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. Election/Restrictions Claim s 90-105 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 . Information Disclosure Statement The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 02/16/2024 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below: WO 2019076999 = US 20210189642 WO 2020097839 = US 20210348328 Of the above, US 20210189642 and US 20210348328 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record. Claim Objections Claim 88 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “ thickness of 50 pm to 300 pm ” in lines 4-5 should be corrected so that the units used are consistent with the specification such that the recitation reads “ thickness of 50 pm µm to 300 pm µm ”; the recitation “ thickness of 300 to 1500 pm ” in lines 6-7 should be amended consistent with the specification such that it reads “ thickness of 300 to 1500 pm µm ”; and the recitation “ this is dried ” in line 5 and “ this is rolled ” in line 8 should be amended to specify what “ this ” is for clarity and consistency within the claim such that the recitations read “ this the applied layer is dried ” and “ this the subsequent layer applied to the dried layer and the surface material is rolled ” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 89 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “ grains having 50pm to 600 pm ” in lines 22-23 should be corrected so that the units used are consistent with the specification such that the recitation reads “ grains having 50 pm to 600 pm 50 µm to 600 µm ”; the recitation “ grains having ranging 60 to 150 pm, 160 to 240 pm, 250 to 360 pm, 370 to 600 pm in size ” in lines 24-25 should be amended consistent with the specification such that the recitation reads “ grains having ranging 60 to 150 pm µm , 160 to 240 pm µm , 250 to 360 pm µm , 370 to 600 pm µm in size ”; and the recitation “ fractionating these ” in line 24 should be amended to specify what “ these ” is for clarity and consistency within the claim such that recitation reads “ fractionating these the crushed and dried biomass grains ”. 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. Claim 89 is 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. Regarding claim 89 : the re citation “ grains ranging having 60 to 150 µm, 160 to 240 µm, 250 to 360 µm, 370 to 600 µm in size ” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the grains can have a size within any of the claimed ranges or if the grain size must fall within one particular range being claimed. For the purposes of prior art rejections, any reference disclosing grains having a size ranging from 60 to 600 µm in size are being interpreted to read on the claim recitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al. (US 2021/0348328; hereinafter Tai ) in view of Parth (US 2021/0189642; hereinafter Parth ) . As to claim 88 : Tai discloses the claimed method for producing a solid polyurethane composite ( Tai at [0001], [0011], [0025]) formed with a layer of polyurethane prepared from oligomers (i.e., polyols ) , polyisocyanates , extenders, catalysts ( Tai at [0006]-[0009], [0028]-[0030], [0044], [0045], [0046], [0062]-[0066] ) , characterized in that a layer of polyurethane is applied onto a support ( Tai at [0025]-[0026], FIG. 2) , wherein the applied layer of polyurethane has a thickness of 50 µ m to 300 µ m ( Tai at [0061]) , then this is dried in a drying chamber at a temperature of up to 80°C to 150°C for 1 to 180 minutes ( Tai at [0077]) , and then this is rolled on rolls ( Tai at [0077], FIG. 2) , followed by baking in a baking chamber at a temperature of 80°C to 50°C for 1 to 180 minutes ( Tai at [0077], FIG. 2) , after which the support is separated ( Tai at [0078], FIG. 2) . Tai discloses the thickness of the polyurethane layer being in the range form 0.2 µm to 600 µm ( Tai at [0061]) and applying a backing substrate to the pre-cured 2k PU foam layer with the assistance of a pressing roller (i.e., surface material is applied ) ( Tai at [0077], FIG. 2); though, Tai fails to disclose the claimed polyurethane composite containing biomass , and a subsequent layer of biomass-containing polyurethane is applied onto the dried layer of biomass-containing polyurethane . However, Parth teaches a composition for realizing a laminate which is formed from plant material with cellulose, in particular a method for producing a laminate which comprises residues from the food industry and which can be used on an industrial scale ( Parth at [0016]). Specifically, Parth teaches applying a polyurethane solution to a fabric base, the polyurethane composition comprising a powder made from dry or dried fruit with cellulose (i.e., polyurethane composite containing biomass ) ( Parth at [0035], [0036]). Parth further teaches a laminate 300 being produced by applying