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 .
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue et al. (WO 2020/203147 A1; using US PGPub 2022/0135781 for English language citations) in view of Noishiki et al. (EP 2460934 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsusue teaches fibrous composite resins comprising a microfiber cellulose, a resin, and an acid-modified resin (abstract), and optionally further dispersants, fillers, and other components ([0133]: [0173]; [0179]). Matsusue teaches the resulting composition can be molded into any desired shape including sheets, etc., having a desired size and thickness ([0188]), via compression molding ([0191])(instant solid body; instant compressing). Matsusue further teaches the microfiber cellulose has an average fiber diameter from 0.1 to 15 µm ([0037]), teaches the resin is preferably in powdered form ([0155]), and teaches the product has a bulk specific gravity of 0.03 to 1.0 ([0150]).
Matsusue does not specifically teach the volume of the solid body of from 6 to 4000 mm3. However, as noted, Matsusue teaches forming into any desired shape, including sheets, of any desired size and thickness ([0188]). It is held that it would be obvious to change the size/proportion of material obtained from the production of Matususe as changes in size/proportion are found to be prima facie obvious and do not render the instant claims patentable (see MPEP 2144.04; see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USQP 237 (CCPA 1955); see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)).
Matsusue teaches a bulk specific gravity and other properties, but does not specifically a bulk density from 0.3 to 1.0 g/cm3. However, Noishiki teaches sheets produced from microfibrous cellulose resin composites, comprising microfiber cellulose and polymer, wherein the components are combined, dehydrated, dried, and pressed to obtain a sheet of desired size and thickness ([0017]; [0071]-[0084]), and may be subject to further pressing steps ([0086]). Noishiki teaches production of the sheets results in sheets having bulk densities ranging from 0.75 to 1.12 (Tables 1-5), depending on the relative polymer/cellulose contents. Noishiki and Matsusue are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely microfiber cellulose resin composites suitable for forming sheets via compression methods. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a sheet having the bulk densities of Noishiki using the sheet forming composites of Matsusue having similar amounts of micro-fiber cellulose and polymer/resin and would have been motivated to do so as Noishiki teaches such results in sheets having desirable dimensional stability against humidity and moisture prevention performance (Tables 1-5).
Regarding claims 2-3, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth above and Matsusue further teaches the microfiber cellulose have been treated so that part or all of the highly polar hydroxy groups have been substituted with carbamate groups ([0081]; [0072]), where the lower limit of the substitution degree is preferably 0.2 to ensure effective introduction of carbamate ([0082]), wherein a substation degree of 3 constitutes total substitution of hydroxy groups ([0083]), and wherein the carbamate group substation is obtained via urea, or derivatives thereof, in a ratio of 10/100 or more urea to cellulose raw material ([0089]; examples).
Regarding claims 4 and 10-11, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claims 1-3 above, and Matsusue further teaches the acid-modified resin is preferably maleic anhydride-modified polypropylene resin ([0129]), and teaches the resin component is selected from thermoplastic or thermosetting resins including polypropylene and polyethylene ([0163]-[0164]).
Regarding claims 5 and 12-14, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claims 1-4 above, and Matsusue further teaches the moisture percentage of the mixture is 10% or lower ([0152]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15-18, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claims 1-5 above, and Matsusue further teaches the micro fiber cellulose may comprise a fine fiber content of cellulose nanofibers of 40 mass% or less ([0103]; [0116]).
Regarding claims 7 and 19-20, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claims 1-3 above, and Matsusue further teaches the micro fiber cellulose may optionally contain a pulp content of 20 mass% or lower but preferably has a content of 0 mass% (i.e. contains none) ([0118]-[0120]). Matsusue further teaches the raw materials used for the micro fiber cellulose is selected from bleached kraft pulp and other materials subjected to hemicellulase enzymatic treatment ([0043]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claim 1 above, incorporated here by reference, and Matsusue, as noted, teaches subjecting the mixture to compression treatment ([0187]-[0191]). Notably, Noishiki also teaches compression treatment (see above). The volume and bulk density as claimed are rendered obvious as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Matsusue in view of Noishiki renders obvious the composite bodies as set forth in claim 1 above, incorporated here by reference, and Matsusue further teaches a method of carbamation to substitute fully or in part the hydroxy groups on the microfiber cellulose ([0084]) wherein the microfiber cellulose is mixed with urea, or a derivative thereof ([0087]-[0088]), and heat treated ([0086]; [0094]). Matsusue further teaches first carbamation and then defibration ([0085]) to obtain the micro-fiber cellulose of average fiber diameter from 0.1 to 15µm ([0037]). Matsusue further teaches combining the resin, the acid-modified resin and the treated micro-fiber cellulose, and any other components, molding into a desired shape using molding machines including compression molding machines ([0143]-[0144]; [0187]-[0191]). The volume and bulk density as claimed are rendered obvious as set forth above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights