DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 05/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 13, “[Math. 1]” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al. (US 20200140659 A1), hereinafter referred to as HOTTA.
Regarding claim 1, HOTTA teaches a method for manufacturing a composite powder containing cellulose nanofibers and a silicon-based porous material (paragraphs [0024]: a method of producing cellulose nanofiber-supporting inorganic powder; and [0019]: the inorganic powder is preferable to be one or more kinds selected from silica), the method comprising:
preparing a dispersion liquid by mixing the silicon-based porous material into an aqueous solvent in which the cellulose nanofibers are dispersed (paragraph [0024]: a step of mixing an inorganic powder and a dispersion in which a cellulose nanofiber is dispersed in an aqueous solvent);
producing a dried material containing the cellulose nanofibers and the silicon-based porous material by drying the dispersion liquid; and
producing a composite powder by grinding the dried material (paragraph [0024]: a step of distilling off the aqueous solvent from the mixture, followed by drying),
wherein
a content ratio of the cellulose nanofibers and the silicon-based porous material in the dispersion liquid is cellulose nanofibers : silicon-based porous material = 1:5 to 1:20 on a mass basis (paragraph [0015]: the cellulose nanofiber-supporting inorganic powder preferably contains the cellulose nanofiber in the range of 0.005 to 5 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the inorganic powder); thus, HOTTA teaches a ratio of 1:20 to 1:20000, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I);
a relationship of the following expression (1) is satisfied,
Y≤-0.048X + 1.96 (1)
where X (in part by mass) is a content of the silicon-based porous material relative to 1 part by mass of the cellulose nanofibers contained in the dispersion liquid and Y (in % by mass) is a concentration of the cellulose nanofibers in the aqueous solvent. HOTTA teaches that it is preferable to use one that has a concentration of the cellulose nanofiber in the range of 0.01 to 5 mass % as the dispersion (HOTTA at paragraph [0026]), thus, if Y=0.5% and X=20, 0.5% < -0.048(20) + 1.96, thus, the disclosure of HOTTA satisfies a relationship of the expression (1).
Regarding claim 2, HOTTA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cellulose nanofibers are obtained by chemical fibrillation (paragraphs [0002]: a cellulose nanofiber (CNF) is a raw material obtained by chemically or mechanically fibrillating (opening) fibers constituting wood to a nano level. In particular, under the presence of a TEMPO (2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-1-piperidine-N-oxyl) catalyst, the cellulose is oxidized, further, by applying a mechanical fiber-opening process, the CNFs are found to be efficiently separated; and [0042]: cellulose nanofibers are obtained by chemically or mechanically opening fibers of a cellulose raw material derived from plants or microbes, in the present invention any of these may be used, as an example of chemically opened one, an oxidized cellulose nanofiber obtained by oxidizing a hydroxyl group of a cellulose molecule with a TEMPO).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOTTA in view of Gane et al. (US 1030174 B2), hereinafter referred to as GANE.
Regarding claim 3, HOTTA teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the aqueous solvent having a pH of 10 to 12.
However, GANE discloses a process for the production of suspensions of nano-fibrillar cellulose by providing cellulose fibers and at least one filler (see GANE at Abstract). GANE teaches that that the cellulose fibres are provided in the form of a suspension, especially an aqueous suspension, preferably such suspensions have a solids content of from 1 to 5 wt-%; and that the at least one filler is selected from the group comprising precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC); natural ground calcium carbonate (GCC); dolomite; talc; bentonite; clay; magnesite; satin white; sepiolite, huntite, diatomite; silicates (see GANE at Col. 3, lines 42-51). GANE also teaches that the pH of the combination of cellulose fibres and at least one filler is adjusted to a pH of 10 to 12 (see GANE at Col. 4, lines 36-38). Similarly to HOTTA describing that nanocellulose is being developed for use in a wide variety of applications such as polymer reinforcement, anti-microbial films, biodegradable food packaging, printing papers, pigments and inks, paper and board packaging, barrier films, adhesives, biocomposites, wound healing, pharmaceuticals and drug delivery, textiles, water-soluble polymers, construction materials (see HOTTA at paragraph [0003]), GANE discloses that due to their mechanical strength properties the nano-fibrillar cellulose is advantageously used in applications such as in material composites, plastics, paints, rubber, concrete, ceramics, adhesives, food, or in wound-healing applications (see GANE at Col. 6, lines 17-22). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when adjusting the pH of the aqueous solution comprising cellulose fibers and silica to 10 to 12 as disclosed by GANE, since GANE explicitly teaches a process for the production of suspensions of nano-fibrillar cellulose by providing cellulose fibers and at least one filler (see GANE at Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of HOTTA by selecting a pH from within the range taught by GANE because there is a reasonable expectation of success that a pH in the range from 10 to 12 would be suitable.
