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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and temperature range of claims 2 and 11 is in the reply filed on 07/29/26 is acknowledged. The elected claims are thus 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17. As such, non-elected claims 3, 10, 12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 13-14 and 16-17 are 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.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite in regard to step (c) which reads as followed: “reacting said cellulose fibers with urea or without urea in an aqueous alkaline solution to prepare a cellulose solution and” [Emphasis added]. First, it well known in the art that cellulose fibers under aqueous alkaline condition will react with urea to make a urea-cellulose inclusion complex that is dissolved/dissolvable in the reaction solution. The indefiniteness issue with applicant’s step (c) is, if there is NO urea present in the aqueous alkaline solution, what are the cellulose fibers actually reacting with?
Dependent claim 6 reads as followed: “The process according to claim 1 comprising adding fiber and/or particulate material into step (a) and/or (b) for the manufacturing of reinforced bio-based aerogels.” [Emphasis Added]. What is meant by “adding fiber and/or particulate material into step (a) and/or (b)” since according to independent claim 1 fibrous plant material is already added to at least step (a) to undergo hydrolysis. Is this addition step referring to adding a different type of fibrous material to either step (a) or step (b)? And if so, what is the metes and bounds of this different type of fibrous and/or particulate material?
Dependent claim 9 is indefinite in regard to the two modifying phrases of: “in particular” since such phrases cast doubt on metes and bounds of the scope of the plant fiber residues actually used in the process.
All other claims are being rejected here because they are either directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the Article entitled: “Combination of graphene oxide with flax-derived cellulose dissolved in
NaOH/urea medium to generate hierarchically structured composite carbon aerogels”, by Lvqiao Tang et al., State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China b Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Green Fine Chemicals, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China, (12/28/18), optionally evidenced/in view of either of the following: Sain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2008/0146701 A1 or Yoshida et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2017/0226662 A1.
The Article by Tang et al., on page 180, discloses the following preparation method which is deemed to anticipated Applicant’s claimed process. Please note that the Bleach flax pulp was supplied by Fengyuan Special Paper Co., Ltd. (Xingtai, China) is deemed to have been made according to Applicant’s notoriously well known process steps (a) and (b), even though said process steps are not explicitly disclosed by Tang et al.. Also note that Tang et al.’s process step: “2.2 Preparation of cellulose solution.” reads on Applicant’s claimed process step (c), and Tang et al.’s process step: “2.3 Preparation of GO/cellulose carbon aerogel.”, reads on Applicant’s process step (d).
2.1 Materials. Bleach flax pulp was supplied by Fengyuan Special Paper Co., Ltd. (Xingtai, China). Epichlorohydrin, sodium hydroxide, and urea were purchased from Guangdong Guanghua Sci-Tech Co., Ltd (Guangzhou, Graphite powder, sulfuric acid (98%), hydrochloric acid (37%),sodium nitrate (> 99.0%), potassium permanganate (> 99.5%), hydrogen peroxide (30%) were obtained from Guangzhou Chemical Reagent Factory (Guangzhou, China). All chemical reagents were of analytical-grade without further purification.
2.2 Preparation of cellulose solution. A certain amount of NaOH, urea and distilled water (8: 12: 80 by weight) were added to a suitable beaker to form an aqueous solution. Then, the solvent was precooled to -12oC by a low-temperature pump (Julabo F32, JULABO Labortechnik GmbH, Germany). Next, a desired amount of oven dried cellulose was immersed into the solvent and stirred at 7000 rpm for six minutes to form a cellulose solution with con-centration of 2 wt.%.
2.3 Preparation of GO/cellulose carbon aerogel. A suspension of 0.4 wt.% graphene oxide (GO) was obtained by using the modified Hummer's method (Cote et al., 2009). A mixture of 40g of cellulose solution and graphene oxide solution was prepared in a ratio of cellulose/graphene oxide of 10:1. Then 2 ml epichlorohydrin as a cross-linking agent was added dropwise to the GO/cellulose mixture. The mixtures were firstly stirred at 1000 rpm for 30 min at 30 °C with magnetic stirring apparatus then heating at 60 °C for an hour to obtain a GO/cellulose hydrogel. GO/cellulose hydrogel was then frozen with liquid nitrogen and finally freeze-dried in a lyophilizer (-58 °C, 0.22 mbar) for 48 h to obtain GO/cellulose aerogels, which contained some sodium hydroxide and urea. GO/cellulose aerogels were placed in a vacuum tube furnace under N₂ flow of 100 min The aerogels were firstly heated to 200°C at a heating rate of 5 °C-min⁻ 1 and kept at 200 °C for 2h. Then, the samples were heated to the final temperature (600 °C, 700 °C, 800°(:) at a heating rate of 3 °C min 1 and maintained at this temperature for 2h. After cooling, the products were washed with a 0.5M solution of HCl followed by distilled water until Ph 7 to eliminate activating agent residues and other inorganic species formed during the process. In the washing step, the activated carbon was separated using 0.22-µm membrane filters. Finally, the CGOCA was dried in oven at 105 °C for 12h and stored for further analysis. The as-prepared cellulose-graphene carbons were named CGOCA-600, CGOCA-700, and CGOCA-800.
In the alternative, Tang et al., can optionally be taking in view of either Sain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2008/0146701 A1 or Yoshida et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2017/0226662 A1, for their individual explicit disclosures that the Bleach flax pulp used by Tang et al. and which was supplied by Fengyuan Special Paper Co., Ltd. (Xingtai, China), is made according to Applicant’s notoriously well known process steps (a) and (b), even though said process steps are not explicitly disclosed by Tang et al..
Sain et al. discloses cellulose nanofibers have been processed from renewable feedstock in particularly from natural fibers, root crops and agro fibers, wherein the pulp was hydrolysed at a moderate temperature of 50 to 90 degree C., one extraction (i.e. hydrolysis) was performed using dilute acid or one extraction using alkali of concentration less than 10%; and residue was cryocrushed using liquid nitrogen, followed by individualization of the cellulose nanofibers using mechanical shear force. The nanofibers manufactured with this technique have diameters in the range of 20-60 nm and much higher aspect ratios than long fibers. Due to its lightweight and high strength its potential applications will be in aerospace industry and due to their biodegradable potential with tremendous stiffness and strength, they find application in the medical field such as blood bags, cardiac devices, valves as a reinforcing biomaterial, see abstract and paragraphs [0045]-[0073].
Yoshida et al. discloses a production method of hemp fiber for spinning, the method including: an immersion treatment process of immersing raw hemp fiber in a treatment liquid including an alkali, water, and at least one type of enzyme selected from the group consisting of cellulose-degrading enzymes and glycosidic bond hydrolyzing enzymes for an immersion time of from 30 minutes to 60 minutes under conditions of a temperature of from 60° C. to 100° C.; a water-washing process of washing the immersion treated hemp fiber with water; and a drying process of drying the water-washed hemp fiber, see abstract and paragraphs [0045]-[0101].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the individual disclosures of Sain et al. or Yoshida et al., that Applicant’s process steps (a) and (b) are notoriously well known in the art as strong motivative to actually employ said process steps to make, flax/hemp cellulose fibers from natural flax/hemp raw material, which are subsequently used Tang et al.’s process steps: “2.2 Preparation of cellulose solution.” (reads on Applicant’s claimed process step (c)), and Tang et al.’s process step: “2.3 Preparation of GO/cellulose carbon aerogel.”, (reads on Applicant’s process step (d)).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as obvious over the Article entitled: “Combination of graphene oxide with flax-derived cellulose dissolved in NaOH/urea medium to generate hierarchically structured composite carbon aerogels”, by Lvqiao Tang et al., State Key Laboratory of Pulp and Paper Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China b Guangdong Engineering Research Center for Green Fine Chemicals, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510640, China, (12/28/18), in view either Sain et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2008/0146701 A1 or Yoshida et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2017/0226662 A1.
Tang et al. differ from applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not a direct teaching (i.,e. by way of a specific example) to where unbleached flax/hemp cellulose fibers are used in Tang et al.’s subsequent process steps: “2.2 Preparation of cellulose solution.” (reads on Applicant’s claimed process step (c)), and Tang et al.’s process step: “2.3 Preparation of GO/cellulose carbon aerogel.”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use unbleached flax/hemp cellulose fibers, made from natural flax/hemp raw material, as the fiberous material subsequently used in Tang et al.’s process steps: “2.2 Preparation of cellulose solution.” (reads on Applicant’s claimed process step (c)), and Tang et al.’s process step: “2.3 Preparation of GO/cellulose carbon aerogel.”, (reads on Applicant’s process step (d)). Such is extremely obvious because unbleached cellulose fibers made from natural flax/hemp materials, are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by both Sain et al. and Yoshida et al., that bleaching the cellulose fibers produced by an extraction/hydrolysis process is an optional process step.
Claims Free of Any Prior-art Rejections
Dependent claims 2 and 11 are deemed to be free of any prior-art rejections because there is deemed to be insufficient motivation within any of the prior-art references of record to where hydrolyzing in applicant’s step a) is performed by cooling to a temperature of -196 to 0oC, as set forth in dependent claim 2, and where hydrolyzing in applicant’s step a) is performed by cooling to a temperature of -20oC, as set forth in dependent claim 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
