DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Petition under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1)
The petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(c)(1) filed 8 February 2026 was GRANTED. The application is SPECIAL.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 and 19-32 are pending in the present application.
Claims 28-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8 February 2026.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches that straight and strong fibers from the stems or stalks of certain plants, such as the banana plant, may be combined with the comparatively crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances from the leaves of fleshy leafed plants, and a strong, durable and efficient paper, or pulp board produced, of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength (pg. 1, ln. 20-32; pg. 2, ln. 91-102). Mitchell further teaches that the plant fibers can be combined with waste paper stock, wherein the proportions of materials used is about 60 percent of the straight fibers, about 20 percent of the bagasse of sisal leaves, and about 20 percent of waste paper stock (pg. 2, ln. 21-38, 73-77).
Mitchell teaches that the fibers are reduced to a proper size, but does not explicitly disclose that at least 50% of the lignocellulosic fibers have an average length of from 0.5 to 50 mm, as instantly claimed.
Hondroulis et al. teach a process for converting tropical materials, such as banana, into fibers useful in paper-making, textiles, the absorption of liquids, etc. (Abstract; Claims). Hondroulis et al. teach that the fibers produced from banana are first cut, ground, shredded or otherwise reduced into a mass of separated fibers, wherein the stalks are cut into fibers ranging from 0.25 to 1 inch (~6.3 to 25.4 mm) in length (col. 4, ln. 54-60). A second optional reducer pulverizes the fibers reducing them to refined fibers of 0.125 to 0.25 inches (~3.2-6.4 mm) in length (col. 6, ln. 1-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to reduce the fibers according to Mitchell to about 3.2 to 25.4 mm, as reasonably taught by Hondroulis et al. Such would have been obvious because Mitchell and Hondroulis et al. both teach processes for converting banana plant material into fibers for paper-making, pulp board, etc. Mitchell teaches reducing the fibers to a proper size, and Hondroulis et al. teach reducing the fibers to about 3.2 to about 25.4 mm. Thus, it would have been obvious to reduce the fibers of Mitchell to about 3.2 to about 25.4 mm.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose an agrochemical internalized to the solid phase matrix, as instantly claimed.
Labayen teaches alternative containers or bio-containers were developed to promote sustainable greenhouse and nursery production that addressed the consumers’ “green” product perception and environmental sustainability. Bio-containers are made from biodegradable materials, mainly from plant-derived materials, to provide alternative seedling pots by replacing the non-renewable plastic containers (pg. 43, Section 3.2.1). Labayen teaches that bio-containers blended with valuable components that could enhance plant growth by slow release fertilizer and/or with soil conditioning effect, fungicides, insecticides and plant growth regulators are still being investigated. A fertilizer or soil conditioning effect during the pot decomposition is an added beneficial property of a seedling pot (pg. 46-47).
Labayen teaches that plantable containers are made from various fibers, including paper fibers, rice straw and coconut fibers, wherein the coconut fiber containers are made from the medium and long fibers extracted from coconut husks (pg. 44-45, Section 3.2.1.1). Labayen further teaches containers made from banana peels (pg. 23, Table 2.2; pg. 46, Section 3.2.2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to incorporate a fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide and/or plant growth regulator in the plant fiber containing matrix according to Mitchell and Hondroulis et al. as reasonably suggested by Labayen.
Regarding claim 2, Mitchell teaches the combination of plant fibers with waste paper stock (pg. 2, ln. 21-38, 73-77).
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell teaches waste paper stock, but does not explicitly disclose wood or recovered paper fibers comprising old corrugated cardboard, as instantly claimed.
Labayen teaches the efficacy of using textile waste blended with paper waste, such as corrugated cardboard, to form biodegradable seedling pots (Abstract). Labayen teaches that cellulose fibers from waste paper that are recycled 5-6 times become short and weak due to repeated treatment and drying operations. These deteriorated cellulose fibers cannot be recycled and eventually end up in landfills. Discarded textile and paper waste are considered fiber-rich resources that can be potentially downcycled into valuable products and thereby promote landfill disposal diversion (pg. 20).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to use old corrugated cardboard as the waste paper in Mitchell in order to promote landfill disposal diversion and because it is a fiber-rich resource, as suggested by Labayen.
Regarding claim 4, Mitchell teaches that the straight and strong fibers from plants include bagasse of sugar cane, banana, palm tree, cactus and other plants, and the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances include the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants (pg. 1, ln. 20-32; pg. 2, ln. 91-102).
Hondroulis et al. teach recovery of useful fiber from agricultural waste products produced in the cultivation of banana, plantain, pineapple, coconut, palm and other tropical fruit bearing crops (col. 2, ln. 45-54; col. 4, ln. 35-44).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to combine the fibers from banana stems or stalks with fibers from other tropical plants, as well as with the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances from the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants.
Regarding claim 5, Mitchell teaches that the fibers include the bagasse of sugar cane, and the crooked and branched fibers and pithy substances include the bagasse of the leaves of the sisal or henequen plants.
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a water sorbency of at least 0.1 mg/gm, and a water absorbency of at least 0.01 mg/gm, as instantly claimed.
Hondroulis et al. teach that the materials produced from the fibers of tropical materials are suitable for the absorption of liquids (Abstract; col. 2, ln. 52-54; col. 3, ln. 1; col. 5, ln. 20-22).
Regarding claim 13, Mitchell teaches that the straight and strong fibers are from the stalks or trunks of the banana plant (pg. 2, ln. 96-102).
Hondroulis et al. teach that the fiber from agricultural waste products include banana, plantain or Cavendish plant stalks, pineapple crowns, coconut palm or palmetto fronds or the pinzote (fruit bearing body) of palm (col. 2, ln. 45-54).
Regarding claim 14, Mitchell teaches the reduction to proper size by means of shredders, decorticators, grinders, beaters or pulverizing machines (pg. 2, ln. 103-108).
Hondroulis et al. teach reducing the size of the fibers in a reducer, which may consist of a bladed roller that draws the stalks or crowns into a series of rotating ¼” steel knives or blades (col. 4, ln. 54-61).
Regarding claim 17, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a small molecule absorbance capacity of at least 1 mg/gm for neutral compounds, at least 300 µg/gm for positively charged compounds, and at least 150 µg/gm for negatively charged compounds, as instantly claimed.
Hondroulis et al. teach that the materials produced from the fibers of tropical materials are suitable for the absorption of liquids (Abstract; col. 2, ln. 52-54; col. 3, ln. 1; col. 5, ln. 20-22).
Regarding claim 21, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a half-life of the agrochemical in the soil is increased by at least 200%, as instantly claimed.
However, Labayen teaches inclusion of agrochemicals in the solid phase matrix. The compositions would comprise the same components as instantly claimed and in the absence of evidence to the contrary would have an increased half-life by at least 200%.
Regarding claim 22, Mitchell teaches that the smaller fibers of the leaves of the sisal or henquen plant, owing to the fleshy nature of said leaves, interlock and interlace with the other fibers, thereby firmly binding the straight fibers together into a composition paper or pulp board of comparatively great strength and durability (pg. 1, ln. 33-49).
Regarding claims 23-24, Mitchell and Labayen do not explicitly disclose pores having an average diameter of 1 to 3 mm or a density of 200 to 600 pores per m2, as instantly claimed.
Labayen teaches plantable bio-containers planted directly into the ground, which eliminates the need to remove the pot before planting. Once planted, the pot can be easily broken down and allow the roots to penetrate and pass through the container walls into the surrounding soil to eliminate root damage and transplanting fatigue. The plantable containers are also durable enough for short-term production to withstand waterings and handling requirements (pg. 44).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to determine through routine experimentation the optimum pore size and density in order for the solid phase matrix to be suitable for handling and planting, while also being biodegradable.
Regarding claim 27, Mitchell teaches composition paper or pulp boards. A paper would be suitable for placement into a planting container, and therefore is within the scope of the instantly claimed liner.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare solid phase matrix and varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers to produce a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength to meet various commercial requirements, as suggested by Mitchell. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the absorbency of the matrix for liquids and small molecules through optimization of the proportions of fibers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mitchell does not teach or suggest that banana pulp fibers specifically constitute 50-90 wt% of the matrix. The 60% figure refers to all straight fibers collectively, with banana being merely one option among several. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading Mitchell would not understand it to teach a banana-fiber-dominant matrix at the concentrations now required by amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully argues, as noted by Applicant, that Mitchell teaches that the source of the fibers include banana. Mitchell teach that the source of the fibers may be varied within certain limits, using the stems or stalks of plants for the straight and strong fibers and the leaves of fleshy plants for the branching and binding fibers. Thus, it is thought, that corn stalks, or the stalks or trunks of the banana plant or palm tree may be employed for the straight fibers, and the leaves of such plants as the banana, palm tree, cactus and other plants having heavy and fleshy leaves may be employed for providing the branching and tenacious fibers (pg. 2, ln. 91-102).
Also, Hondroulis et al. teach a process for converting tropical materials, such as banana, into fibers useful in paper-making, textiles, the absorption of liquids, etc. (Abstract; Claims). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select banana fibers as the source for the straight and strong fibers as well as for the branching and tenacious fibers.
Applicant further argues that a solid phase matrix comprising 50-90 wt% banana pulp fibers is structurally distinct from conventional paper. At such high banana fiber concentrations, the product is no longer dominated by traditional cellulose fibers but rather by parenchyma cells the soft tissue of the banana plant. Unlike paper, which relies on hydrogen bonding between collapsed cellulose tubes in a porous, two-dimensional fibrous web structure, a high-banana content matrix utilizes pectin-based binding from the banana pulp to create a densified product with fundamentally different structural characteristics. This structural distinction further supports why the prior art paper-making references, which teach conventional paper products with low banana fiber content, do not teach or suggest the claimed solid phase matrix.
The examiner respectfully argues that Mitchell teaches a composition paper or pulp board comprising fibers from the stems or stalks of certain plants, such as bananas, wherein the straight and strong fibers are present in an amount of about 60 wt%. Mitchell further teaches that the proportions of the stalk and leaf fibers may be varied, the more stalk or stem fibers employed, the stiffer and stronger and more rigid will be the product. Similarly, Hondroulis et al. teach a process for converting tropical materials, such as bananas, into fibers useful in paper-making, textiles, insulation, general fiber filler and the absorption of liquids. Thus, it would have been obvious to prepare textiles and paper with the banana fibers according to both Mitchell and Hondroulis et al.
Applicant further asserts that neither Mitchell nor Hondroulis teaches or suggests an agrochemical internalized to the solid phase matrix. Both references are directed to making paper and pulp board fundamentally different products from the claimed solid phase matrix for crop protection with an internalized agrochemical.
The examiner respectfully argues that Mitchell teaches composition paper or pulp boards capable of use for making boxes, barrels, crates, cartons and cylinders. By varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength may be produced to meet various commercial requirements. Hondroulis et al. teach converting tropical materials into fibers useful in paper-making, textiles, insulation, general fiber filler and the absorption of liquids. Therefore, Mitchell and Hondroulis et al. teach that banana fibers can be processed into a variety of shapes for different uses, wherein the proportions of leaf to stalk fibers can control the properties of the product.
Labayen teaches alternative containers or bio-containers were developed to promote sustainable greenhouse and nursery production that addressed the consumers’ “green” product perception and environmental sustainability. Bio-containers are made from biodegradable materials, mainly from plant-derived materials, to provide alternative seedling pots by replacing the non-renewable plastic containers. Labayen teaches that bio-containers blended with valuable components that could enhance plant growth by slow release fertilizer and/or with soil conditioning effect, fungicides, insecticides and plant growth regulators are still being investigated. A fertilizer or soil conditioning effect during the pot decomposition is an added beneficial property of a seedling pot (pg. 46-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to prepare bio-containers from banana fibers, such as the banana fibers taught by Mitchell and Hondroulis et al., wherein the bio-containers further comprise a fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide or plant growth regulator, as reasonably suggested by Labayen.
Regarding the step of internalizing the agrochemical, Labayen teaches that a fertilizer or soil conditioning effect during the pot decomposition is an added beneficial property of a seedling pot. Labayen also teaches that an added supplement from organic waste to be incorporated into the seedling pot that can have a slow fertilizer release effect on plant growth could be promising. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the agrochemical into the seedling pot to have a slow release effect.
Applicant also asserts that regarding claim 27 specifically, this claim requires the matrix to be "configured as a liner in a planting container." Mitchell's paper products are explicitly directed to "boxes, barrels, crates, cartons and cylinders, as well as building material, such as siding, sheathing, roofing, or wall lining" not agricultural applications such as planting container liners.
The examiner respectfully argues that a liner in a planting container is within the scope of a box, carton or cylinder, wherein it is specifically shaped to fit inside a planting container, which is available in various shapes and sizes.
Applicant further argues that the cited prior art actually teaches away from the claimed invention. Applicant asserts that Mitchell contains no teaching or suggestion of using the paper product for crop protection or for delivering agrochemicals; and the end uses contemplated by Hondroulis - paper-making, textiles, insulation, general fiber filler, and absorption of hydrophobic liquids - are entirely unrelated to crop protection or agrochemical delivery.
The examiner respectfully argues that Mitchell, Hondroulis et al. and Labayen do not discredit or discourage the use of the banana fiber products in crop protection or for delivering agrochemicals. Mitchell and Hondroulis et al. teach methods for preparing banana fiber-based products with varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength. Labayen explicitly teaches the use of fiber-based products for the preparation of seedling pots, wherein the seedling pots also comprise a fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide or plant growth regulator. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare banana fiber products for delivery of a fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide or plant growth regulator to the plant.
Applicant further submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to internalize an agrochemical into the paper products of Mitchell and Hondroulis. Conventional paper is designed for writing, printing, packaging, or structural applications not for absorbing and controllably releasing agrochemicals in soil.
The examiner respectfully argues that Labayen provides motivation for using banana fibers for the production of a solid phase matrix further comprising an agrochemical internalized to the solid phase matrix. Also, Hondroulis et al. teach that the fiber-based products can be used as an absorbent, which would internalize the liquid, such as liquid agrochemical compositions.
Regarding the small molecule absorbance capacity of the solid phase matrix according to Mitchell, Hondroulis et al. and Labayen, the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicant’s product with the product of the prior art in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same functional characteristics of the claimed product. The small molecule absorbance is descriptive and thus would be an inherent property of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is upon the applicant to prove that the claimed products are functionally different than those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See Ex parte Phillips, 28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1302, 1303 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993), Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922, 1923 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int.) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Applicant also asserts that Mitchell's description of the natural interlocking properties of sisal fibers describes an inherent physical property of the fibers themselves, not the addition of a "dry or wet strength additive" as recited in claim 22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a "dry or wet strength additive" to refer to a chemical additive, such as a starch, that is added to the matrix to improve fiber bonding properties, as described in the as-filed specification.
The examiner respectfully argues that Mitchell teaches that the fibers, particularly the smaller fibers, of the leaves of the sisal or henquen plant, owing to the fleshy nature of said leaves, are provided with a multitude of branching tendrils, branching from all four sides thereof and that these branching tendrils, when said fibers are reduced to a pulp, as in paper making processes, largely retain these branching-tendrils, so that when interlaced and felted with the comparatively straight fibers of the stalks or stems of certain plants, particularly the bagasse of sugar cane plants, the branched tendrils interlock and interlace with the other fibers, thereby firmly binding the straight fibers together into a composition paper or pulp board of comparatively great strength and durability. Also, the leaf fibers thus produced with branching tendrils have great tenacity, binding effect and flexibility, so that by varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, may be produced commercial requirements.
Therefore, Mitchell teaches that addition of the leaf fibers improves fiber bonding properties, which is within the scope of Applicant’s definition of an additive that is added to the matrix to improve fiber bonding properties.
Regarding claim 21, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Claims 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-24 and 27 above, further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2006/061164 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Labayen does not explicitly disclose abamectin or fluopyram incorporated into their matrix, as instantly claimed.
Kim et al. teach a mat for seeds comprising paper fibers, wherein the mat is also impregnated with a fungicide and/or animal pesticide, such as abamectin (Abstract; pg. 1, ln. 22-33; pg. 8, ln. 23; pg. 13, ln. 7; Claims 1 and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to select an animal pesticide, such as abamectin, for incorporation into the solid phase matrix, as reasonably suggested by Kim et al. Kim et al. teach that abamectin is among the preferred animal pesticides for incorporation into a solid phase matrix for seeds, wherein the pesticides protect the seed.
Regarding claim 25, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a matrix folded into a pouch sized to accommodate a root stock, plant seed, seed piece, seedling, or slip, as instantly claimed. Labayen teaches forming biodegradable pots and sheets, and further teaches plantable bio-containers that can be planted directly into the ground eliminating the need to remove the pot before planting (pg. 44). Labayen teaches containers shaped to receive the seed and be planted into the soil, wherein the pot can be easily broken down and allow the roots to penetrate and pass through into the surrounding soil (pg. 44).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare the pot and/or sheet according to Labayen and to fold it or shape it to hold the seed, and then to plant the matrix in the soil.
It is noted that the claims and specification do not provide additional limitations for the pouch. Therefore, the pot according to Labayen, which has angles and contains the seed, is within the scope of the pouch instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are the same as above. Therefore, the examiner’s response above is repeated herein.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-24 and 27 above, further in view of Dias et al. (Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2018).
Regarding claim 26, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose the matrix is shredded or configured as a pellet for sustained release of an agrochemical in or on soil, as instantly claimed.
Dias et al. teach banana tree fiber pellets comprising urea for the slow release of fertilizer (pg. 711). Dias et al. teach that there is a growing need in the use of fertilizers for soil improvement and increase in agricultural production by area. Among the fertilizers used in agriculture, urea is the one with the greatest problems because of its instability, occurring nitrogen loss by volatilization and the enzymatic hydrolysis or ions leaching to the soil solution (pg. 705).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a solid phase matrix comprising banana fiber and an agrochemical compound, such as urea, wherein the agrochemical compound is slowly released into the soil, as reasonably suggested by Dias et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are the same as above. Therefore, the examiner’s response above is repeated herein.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-24 and 27 above, further in view of Nathan et al. (International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2020; published online 24 April 2019) and Espinosa et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018).
Regarding claims 9-12, Mitchell teaches that by varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, may be produced to meet various commercial requirements (pg. 1, ln. 50-57). Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a burst index less than 15, or less than 5 kPa·m2/g, and a basis weight less than 200 gsm, or less than 125 gsm, as instantly claimed.
Nathan et al. teach agro-waste raw materials for enhancing the quality of recycled paper (Abstract). Nathan et al. teach combining banana fiber pulp with paper waste pulp to form thin sheets of recycled paper (pg. 197, col. 1). The quality of the recycled paper made by supplementation with agro-wastes was analyzed, and the banana fiber agro-waste combined with paper waste yielded a grammage of 155 gsm and a burst factor of 7.5 (Table 3).
Espinosa et al. teach the addition of lignocellulosic micro/nanofibers (LCMNF) from banana leaf residue to recycled paper pulp in order to recover the original properties of fluting paper (Abstract). Espinosa et al. teach that the burst index of recycled fluting with different percentages of LCMNF was between 1.8 and 2.47 Kpa·m2/g (Fig. 1; Table 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare a solid phase matrix comprising banana pulp fibers and paper waste wherein the proportions of the fibers are varied according to Mitchell in order to optimize the stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, to meet various commercial requirements. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the optimum burst index and basis weight for the solid phase matrix based on the desired use. As taught by Nathan et al. and Espinosa et al., varying the composition and proportions can affect the burst index as well as basis weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are the same as above. Therefore, the examiner’s response above is repeated herein.
Claims 6-7, 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 1,648,237) in view of Hondroulis et al. (US 5,958,182) and Labayen (University of Manitoba, January 2020) as applied to claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 17, 19, 21-24 and 27 above, further in view of Tripathi et al. (Appita Journal, 2019).
Regarding claims 6-7, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose an air resistance less than 500 Gs, or less than 250 Gs, as instantly claimed.
Tripathi et al. teach banana stem pulp blended with softwood and mixed agro resulting in an air resistance of 21-48 s/100 ml (Table 6).
Regarding claims 9-12, Mitchell teaches that by varying the proportions of the leaf fibers to the stalk fibers, a board of varying stiffness, thickness, flexibility and strength, may be produced to meet various commercial requirements (pg. 1, ln. 50-57). Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a burst index less than 15, or less than 5 kPa·m2/g, and a basis weight of less than 200 gsm, or less than 125 gsm, as instantly claimed.
Tripathi et al. teach that the paper made from the blended pulp had an air resistance of 34-48 sec/100 ml, a burst index of 2.46-2.63 kN/g, and a grammage of 47.6-48.5 g/m2 (Tables 6-7).
Regarding claims 15-16, Mitchell does not explicitly disclose a Canadian Standard Method test freeness of from 300-700, or from 500-650, as instantly claimed.
Tripathi et al. teach that the paper made from the blended pulp with varying proportions of softwood, mixed agro and banana stem had a CSF of 350-550 (Table 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to vary the proportions of banana pulp fibers and additional fibers to optimize the air resistance, burst index, basis weight and CSF, as reasonably suggested by Mitchell and Tripathi et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimum ratios of fibers to achieve the desired properties based on the intended use of the solid phase matrix.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments are the same as above. Therefore, the examiner’s response above is repeated herein.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights