RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 10/07/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 12/22/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolduc et al. (WO 2012/162839) in view of Abe et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2023/0303782) and Tanaka et al. (JP H09-132514).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Bolduc et al. discloses cellulose particles (i.e. base particle) used as an absorbent material which are coated on the surface thereof with an agglomerating agent and a surfactant applied in first and second layers. (Abstract and page 3, 8th paragraph). Bolduc et al. teaches that the weight Bolduc et al. teaches that the coating layer containing the agglomerating agent is present in an amount of 2% by weight and the intermediate layer of surfactant is contained in an amount of 1% by weight (see Table 1, page 16), overlapping with the presently claimed range. Bolduc et al. therefore discloses an intermediate and coating layer as claimed. Bolduc et al. further discloses that the particles have a density of 15-40 lbs/ft3 (i.e. 0.24-0.64 g/cm3), overlapping with the presently claimed range. (page 4, 7th full paragraph).
Bolduc et al. does not disclose the transparency of the cellulose particles
Abe et al. discloses resin beads used in cosmetic compositions having improved properties and containing cellulose as the main component. (Abstract). Abe et al. teaches that the particles having a degree of solidity of 50-100% which is taught to affect the transparency of the resin beads. (par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the degree of solidity of the cellulose particles in Bolduc et al. in view of the teachings of Abe et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the degree of solidity in order to adjust the transparency of the cellulose particles as well as the overall density thereof.
Bolduc et al. does not disclose the kinetic friction coefficient of the cellulose resin beads.
Tanaka et al. teaches a fine inorganic particle composition for use in cosmetic composition (Abstract) wherein the coefficient of kinetic friction is disclosed to be less than 1.0, preferably less than 0.5 in order to improve the overall feel of the particles in the composition and which is adjustable based on the shape and size of the particles (pages 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the coefficient of kinetic friction of the cellulose particles of Bolduc et al. to be 1.0 or less, overlapping with the presently claimed range, based on the teachings of Tanaka et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the coefficient of kinetic friction of the cellulose resin beads of Bolduc et al. in order to improve the overall feel and flowability of the cellulose particles for handling and ease of use. While Tanaka et al. is directed to the use of inorganic materials and not cellulose, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that adjusting the kinetic friction coefficient for the cellulose beads would result in similar improvements since the property is adjustable by control of particle size and shape which are independent of the composition of the particles.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 8, Bolduc in view of Abe and Tanaka et al. teaches that the cellulose resin beads have a surface smoothness of 70-100% in addition to a solidity of 50 to 100%. (Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Bolduc in view of Abe and Tanaka et al. teaches that the cellulose resin beads have a surface smoothness of 70-100% (Abstract) and a bulk density in the range of in the range of 00.24-0.64 g/cm3), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 12/22/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the previous office action have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 02/17/2026