a subsequent layer of the polyurethane composition comprising the powder made from dried fruit with cellulose in a different amount (i.e., a subsequent layer of biomass-containing polyurethane is applied onto the dried layer of biomass-containing polyurethane ) ( Parth at [0040], [0041], [0043], Fig. 4B) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the plant - based biomass containing polyurethane and the application of a subsequent layer of biomass-containing polyurethane applied onto a dried layer of biomass containing polyurethane as such is known in the art of polyurethane composites given the discussion of Parth above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai and Parth as applied to claim 88 above, and further in view of Tudman (US 2018/0079871; hereinafter Tudman ) and Kosmela et al. (WO 2021/182980; hereinafter Kosmela , citations drawn to the translated version provided herewith) . As to claim 89 : Tai and Parth disclose the method of claim 88. Tai , modified by Parth , discloses the composition forming the laminate consisting of plant material with cellulose, in particular waste products from apples to produce a laminate, having a grain size less than 1 mm ( Parth at [0001], [0016], [0021]); and the polyurethane layers being formed from oligomers, polyisocyanates , extenders, catalysts ( Tai at [0007]-[0009], [0028]-[0030],[0041], [0046], [0050]) . Though, Tai , modified by Parth fails to disclose the claimed ( i ) wherein the subsequent layer contains biomass derived from citrus fruit following juice extraction, wherein the biomass consists of 0.01 to 99.99% peel, 0.01 to 99.99% pulp of oranges, mandarins, limes, lemons, (ii) wherein the polyurethane containing the biomass and fed onto a support is prepared by mixing 1 to 99 parts by weight of petrochemical oligomerols , 1 to 99 biological oligomerols , 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of catalysts, 0.1-20 parts by weight of surfactants, and 1 to 90 parts by weight of a isocyanate agent, and 0.01 to 90 parts by weight of crushed biomass, the biomass being citrus fruit biomass following juice extraction, (iii) wherein the petrochemical oligomerols with a hydroxyl number of 30 to 700 mg KOH/g, an acid number of 0.1 to 10 mg KOH/g, a molecular weight of 100 to 6000 g/mol, and a functionality of 0.5 to 6 are used as petrochemical oligomerols , (iv) wherein the biological oligomerol is prepared by chemical liquefaction of citrus fruit biomass, wherein the chemical liquefaction process of citrus fruit biomass is conducted at a temperature of 50°C to 250°C, for a period of 1 min to 300 mins, at a pressure of 1000 Pa to 150000 Pa and a biomass content of 1% to 90%, (v) wherein the catalyst used is a solution of potassium acetate in ethylene glycol, 1 ,3, 5-tris[3- ( dimethylamino )propyl]hexahydro- 1,3,5 -triazine,2-[2-( dimethylamino )ethoxy] ethanol, Dabco 33 LV (solution of 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2] octane in ethylene glycol), stannous 2-ethylhexanoate, N,N- dimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA), dilaurate or mixtures thereof, (vi) wherein polysiloxanes or silicone oils or silicone-glycol copolymer are used as surfactants, and (vii) wherein the citrus fruit biomass is prepared by drying pulp and peel for a period of 4 to 8 h at a temperature of 90 °C to 100 °C, then crushing the dried biomass into grains having 50 pm to 600 pm in size, then drying the biomass grains for a period of 2 hours at a temperature of 90 °C to 100 °C . However, Tudman teaches a polyurethane product comprising a polymerization product of an isocyanate and polyols that comprise a lignin product, the lignin product being made by: (a) pretreating a biomass within a pretreatment unit at an elevated temperature and pressure to produce a pretreated biomass; (b) hydrolyzing the pretreated biomass to produce soluble carbohydrates and lignin residue; and (c) water washing and drying the lignin residue to produce the lignin product ( Tudman at [0007]) . Tudman further teaches o ne exemplary source of biomass is plant matter , with plant matter including agricultural waste byproducts such as peels – including tangerine peel, grapefruit peel, orange peel, tangerine peel, lime peel and lemon peel (i.e., ( i ) wherein the subsequent layer contains biomass derived from citrus fruit following juice extraction, wherein the biomass consists of 0.01 to 99.99% peel, 0.01 to 99.99% pulp of oranges, mandarins, limes, lemons ) ( Tudman at [0033]). Additionally, Tudman teaches pretreatment of the biomass composition being performed such that any solids are reduced in size , the pretreatment including mechanical processing, application of heat and acid hydrolysis as well as other processing (i.e., (vii) wherein the citrus fruit biomass is prepared by drying pulp and peel