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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim 6 is withdrawn. Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5 and 6 are too blurry/pixelated to interpret. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Fabrication and Characterization of Hydrophobic Cellulose Nanofibrils/Silica Nanocomposites with Hexadecyltrimethoxysilane”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches cellulose nanofibers (abstract) which are coated with silica nanoparticles (abstract) which have hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (a hydrophobic group) bonded to the silica particles (abstract and Figure 1 which shows hexadecyltrimethoxysilane bonded silica). Kim teaches all the critical limitations of claim 1; therefore, Kim anticipates the claim.
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.
2. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fihri et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0267570).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the hydrophobic group being hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (see above), but fails to teach the hydrophobic group being n-octadecyltrichlorosilane.
However, Fihri teaches functionalizing silica nanoparticles (abstract, 0024, and claim 16) with a hydrophobic silane compound (abstract, 0032, and claim 3) selected from a group including hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (0059) or n-octadecyltrichlorosilane (0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s cellulose nanofibers by substituting n-octadecyltrichlorosilane for hexadecyltrimethoxysilane. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one having ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one hydrophobic silane for another with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that both Kim and Fihri are teaching hydrophobic modification of nanoparticles, such as silica, with similar organosilanes and the hydrophobicity and reactivity of n-octadecyltrichlorosilane and hexadecyltrimethoxysilane would be nearly identical), and the predictable result of providing cellulose nanoparticles comprising a coating layer of silica having bonded thereon n-octadecyltrichlorosilane.
3. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (WO 2018/190645, reference is made to the abstract and provided English machine translation) in view of Kim (“Fabrication and Characterization of Hydrophobic Cellulose Nanofibrils/Silica Nanocomposites with Hexadecyltrimethoxysilane”).
Regarding claim 4, Seo teaches a polymer composition (abstract) comprising cellulose nanofibers having silica nanoparticles (top of page 5) coated on the surface of the cellulose nanofibers (abstract). Seo fails to teach the polymer composition wherein the nanofibers additionally comprise a hydrophobic group bonded to the silica nanoparticles.
However, Kim teaches cellulose nanofibers (abstract) which are coated with silica nanoparticles (abstract) which have hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (a hydrophobic group) bonded to the silica particles (abstract and Figure 1 which shows hexadecyltrimethoxysilane bonded silica). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seo’s polymer composition by additionally bonding hexadecyltrimethoxysilane to Seo’s silica nanoparticles. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kim teaches that the use of the hydrophobic group provides increased thermal stability and improved hydrophobicity (see Conclusions section) and will allow for the cellulose to be used in more applications (see Introduction on page 1).
4. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujihashi et al. (WO 2018/012643, of which reference is made to the provided English machine translation) in view of Kim.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fujihashi teaches a polymer composition (abstract and Example 1A, page 55) comprising cellulose nanofibers (abstract and Example 1A, page 55). Fujihashi teaches that the composition can be used as a pressure sensitive adhesive composition (top of page 17). Fujihashi fails to teach that the cellulose nanofibers include a silica nanoparticle coating and a hydrophobic group bonded to the silica nanoparticles.
However, Kim teaches cellulose nanofibers (abstract) which are coated with silica nanoparticles (abstract) which have hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (a hydrophobic group) bonded to the silica particles (abstract and Figure 1 which shows hexadecyltrimethoxysilane bonded silica). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujihashi’s polymer composition by additionally modifying the cellulose nanofibers with a silica nanoparticle coating bonded with hexadecyltrimethoxysilane as disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kim teaches that the use of the cellulose nanofibers treated with silica and a hydrophobic group provides increased thermal stability and improved hydrophobicity (see Conclusions section) and will allow for the cellulose to be used in more applications (see Introduction on page 1).
5. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouzas et al. (“Synthesis of Poly(Isobutyl Acrylate/n-Butyl Acrylate/Methyl Methacrylate)/CNC Nanocomposites for Adhesive Applications via In Situ Semi-Batch Emulsion Polymerization”) in view of Kim.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ouzas teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive (abstract) which is a polymer composition (abstract) comprising cellulose nanocrystals (abstract). Ouzas fails to teach the polymer composition comprising cellulose nanofibers include a silica nanoparticle coating and a hydrophobic group bonded to the silica nanoparticles.
However, Kim teaches cellulose nanofibers (abstract) which are coated with silica nanoparticles (abstract) which have hexadecyltrimethoxysilane (a hydrophobic group) bonded to the silica particles (abstract and Figure 1 which shows hexadecyltrimethoxysilane bonded silica). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ouzas’ polymer composition by substituting Kim’s modified cellulose nanofibers for Ouzas’ cellulose nanocrystals. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kim teaches that the use of their specific cellulose nanofibers provides increased thermal stability and improved hydrophobicity (see Conclusions section) and will allow for the cellulose to be used in more applications (see Introduction on page 1).
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim 6 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
December 3, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717