposes the claim has been interpreted as a range from 70-100 wt %. Claim 8 recites the method of claim 1 and a plasticizer and a stabilizer, but it is not clear in what capacity the plasticizer and stabilizer are utilized in the method. For example, are the plasticizer and stabilizer part of the mixture or added to the composite material at a later point. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as the mixture additionally comprising the plasticizer and stabilizer selected from the elements as claimed. Regarding claim 9, the phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 17 recites a composite material as claimed in claim 1. However, claim 1 is directed towards a method. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 17 is attempting to claim a method or a product. For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted as “The method of claim 1, wherein the cellulose material is fibrous cellulose”. Claim 20 recites “by the method of claim 19”. However, claim 19 is directed towards a composite material and not a method. Therefore, it is unclear what Applicant is referencing when referring to a method of claim 19. Thus, claim 20 is indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 20 has been interpreted as “made by the method of claim 1”. Claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 20 and are indefinite for the same reasons. 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. 2. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 16 and 19-2 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stalberg et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7976942) as evidenced by Campus (“Datasheet - Grilon F 40 natural ” ) . I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14 and 16, Stalberg teaches a method of manufacturing a composite material comprising: providing a mixture of homopolymer polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis of 88 % and a molecular weight of 26000 , 4 wt % cellulose, glycerol (2-hydroxy-1,3-propanediol) , and nylon additive (column 10 and Table 3, Example 17); heating the mixture by passage through an extruder (Table 3, Example 17 and column 8, lines 57-67) at a melting temperature of the polyamide (column 8, lines 64-66), which in Example 17 is Grilon F40 (Table 3) which has a melting point of 220 ºC as evidenced by Campus (see Thermal Properties section) ; allowing the mixture to cool to form a solid composite granule (column 8, lines 65-67) which will inherently be an isotropic solid as it is prepared by extruding in the same manner and temperature as disclosed in Applicant’s specification. Stalberg as evidenced by Campus teach es all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14 and 16; therefore, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus anticipates the claims. II. Regarding claims 19-2 3 , Stalberg as evidenced by Campus teaches a thermally processable granule /pellet isotropic composite material made by the process comprising 4 wt % cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol , and a nylon additive (column 8, lines 58-67 and Table 3, Example 17). Stalberg additionally teaches a food coated with the composite material (abstract). Stalberg teaches an identical product as claimed; therefore, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus anticipates claims 19-2 3 . 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. 3. Claim (s) 3, 4, 7, 9 - 13 , 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalberg as evidenced by Campus . I. Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 17, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 , but fail to teach an exemplary embodiment using a cellulose as claimed or a polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis of 94-98 wt % and a molecular weight as claimed . However, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus does teach that the cellulose that is used can be cellulose microfibers ( Stalberg at column 4, lines 44-49) and that the polyvinyl alcohol that can be used includes polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis of from 75-98% and a molecular weight range of 10,000-50,000 (column 3, line 66-column 4, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stalberg’s examples by substituting cellulose microfibers as the cellulose component and a polyvinyl alcohol having a molecular weight ranging from 10,000-50,000 and a degree of hydrolysis up to 98% as the polyvinyl alcohol component. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly given that Stalberg teaches that these alternatives can be used in their process, and the predictable result of providing a composite granule of cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol. Further, Stalberg doesn’t teach identical ranges for the molecular weight as claimed. However, Stalberg teaches a range of 10,000-50,000 which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus make obvious claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 17. II. Regarding claim 9, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus anticipate the method of claim 1, but fail to teach the melt flow index of the composition in the range as claimed. However, adjusting the melt flow index controls how easily the polymer will flow and will impact the stability of the extrusion process, the throughput and the resultant quality of the final product. Therefore, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range for melt flow index through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). II I . Regarding claim 12, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus anticipate the method of claim 1 and the use of polyvinyl alcohol having a weight of 10,000-50,000 (see above), but fail to teach a range of 4,000-9,000. However, a polyvinyl alcohol with a weight of 10,000 will have essentially identical properties to one having a weight of 9,000. Further, the use of a polyvinyl alcohol with a weight of 9,000 will produce an essentially identical product to one prepared with a polyvinyl alcohol having a weight of 10,000. Therefore, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus also makes obvious the claimed range of 4,000-9,000. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Bonner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). I V . Regarding claim 15, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus anticipate claim 1 (see above), but fails to teach the temperature range of 205-215 º C. However, Stalberg does teach a temperature range of 170-260 ºC (column 8, lines 61-66). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus make obvious claim 15. 4. Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalberg as evidenced by Campus in view of Huang et al. (CN 114106718, reference is made to the provided English machine translation) . Regarding claim 8, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus teach the method as claimed using a polyvinyl alcohol having a degree of hydrolysis and molecular weight as claimed (see above), in combination with glycerol as a plasticizer (see above), but fail to teach the inclusion of a stabilizer. However, Huang teaches preparing a plasticized polyvinyl alcohol by extrusion of a mixture including the polyvinyl alcohol, a plasticizer, such as glycerol, and a stabilizer, such as calcium stearate (see Huang at claims 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stalberg as evidenced by Campus ’s process by including a stabilizer such as calcium stearate as disclosed by Huang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the use of a heat stabilizer would help to prevent thermal degradation of the polyvinyl alcohol during the heating and extrusion process. 5. Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalberg as evidenced by Campus in view of Johnson et al. (WO 2017/046361) Regarding claim 18, Stalberg as evidenced by Campus teach the method as claimed in claim 1, but fail to teach the use of a blend of two or more homopolymeric polyvinyl alcohols. However, Johnson teaches preparing a plasticized polyvinyl alcohol by extrusion of a mixture (claim 1) including the polyvinyl alcohol (claim 1) , and a plasticizer (claim 1) , such as glycerol (claim 4). Johnson further teaches the use of a blend of homopolymer polyvinyl alcohols with different molecular weights (claims 12-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stalberg as evidenced by Campus ’s process by using a blend of homopolymeric polyvinyl alcohols . One would have been motivated to make this modification as Johnson teaches that the use of a blend is advantageous and allows for control of the physical properties of the finished products (page 18, line 28-page 19, line 1). Conclusion Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-23 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5351 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1295 . 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. /ROBERT S WALTERS JR/ March 1, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717