Regarding claim 5, HOTTA as modified by GANE teaches the method of claim 3. Furthermore, similarly to HOTTA describing that nanocellulose is being developed for use in a wide variety of applications such as polymer reinforcement, anti-microbial films, biodegradable food packaging, printing papers, pigments and inks, paper and board packaging, barrier films, adhesives, biocomposites, wound healing, pharmaceuticals and drug delivery, textiles, water-soluble polymers, construction materials (see HOTTA at paragraph [0003]), GANE discloses that due to their mechanical strength properties the nano-fibrillar cellulose is advantageously used in applications such as in material composites, plastics, paints, rubber, concrete, ceramics, adhesives, food, or in wound-healing applications (see GANE at Col. 6, lines 17-22). According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of HOTTA by utilizing silica-based porous material, e.g., diatomite, as disclosed by GANE based on teachings of GANE describing a process for the production of suspensions of nano-fibrillar cellulose by providing cellulose fibers and at least one filler (see GANE at Abstract). Moreover, since GANE discloses that a filler can be selected from diatomite and silicate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that diatomite would be suitable to form cellulose nanofiber-supporting inorganic powder of HOTTA.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOTTA in view of Nelson et al. (US 20220073705 A1), hereinafter referred to as NELSON.
HOTTA teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the silicon-based porous material contains at least one of diatomaceous earth or zeolite.
However, NELSON discloses processes of making and using a nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate comprising nanocellulose and a dispersion/drying agent, wherein he nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate is in solid form (e.g., a powder) or liquid form (see NELSON at Abstract). Similarly to HOTTA, NELSON teaches a process comprising the steps of providing a nanocellulose gel comprising nanocellulose and water, mixing the nanocellulose gel and the dispersion/drying agent, removing at least a portion of the water, during the mixing step or after the mixing step, to generate a nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate, and milling the nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate to generate a concentrate powder (see NELSON at paragraphs [0112-117]). NELSON also teaches that the dispersion/drying agent includes a particulate selected from the group consisting of clay, nano-clay, talc, wollastonite, calcium carbonate (e.g., precipitated calcium carbonate), silica, mica, kaolin, nickel, glass fibers, bentonite, biotite, illite, kaolin, vermiculite, zeolite (see NELSON at paragraph [0022]).
Additionally, similarly to HOTTA describing that nanocellulose is being developed for use in a wide variety of applications such as polymer reinforcement, anti-microbial films, biodegradable food packaging, printing papers, pigments and inks, paper and board packaging, barrier films, adhesives, biocomposites, wound healing, pharmaceuticals and drug delivery, textiles, water-soluble polymers, construction materials (see HOTTA at paragraph [0003]), NELSON teaches that nanocellulose is being developed for use in a wide variety of applications such as polymer reinforcement, anti-microbial films, biodegradable food packaging, printing papers, pigments and inks, paper and board packaging, barrier films, adhesives, biocomposites, wound healing, pharmaceuticals and drug delivery, textiles, water-soluble polymers, construction materials (see NELSON at paragraph [0004]). According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of HOTTA by utilizing silica-based porous material, e.g., zeolite, as disclosed by NELSON based on teachings of NELSON describing processes of making a nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate comprising nanocellulose and a dispersion/drying agent, wherein he nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate is in solid form (e.g., a powder) (see NELSON at Abstract). Moreover, since NELSON discloses that a dispersion/drying agent can be selected from zeolite or silica, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that zeolite would be suitable to form cellulose nanofiber-supporting inorganic powder of HOTTA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights