DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pregrant publication corresponding to the application, US 2023/0357013. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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
The response dated 10/23/2025 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 12, 14 is/are acknowledged as cancelled.
The action is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
I. With respect to the objection to Claim 1 for informalities, the amendment removes what is understood to be an errant strikethrough in the prior amendment. (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 4). The objection is WITHDRAWN.
Double Patenting
I. With respect to the provisional rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/246,215 in view of Rutledge, et al., Carbonized Starch Microcellular Foam-Cellulose Fiber Composite Structures, BioResources 2008; 3(4): 1063-1080 (hereinafter “Rutledge at __”), submission of the terminal disclaimer obviates the rejection. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102
I. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Rutledge, et al., Carbonized Starch Microcellular Foam-Cellulose Fiber Composite Structures, BioResources 2008; 3(4): 1063-1080 (hereinafter “Rutledge at __”), the traversal is on the grounds that “Rutlidge [sic – Rutledge] fails to disclose or suggest the use of a lignin or lignocellulosic material biomass component in the foam.” (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 5). This has been considered but is not persuasive. Rutledge states: “Wood fiber was added to the starch…” (Rutledge at 1066 – Preparation of SMCF-Fiber Aquagels). According to the specification, wood is a cellulose or lignocellulosic material. (S. 3: [0029]). It is not understood how Applicants can make statements in the Specification like “[t]he biomass component used in the method according to the present invention is selected from lignin; lignocellulosic materials, such as wood particles, pulp, and wood fibres,” (S. 1: [0015]) (emphasis added) and “[i]n wood for example, cellulose occurs together with lignin and hemicelluloses” (S. 3: [0029]), and then argue a reference teaching wood fibers does not teach cellulose / lignocellulose.
The Remarks further traverse, stating “Rutlidge [sic – Rutledge] does not disclose foaming of a slurry.” (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 5). The Remarks appear to bootstrap a definition of “foaming” to the claims to require unclaimed steps (introduction of a large proportion of gas bubbles into the slurry), then argue that these don’t occur in the prior art (Rutledge). The Remarks state:
Foaming involves introduction of a large proportion of gas bubbles into the slurry. See, an excerpt from the IUPAC Gold Book defining the slurry attached herewith as EXHIBIT B. In the case of Rutlidge [sic – Rutledge], no gas whatsoever is introduced into the slurry.
(Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 5). Initially, it is unclear what Applicants mean by this “introduction” langauge. The “introduction” language and the usage in the Remarks suggests the gas must come from “without” and not “within.” This arguably has support in the specification, with the lone example in the application “whipping” air into the slurry. (S. 4: [0036]). Air is “without” and becomes entrained “within.” The Specification however is much broader.
Applicants admit on and for the record in the Specification that multiple types of foaming exist. See (S. [0004]) (noting foaming by impregnating a template, curing and carbonization; chemical reaction; and indirect foaming). It is noted that the claims do not require the specific “introduction of a large proportion of gas bubbles into the slurry” as argued. The Specification states on and for the record that the definition / construction of foaming now argued is a permissive (i.e. non-mandatory, or a “may” versus “must”) step. The Specification states: “Foaming of the slurry may be made by introduction of gas into the same.” (S. 2: [0018]). The Specification also states: “The foaming may also be made by applying a high pressure followed by a pressure release, such as by applying a pressure in the range from 102-500 kPa, or from 102-300 kPa.” Id.
Arguably a rejection under the practice as set forth in MPEP 2172 for failure to claim the invention is appropriate. The Examiner declines to do so here, as on balance the Remarks are more arguing a narrow construction of the term versus saying the invention is something different than what is claimed. If foaming means “introduction of a large proportion of gas bubbles into the slurry,” then this should be positively claimed to clearly demarcate the differences between all of the other “foaming” that Applicants would be surrendering and/or disclaiming under this construction now advanced. Absent such an amendment, the broadest reasonable interpretation controls. MPEP 2111.
Returning to Rutledge, foams are unquestionably taught. The Remarks agree. (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 4: “Rutledge discloses the production of starch-cellulose fiber foams.”). The rejection relied on the cooking step in the “Preparation” section of Rutledge. (Non-Final Office Action dated 10/2/2025 at 5). The Remarks do not address this head on, instead dismissing it. (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 5: “Instead the slurry is heated to induce gelation of the starch, apparently without foaming.”) (underlining added; italics and bold face in original). Rutledge states elsewhere that “SMCF [Starch microcellular foam] is created by cooking starch solutions and then cooling to produce stiff aquagels that are dried from a pore-preserving solvent of low surface tension.” (Rutledge at 1064) (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to as argued, apparently foaming does happen. Regardless of whatever Applicants believe to be occurring with ethanol (Remarks of 12/23/2025 at 4), the preponderance of evidence supports the cooking step creating the foam. This is what the reference says.
Finally, note that the claims do not exclude foaming occurring in other steps, like carbonization. MPEP 2111.03 (definition of “comprising”). Any such teaching in Rutledge is immaterial insofar as the claims do not exclude it. (Rutledge at 1072: “The visual observations of these materials suggest that trapped gasses inside the materials expanded and caused the thermoplastic samples to foam.”).
The Remarks are not persuasive. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
I. Claim(s) 2-11 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Rutledge, et al., Carbonized Starch Microcellular Foam-Cellulose Fiber Composite Structures, BioResources 2008; 3(4): 1063-1080 (hereinafter “Rutledge at __”).
With respect to Claim 2, this claim requires “a. suspending cellulose fibres and a biomass component in a liquid medium to obtain a slurry, wherein the biomass component is selected from lignin and lignocellulosic materials.” Rutledge teaches suspending fibers in a starch-water suspension. (Rutledge at 1066 – Preparation of SMCF-Fiber Aquagels).
Claim 2 further requires “b. foaming said slurry to obtain a biomass-cellulose fibre foam.” Cooking is interpreted as foaming. Id.
Claim 2 further requires “c. carbonization of the biomass-cellulose fibre foam to obtain a bio-based carbon foam.” Carbonization is taught. (Rutledge at 1067 – Carbonization of Samples).
As to Claim 3, the ratio is taught/reasonably suggested. (Rutledge at 1069 et seq. – SMCF-Fiber Materials).
As to Claim 4, water is taught. (Rutledge at 1066 – Preparation of SMCF-Fiber Aquagels).
As to Claim 5, as understood, the solids content is taught. (Rutledge at 1066: “As an example, 15 grams of starch was added to 110 grams of a water-fiber mixture with 3% fiber, resulting in 106.7 grams of water, 3.3 grams of fiber, and 15 grams of starch; a total of 125 grams.”).
As to Claim 6, particles are taught. (Rutledge at 1065-1066 – Materials).
As to Claim 7, the silicone mold is interpreted as casting. (Rutledge at 1066 – Preparation of SMCF-Fiber Aquagels).
As to Claim 8, drying is taught. (Rutledge at 1066 – Preparation of SMCF-Fiber Aquagels).
As to Claim 9, lignin is taught. (Rutledge at 1070 – TGA Carbonization Experiments).
As to Claim 10, a temperature of 700 C is taught. (Rutledge at 1070, Table 2; 1071). A heating rate of 10 C/min is taught. Id.
As to Claim 11, nitrogen (an inert) is taught. (Rutledge at 1070, Table 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Claims 1 and 13 are allowed.
The record of the prosecution as a whole makes clear the reasons for allowing the claim(s) noted above. 37 CFR 1.104(e). However, to the extent more explanation is necessary: Search of the prior art did not reveal the foam of Claim 1 with the specificity required of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736