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 .
The amendment filed 17 July 2026 has been received, entered and considered. The following information has been made of record in the instant amendment:
1. Claims 3-5, 8-17 and 19-20 have been canceled.
2. New Claims 21-28 have been added.
3. Claims 1-2 and 18 have been amended.
4. Remarks drawn to objections claims and drawings, and rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103.
The following objection(s)/rejection(s) has/have been overcome:
The objection to Figures 2-5 has been overcome by providing clear drawings.
The objection to claims 1-20 has been overcome by appropriate corrections.
The rejection of Claim(s) 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (US 2013/0303750 A1) as evidenced by Liang et al (Catalysis Communications, 2013, 40, 93-97; of record) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment. Zhu does not teach crosslinking between the cellulose nanofiber having sulfate ester group and the lignin derived substance. The rejection of claims 3-4 and 18-19 has been rendered moot by cancelation.
The rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ryohei (WO 2020066537 A, English Translation pages 1-17; cited in the IDS filed 05/22/2025) as evidenced by Liang et al (Catalysis Communications, 2013, 40, 93-97; of record) has been withdrawn. in view of the amendment. Ryohei does not teach crosslinking between the cellulose nanofiber having sulfate ester group and the lignin derived substance.
The rejection of Claim(s) 3-5 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al (US 6,500,947) as evidenced by Liang et al (Catalysis Communications, 2013, 40, 93-97; of record) and further in view of Ton-That et al (US 9,175,147) has been rendered moot by cancelation.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 18 and 21-28 are pending in the case.
The following rejections are necessitated by Applicant's amendment filed 17 July 2026 wherein the limitations in pending claims 1-2 and 18 have been amended.
Drawings
The structural formulas at pages 4, 6, 7 and Tables 1-6 are objected. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The structural formulas at pages 4, 6, 7 and Tables 1-6 in the specification are all fuzzy. They must be replaced by one which is clear.
Response to Applicants’ Remarks
The structural formulas at pages 4, 6, 7 and Tables 1-6 in the specification were objected to in the previous Office Action. Applicant has not replaced the structural formulas at pages 4, 6, 7 and Tables 1-6 in the specification.
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(s) 1-2, 6-7, 18 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al (US 6,500,947; of record) as evidenced by Liang et al (Catalysis Communications, 2013, 40, 93-97; of record) and further in view of Ton-That et al (US 9,175,147; of record) and Law (US 9,221,963; newly cited necessitated by amendment).
West et al teaches crosslinked sulfated cellulose fibers from yellow pine fluff pulp. The fluff pulp has lignin, which will be converted to sulfated lignin, a lignin-derived substance (col. 2, lines 8-15; col. 6, line 51 through col. 7, line 45; Example 1 and Example 2). The sulfation of lignin is evidenced by Liang et al (page 93, part 2.1). The crosslinking of the sulfated cellulose fibers using crosslinking agents as taught by West should crosslink the sulfated cellulose fibers and the sulfated lignin as in claims 1 and 18. This reads on part of the limitations of claims 1-2 regarding the sulfated cellulose fiber and lignin-derived substance being a complex, and the cellulose having sulfate ester groups and the lignin-derived substance are crosslinked, and sulfate ester group as in claim 2). Since the lignin has hydroxy group it should form crosslinks via condensation or addition reaction as in claims 21 and 26. West teaches alkaline bases containing monovalent and trivalent metal ions (col. 6, lines 3-21; M in the formula in claim 2). The product of West has the cellulose fibers which are sulfated and has lignin-derived substance which has hydroxyl groups. Therefore, the product of West is a complex as in claims 1 and 18. Composites can be formed by adding polyester, polypropylene and polyacrylates (col. 8, lines 61-65; resins as in claim 6).
West teaches that there is a need for superabsorbent material made from a biodegradable renewable resource like lignocellulose that is inexpensive, and that has a low void volume when saturated (col. 1, line 64 through col. 2, line 5). In view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art will also make the claimed compositions using cellulose nanofiber as in claims 1 and 18.
West does not expressly teach the limitation of claims 7, 22-25 and 27-28.
Ton-That et al’s invention is drawn to cellulose materials that have improved thermal resistance, and improved resistance to damage by UV light (Abstract). The cellulosic material may be in the form of nanofibers and can be natural or synthetic. Natural cellulosic material can be from pulp and wood, including lignocellulose. Synthetic may be cellulose sulfate (col. 4, lines 25-57; as in claims 1 and 18). To make resistant polymer composites suitable materials may be added. These include clays, mica, thermoplastic polymer resins, rubbers, surfactants, colorants, pigments, carbon black, fillers, antioxidants, plasticizers, etc. (col. 4, line 25 through col. 9, line 2; limitations of claims 6-7).
Law, drawn to absorbent material, teaches the use of cellulose fibers and should have a high degree of crystallinity in order that the fibers maintain sufficient strength after derivatization and the resulting materials are strong enough for its intended use (col. 8, lines 37-39; crystallinity as in claims 22 and 27). In view of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the amount of crystallinity in the related cellulose sulfate nanofibers as in claims 22 and 27 to get strong fibers, and also adjust the content of cellulose nanofiber having sulfate ester content, lignin-derived substance content, the weight ratio as in claims 23-25 and 28 for use in absorbent products having ideal properties.
MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in (G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings, lignocellulose fibers are known to be used in personal care absorbent products including resistant composites. Thus, it is obvious to arrive at the claimed compositions comprising sulfate containing cellulose nanofibers and a lignin-derived substance and make the same compositions wherein the sulfate containing cellulose nanofibers and a lignin-derived substance are crosslinked. The artisan would find it obvious to use all the other lignins as in claims 1 and 18 and those in 21 and 26 having the recited functional groups.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the claimed compositions using sulfated cellulose nanofibers as an alternative to the product taught by West for use in personal care absorbent products and to that taught by Ton-That and Law. The artisan would also look for alternative materials that have enhanced properties for such applications.
Response to Applicants’ Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 arguing that Liang fails to teach sulfation of cellulose nanofibers. Ton-That does not teach or suggest a complex in which cellulose nanofiber having a sulfate ester group and a lignin-derived substance is crosslinked. Zhu and Ryohei also fail to suggest a complex in which a cellulose nanofiber having sulfate ester group and a lignin-derived substance is crosslinked. In view of the foregoing withdrawal of the rejection is requested (Remarks-pages 8-10).
In view of the amendment the rejection under 35 USC 103 as set forth above is made of record.
Liang is cited to show that in the sulfation of cellulose fibers the lignin present in the pulp is also sulfated to get sulfated lignin in addition to sulfate containing cellulose fibers. This can be done with cellulose nanofibers. The product as suggested by the prior art which has both sulfated cellulose and the sulfated lignin when reacted with a crosslinking agent should crosslink both.
Ton-That suggests cellulose materials using natural cellulosic material from pulp and wood, including lignocellulose. Synthetic may be cellulose sulfate. It also suggests the use of other additives as in claims 6-7 which could be incorporated in the products of West and Law using nanofibers. Zhu and Ryohei are not used as prior art in the rejection under 35 USC 103.
The art rejection made of record above renders the instant claims obvious.
Conclusion
1. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 18 and 21-28 (Group I) are rejected.
2. Claims 3-5, 8-17 and 19-20 have been canceled.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHY KRISHNAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/GANAPATHY KRISHNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