for a period of 4 to 8 h at a temperature of 90 °C to 100 °C, then crushing the dried biomass into grains, then drying the biomass grains for a period of 2 hours at a temperature of 90 °C to 100 °C ) ( Tudman at [0019], [0039], [0040], [0064], FIG. 1) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate biomass being citrus peels and the preprocessing of the biomass as such is known in the art of polyurethane composites comprising a lignin product given the discussion of Tudman above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Tai , modified by Parth and Tudman , still fail to disclose the claimed (ii) wherein the polyurethane containing the biomass and fed onto a support is prepared by mixing 1 to 99 parts by weight of petrochemical oligomerols , 1 to 99 biological oligomerols , 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of catalysts, 0.1-20 parts by weight of surfactants, and 1 to 90 parts by weight of a isocyanate agent, and 0.01 to 90 parts by weight of crushed biomass, the biomass being citrus fruit biomass following juice extraction, (iii) wherein the petrochemical oligomerols with a hydroxyl number of 30 to 700 mg KOH/g, an acid number of 0.1 to 10 mg KOH/g, a molecular weight of 100 to 6000 g/mol, and a functionality of 0.5 to 6 are used as petrochemical oligomerols , (iv) wherein the biological oligomerol is prepared by chemical liquefaction of citrus fruit biomass, wherein the chemical liquefaction process of citrus fruit biomass is conducted at a temperature of 50°C to 250°C, for a period of 1 min to 300 mins, at a pressure of 1000 Pa to 150000 Pa and a biomass content of 1% to 90%, (v) wherein the catalyst used is a solution of potassium acetate in ethylene glycol, 1 ,3, 5-tris[3- ( dimethylamino )propyl]hexahydro- 1,3,5 -triazine,2-[2-( dimethylamino )ethoxy] ethanol, Dabco 33 LV (solution of 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2] octane in ethylene glycol), stannous 2-ethylhexanoate, N,N- dimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA), dilaurate or mixtures thereof, (vi) wherein polysiloxanes or silicone oils or silicone-glycol copolymer are used as surfactants . However, Kosmela teaches a method of obtaining new polyurethane materials ( Kosmela at page 1, line 3), the method including providing material from reactive or petrochemical polyols and/or polyols obtained from cellulose waste , reactive polyols being obtained in the thermochemical solvolysis-liquefaction reaction in the presence of a solvent , and reaction catalysts; and polyols being obtained from cellulose waste with a grain size of 0.1 µm to 500 µm ( Kosmela at page 2, lines 12-17 and lines 24-25) . Kosmela further teaches: (ii) wherein the polyurethane containing the biomass and fed onto a support is prepared by mixing 1 to 99 parts by weight of petrochemical oligomerols , 1 to 99 biological oligomerols , 0.01 to 10 parts by weight of catalysts, 0.1-20 parts by weight of surfactants, and 1 to 90 parts by weight of a isocyanate agent, and 0.01 to 90 parts by weight of crushed biomass, ( Kosmela at page 3, lines 11-18) , (iii) wherein the petrochemical oligomerols with a hydroxyl number of 30 to 700 mg KOH/g, an acid number of 0.1 to 10 mg KOH/g, a molecular weight of 100 to 6000 g/mol, and a functionality of 0.5 to 6 are used as petrochemical oligomerols ( Kosmela at page 3, lines 28-30) , (iv) wherein the biological oligomerol is prepared by chemical liquefaction of biomass, wherein the chemical liquefaction process of biomass is conducted at a temperature of 50°C to 250°C, for a period of 1 min to 300 mins, at a pressure of 1000 Pa to 150000 Pa and a biomass content of 1% to 90% ( Kosmela at page 2, lines 12-17 and lines 24-25; page 3, lines 11-22) , wherein the catalyst used is a solution of potassium acetate in ethylene glycol, 1,3, 5-tris[3- ( dimethylamino )propyl]hexahydro- 1,3,5 -triazine,2-[2-( dimethylamino )ethoxy] ethanol, Dabco 33 LV (solution of 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2] octane in ethylene glycol), stannous 2-ethylhexanoate, N,N- dimethylcyclohexylamine (DMCHA), dilaurate or mixtures thereof ( Kosmela at page 4, lines 6-10) , wherein polysiloxanes or silicone oils or silicone-glycol copolymer are used as surfactants ( Kosmela at page 4, lines 13-14). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the polyol mixture as such is known in the art of forming polyurethane materials from cellulose waste given the discussion of Kosmela above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9287 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9am-5pm, MST . 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 Galen H. Hauth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5516 . 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. /BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743