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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/29/26 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (WO 2014/147392 A1) in view of Austin et al. (WO 2019/051183A1) and further in view of Harris et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0008749A1).
Hepworth et al. discloses cellulose particulate material, see title. The cellulose-containing particles are useful as rheology modifiers in water based-systems, (see page 3, lines 11-12). The cellulose-containing particles have a mean diameter ranging from 1µm to 250 µm, see page 7, lines 1-8. (reads on microbeads). The size of the cellulose containing particles or the cellulose particulate material overlaps with the claimed range of 25 to 1500 microns and thus creates a case of obviousness because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A. The amount of cellulose in the particle is less than 60% or preferably up to about 60 wt. %, (see page 7, lines 20-24 and 31). (These amounts overlap with the claimed amount and thus create a case of obviousness). The particulate can be used in personal care products or household products, see line 16 on page 28. The reference does not teach use of surfactant or metal oxides in the microparticle (microbeads).
Hepworth does not teach use of lignin in the particles.
Austin et al. teaches a composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a biomass, wherein the biomass comprises lignin and the composition comprises cellulose, see abstract. Lignin is used as an antioxidant stabilizer, see abstract. The use of the composition is in personal care composition or composite, see [0009]. The amount of biomass consisting essentially of lignin vary from 1% to 97% depending upon how much cellulose or polymer is in the composition, see [0054] to [0057] on page 11. (These amounts overlap with the claimed amount of lignin and thus create a case of obviousness). The particle size of lignin is taught to be ranging from 2µm to 8µm, see claim 8.
Harris et al. discloses manufacture and use of cellulose particles which can be used in a personal care formulation, a beauty formulation or cosmetic and skin care formulation, see abstract. Harris teaches cellulose particles in a personal care product provide exfoliating, softening and rejuvenating properties and further teaches that in embodiments where the particles comprising cellulose further comprise lignin, the lignin may also provide in conjunction with the cellulose particles exfoliating, softening or rejuvenating properties to the compositions comprising such particles, see [0328] and [0908].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the particles of lignin in the cellulose comprising particulate material of Hepworth et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Hepworth teaches use of the cellulose comprising particles or particulate material in personal care products, Austin teaches biomass comprising lignin particles have antioxidant properties and can be used in personal care products and Harris teaches where lignin is used in conjunction with cellulose particles, exfoliating, softening or rejuvenating effects are provided to skin when used in a personal care product or cosmetic composition.
Harris teaches that cellulose particles can comprise cellulose having a degree of polymerization ranging from about 10 to about 150 in paragraph [0130] and further teaches in paragraph [0153] that the characteristics and/or properties of the cellulose particles in terms of particle size parameters and degree of polymerization can be varied depending upon the type of composition desired. It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill to have optimized the degree of polymerization of cellulose used in the cellulose containing microparticles of Hepworth et al. motivated by the teachings of Harris et al. used in the cellulose particles of Hepworth et al. depending upon the desired personal care product or the composition by using the cellulose comprising particles (microbeads).
Regarding the property of the microbeads claimed, since the references discussed above make the claimed microbeads comprising cellulose and lignin particles in an overlapping amount obvious based on the teachings of the references discussed above, the property of Young’s modulus of the microbeads ranging from about 0.5 GPa to about 1.5 GPa would necessarily be present because property cannot be separated from the chemistry of the composition. As recognized by MPEP § 2112.01(II), "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant argues that Hepworth discloses, e.g., plant-derived cellulose- containing particles useful as rheology modifiers and to a process for preparing cellulose- containing particles from plant material, which process involves treating the plant material with a peroxide reagent. The process can be controlled to produce cellulose-containing particles having a viscosity up to about 7500 or 8000 cps. Austin discloses, e.g., use of a hardwood lignin, a softwood lignin, and/or a grass lignin as an antioxidant stabilizer in polymers or polymer compositions, such as, for example, thermoplastics, thermoplastic composites, thermosets, coatings, films, adhesives, personal care compositions, or any combination thereof. Harris discloses, e.g., compositions comprising cellulose particles and methods for making and using same.
According to Applicant, Austin discloses lignin to prevent oxidation of polymers and the amount of cellulose is no greater than 20% based on the biomass in Austin. Additionally, the specification of Austin, in several embodiments teaches lignin is substantially free of cellulose…. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have inferred that lignin's antioxidant properties are relevant to stabilizing cellulose and based on the disclosure of Austin, would have actually been dissuaded from combining lignin with cellulose in the amounts required by the claims. As such, the claims are nonobvious.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered but is not persuasive. As discussed in the rejections above, the motivation to use Lignin with the cellulose of Hepworth was due to the fact that both cellulose (taught by Hepworth) and biomass lignin (taught by Austin) can be used in personal care products and Harris provides motivation to use lignin by teaching that where lignin is used in conjunction with cellulose particles, exfoliating, softening or rejuvenating effects are provided to skin when used in a personal care product or cosmetic composition. Therefore, while it is noted that the antioxidant property of lignin is for polymers, Austin also teaches that lignin can be used in personal care products. Austin was not cited for the amount of cellulose, Austin was relied upon for the use of lignin with cellulose and for the advantages taught by Harris wherein tit is disclosed that as embodiments where the particles comprising cellulose further comprise lignin, the lignin may also provide in conjunction with the cellulose particles exfoliating, softening or rejuvenating properties to the compositions comprising such particles, see [0328] and [0908].
Action is final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights