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 13 and 17-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the double patenting rejections and the rejections over Wang.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the rejections over Agumba in view of Laleg have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Agumba is silent as to any need for aggregate material and there is no suggestion to include an aggregate material. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that Laleg teaches adding silica aggregate to a similar composition. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for coloring Agumba’s lignin based material to yield an aesthetically pleasing final product, as well as providing improved abrasion resistance as silica is known for reinforcing compositions and providing abrasion resistance.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success in combining Agumba’s teachings with Laleg. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains that both Laleg and Agumba are directed towards lignin based materials and one would expect silica would act similarly as a colorant in both types of lignin materials.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the lack of motivation to combine amounts to impermissible hindsight. However, as noted above, the Examiner maintains that one would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for coloring Agumba’s lignin based material to yield an aesthetically pleasing final product, as well as providing improved abrasion resistance as silica is known for reinforcing compositions and providing abrasion resistance. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
1. Claim(s) 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agumba et al. (“High-performance Esterified-Poly(vinyl alcohol)-Citric Acid-Lignin resin and its application to Wet-spun nanocellulose Filament-Reinforced polymer composite”) in view of Laleg et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0040273) and Gupta et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0255817).
I. Regarding claims 13 and 17, Agumba teaches a lignin-based material comprising: a lignin precursor comprising: lignin, citric acid and poly(vinyl alcohol) (Section 2.2). Agumba fails to teach the material comprising an aggregate filler as claimed and the lignin is dealkaline lignin.
First, Laleg teaches lignin compositions (abstract) comprising: lignin (abstract), polymer (0045), a reactive component, such as an acid (0037), and a colorant, such as silica (0099). 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 Agumba’s lignin based material by additionally including silica as disclosed by Laleg. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for coloring Agumba’s lignin based material to yield an aesthetically pleasing final product, as well as providing improved abrasion resistance as silica is known for reinforcing compositions and providing abrasion resistance.
Second, Gupta teaches the use of dealkaline lignin (0059) provides improved strength in polymer composites as compared to alkali lignin (Figures 8A and 8B). 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 Agumba’s material by substituting dealkaline lignin for Agumba’s lignin. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved strength to Agumba’s material.
II. Regarding claims 18-20, Agumba in view of Laleg and Gupta make obvious an identical material to that claimed. Therefore, Agumba in view of Laleg and Gupta’s material will inherently have the claimed compressive strength, water resistance and may withstand a force of at least 90 psi for greater than six months. Therefore, Agumba in view of Laleg and Gupta also make obvious claims 18-20.
Conclusion
Claims 13 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 13 and 17-20 are rejected.
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 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/
October 6, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
