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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 63, 64, 73, 75 and 89-94 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 63, 64, 75, 90-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0223091) in view of Prinsen et al. (“Modification of the Lignin Structure during Alkaline Delignification of Eucalyptus Wood by Kraft, Soda-AQ, and Soda-O₂ Cooking," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52: pp. 15702-12, Cite No. 26 on IDS submitted 7/26/2023).
Regarding claim 63, Hu et al. teach a structure (page 1, paragraph [0006]) comprising a densified piece of fibrous plant material (page 1, paragraph [0006], page 3, paragraph [0058]) having a density of at least 1.0 g/cm3 (Table 3).
Hu et al. fail to teach wherein the structure comprises modified lignin, wherein the modified lignin has shorter macromolecular chains than that of native lignin in natural fibrous plant material. However, Prinsen et al. teach a structure comprising modified lignin (Abstract, page 15702, col. 2, paragraph 2), wherein the modified lignin has a decrease in molecular weight (shorter molecular chains than that of native lignin in natural fibrous plant material) (page 15705, col. 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified lignin of Prinsen et al. in the structure of Hu et al. in order to improve substrate digestibility (Prinsen et al., page 15702, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 64, Hu et al. fail to teach wherein a content of modified lignin in the densified piece of fibrous plant material is at least 90% of a content of the native lignin in the natural fibrous plant material. However, Prinsen et al. teach a structure comprising modified lignin (Abstract, page 15702, col. 2, paragraph 2), wherein the modified lignin has a decrease in molecular weight (shorter molecular chains than that of native lignin in natural fibrous plant material) (page 15705, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Prinsen et al. do not teach wherein a content of modified lignin in the densified piece of fibrous plant material is at least 90% of a content of the native lignin in the natural fibrous plant material. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of modified lignin of Prinsen et al. in order to improve substrate digestibility (Prinsen et al., page 15702, col. 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified lignin of Prinsen et al. in the structure of Hu et al. in order to improve substrate digestibility (Prinsen et al., page 15702, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 75, Hu et al. teach wherein the densified piece of fibrous plant material has been compressed in a direction substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal growth direction of the fibrous plant material, such that lumina formed by cellulose-based cell walls in a microstructure of the fibrous plant material have substantially collapsed (page 1, paragraph [0003], page 4, paragraph [0069], page 5, paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 90, Hu et al. teach wherein a density of the densified piece of fibrous plant material is at least 1.15 g/cm3 (Table 3), and a density of the natural fibrous plant material is 0.46 g/m3 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 1.0 g/cm3 (Table 3).
Regarding claim 91, Hu et al. teach wherein the natural fibrous plant material is bamboo (page 3, paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 92, Hu et al. fail to teach wherein a content of modified lignin in the densified piece of fibrous plant material is at least 20 wt%. However, Prinsen et al. teach a structure comprising modified lignin (Abstract, page 15702, col. 2, paragraph 2), wherein the modified lignin has a decrease in molecular weight (shorter molecular chains than that of native lignin in natural fibrous plant material) (page 15705, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Prinsen et al. do not teach wherein a content of modified lignin in the densified piece of fibrous plant material is at least 20%. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of modified lignin of Prinsen et al. in order to improve substrate digestibility (Prinsen et al., page 15702, col. 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modified lignin of Prinsen et al. in the structure of Hu et al. in order to improve substrate digestibility (Prinsen et al., page 15702, col. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 93, Hu et al. teach wherein a content of modified hemicellulose in the densified piece of fibrous plant material is 10.6 wt% or 19.5 wt% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 15 wt% (page 2, paragraph [0055], Table 3).
Regarding claim 94, Hu et al. teach wherein the densified piece of fibrous plant material has a strength of 586.8 MPa which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of at least 500 MPa (Table 3).
Hu et al. do not disclose wherein the densified piece of fibrous plant material has a moisture content less than 10 wt%. However, Hu et al. teach wherein pressing can remove any water retained in the chemically treated wood (page 4, paragraph [0067]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of moisture in Hu et al. because the pressing can be performed for a period of time to allow water to be removed. The wood can be held under pressure for at least 1 hour, at least 12 hours, at least 24 hours, or at least 48 hours (page 4, paragraph [0068]). Thus, the amount of moisture remaining depends on the pressure applied (page 4, paragraphs [0067], [0068]).
Claims 73 and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0223091) in view of Prinsen et al. (“Modification of the Lignin Structure during Alkaline Delignification of Eucalyptus Wood by Kraft, Soda-AQ, and Soda-O₂ Cooking," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52: pp. 15702-12, Cite No. 26 on IDS submitted 7/26/2023), in further view of Paszner (US Patent No. 4,339,405).
Hu et al. and Prinsen et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 73, Hu et al. fail to teach wherein the densified piece of fibrous plant material comprises a salt immobilized within a microstructure of the fibrous plant material, and the salt if formed by reaction of one or more chemical solutions with an acidic degradation product of native hemicellulose in the natural fibrous plant material produced by the one or more chemical solutions. However, Paszner teaches a structure (col. 1, lines 5-10) comprising fibrous material and lignins (col. 9, lines 34-40), wherein the fibrous material comprises a salt immobilized within a microstructure of the fibrous material (col. 1, lines 15-20, col. 9, lines 28-60).
The product-by-process limitation “the salt is formed by reaction of one or more chemical solutions with chemical solutions with an acidic degradation product of native hemicellulose in the natural fibrous plant material produced by the one or more chemical solutions” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the salt. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the salt of Paszner possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed salt.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the salt of Paszner in the microstructure of the fibrous plant material of Hu et al. in order to increase compressive and bending strengths of the woody material and confer fire retarding properties to the wood (Paszner, col. 9, lines 52-63).
Regarding claim 89, Hu et al. fail to teach wherein the salt is substantially pH-neutral. However, Paszner teaches a structure (col. 1, lines 5-10) comprising fibrous material and lignins (col. 9, lines 34-40), wherein the fibrous material comprises a salt immobilized within a microstructure of the fibrous material (col. 1, lines 15-20, col. 9, lines 28-60), wherein the salt is nearly neutral (col. 1, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the salt of Paszner in the microstructure of the fibrous plant material of Hu et al. in order to increase compressive and bending strengths of the woody material and confer fire retarding properties to the wood (Paszner, col. 9, lines 52-63).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 3/18/2026