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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The limitations of the size of the starch particle will be addressed below.
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.
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, 3-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Netravali et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0203667 in view of Mangeon Pastori et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0363866.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Netravali teaches a composite body [0061] comprising: starch composite particles [0043] containing starch [0044], a plasticizer [0043], and a crosslinking agent [0048]; and fibers (MFC [0048 and 0136]), wherein the starch composite particles are dispersed between the fibers (see figure 14C).
Netravali teaches the starch but is silent on the average particle diameter of the starch composites.
In the same field of endeavor of making a composite of a starch with a plasticizer and a crosslinking agent, Mangeon Pastori is presented.
Mangeon Pastori teaches the production of a composition that is made up of a starch [0092], plasticizer (see abstract and 0095 that teaches erythritol) and a crosslinker [0093] that is then injected into lignocellulosic materials including fibers powders or chips [0151] creating a mixture that would include the composite being present between the fibers.
Mangeon Pastori further teaches that the average diameter of the starch is between 15-60 microns [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the starch particles of Netravali could have been sized in the under 50 micron sizing as shown as conventional by Mangeon Pastori for the benefit of utilizing a known elements in a conventional way to arrive at the desired end result.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 9, and 10, Netravali remains as applied above and further teaches that the total content [% by mass] of the starch, the plasticizer, and the crosslinking agent in the composite body is 1.5% by mass or more and 80% by mass or less by showing of each individual component:
Netravali teaches that the crosslinking agent can be 10-50% by weight [0047].
Netravali teaches that the plasticizer to starch ratio is 1:20 to 1:4 [0052].
MFC fiber 15% of starch weight in example on [0114].
All of these total to a composite with the combined values being within the claimed ranges of 1.5%-80% (or 1-50 in terms of the crosslinking in claim 9).
Regarding claims 4-5, Netravali remains as applied above and further teaches that the sugar alcohols are one or more selected from sorbitol, erythritol, and D-mannitol [0052].
Regarding claims 7-8, Netravali remains as applied above and further teaches the dicarboxylic acids are one or more selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, and sebacic acid [0047].
Regarding claim 13, Netravali remains as applied above and teaches all of the actively claimed limitations. Claim 13 provides an intended use of the composite body to be a buffer. Since all of the physical limitations of the composite body is taught above, the intended use as a buffer does not provide a patentable distinction to the product claim. All of the physical limitations of claim 13 (and claim 1) are directly taught.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mangeon Pastori et al, US Patent Publication 2022/0363866.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, an alternative rejection is presented as the secondary reference discovered above would stand on its own as an anticipatory rejection in view of the independent claims.
Mangeon Pastori teaches the production of a composition that is made up of a starch [0092], plasticizer (see abstract and 0095 that teaches erythritol) and a crosslinker [0093] that is then injected into lignocellulosic materials including fibers powders or chips [0151] creating a mixture that would include the composite being present between the fibers.
Mangeon Pastori further teaches that the average diameter of the starch is between 15-60 microns [0083].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights