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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 6 recites acid values of the interactive resin powder as a percentage. Such percentages are not in the as-filed specification. Applicant’s as-filed specification correctly discloses acid values using mg KOH/g units. ¶[0121]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites acid value with respect to a percentage (2 %). The claim does not recite what this percentage is with respect which renders the claim indefinite as how to determine if the acid value of a resin in the prior art (typically in units of mg KOH/g) is within the scope of the claimed percentage or not.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujii (JP2019001876; reference made to U.S. 20200115471 as English translation) as evidenced by Suzuki (WO2020213457, reference made to U.S. 20220219358 used as English translation).
Tsujii teaches a combination of fibrous cellulose and maleic anhydride modified polypropylene (MAPP) in Example 3. ¶[0145] Example 3 is based on cellulose modified with urea to produce carbamate groups in Production Example 8. ¶[0131]/Table 1. Table 1 establishes the degree of substitution of the cellulose with carbamate groups 0.37 indicating at least partial substitution. In ¶[0030] Tsujii teaches the substitution with carbamate group is done via the hydroxyl groups of the cellulose. This anticipates the substitution limitations of Claim 1.
The average fiber width (diameter) of the exemplified fibrous cellulose is not taught by Tsujii but Tsujii does specifically teach the most preferred range of average fiber width (diameter) is 100 nm to 400 nm in ¶[0039] (0.1 to 0.4 micron). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art an at once envisage the Example 3 fibrous cellulose average width (diameter) being 0.1 to 0.4 microns because it is the most preferred range of fibrous width (diameter) ¶[0039]. Alternatively, the specific teaching of 0.1 microns to 0.4 microns average fiber width (diameter) is sufficiently specific to anticipate the range of average fiber width of the fibrous cellulose of Claim 1.
As evidenced by Suzuki in ¶[0460] the exemplified PMA-H1100P maleic anhydride modified polypropylene is a powder. Applicant defines in ¶[0100] of the as-filed specification interactive is covalent bonding, ionic bonding, or metallic bonding (i.e., hydrogen bonding and bonding with van der Waals force do not fall under the concept of being interactive).
Therefore, the maleic anhydride modified polypropylene powder (PMA-H1100P) of Tsujii anticipates the interactive powder of Claim 1 and Claim 7.
Example 3 goes on to add the above mixture of fibrous cellulose and powder to HDPE. This anticipates the mixture of Claim 8 with the HDPE anticipating the additional resin.
Example 3 teaches the premix is made according to Example 2. In Example 2, the premix is made by nano defibration of the cellulose and mixing it with dispersion liquid / HDPE (in Example 3 this dispersion HDPE is the MAPP), and then drying obtain the premix. ¶[0132] The next step in Example 2 mirrors that of Example 3 in that the premix is mixed with HDPE to produce the resulting composite. The above steps of defibrating, mixing with powder in a liquid and drying the resulting premix anticipate the steps of Claim 9.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujii (JP2019001876; reference made to U.S. 20200115471 as English translation) as evidenced by Suzuki (WO2020213457, reference made to U.S. 20220219358 used as English translation) in view of Peng "Maleic anhydride polypropylene modified cellulose nanofibril polypropylene nanocomposites with enhanced strength.".
Tsujii is applied as above under §102.
Tsujii exemplifies a maleic anhydride modified polypropylene powder but is silent on the volume average particle size of the powder. The powder must have a particle size though.
Peng, working in the field of maleic anhydride modified polypropylene (MAPP) and cellulose nanofibril composites, teaches MAPP resins (pellets) with a volume size distribution of particle sizes in Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While powders and pellets are different, the powder particle size is unknown in Tsujii and Peng establishes particle sizes which are relevant to those creating MAPP/fibrous cellulose composites (CNF/MAPP) such as those in Tsujii.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Tsujii, in particular that of Example 3 with the powder MAPP, by choosing the volume distribution of particle sizes of MAPP for the powder in Peng because the particle size which must be present in Tsujii is not known and Peng establishes a relevant particle size distribution for similar CNF/MAPP composites.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
In the figure, the ratio of Claim 2, the 90% particle size is roughly on the order of 100 microns, and the 10 % is roughly on the order of 10 microns which makes the recited ratio ~10. Peng teaches the particle sizes of the MAPP range from 1.5 to 84 microns. (page 786 1st column). Even considering this is the total, the ratio would be around 84/1.5 = 56 and the 90% and 10% particle sizes would be even closer together but the figure does not suggest they are less than doubled (such as 84 / 70 = 1.2) This rough estimate reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, when tested and calculated more rigorously, the ratio of the particle sizes of MAPP of Peng applied to the MAPP powder of Tsujii must be in the recited range of Claim 2. Alternatively, Peng teaches the particle sizes of the MAPP range from 1.5 to 84 microns. (page 786 1st column).
Further, the entire range of volume particle sizes of Claim 3 is in Figure 1 of Peng, and Peng teaches the particle sizes range from 1.6 to 84 microns (page 786 1st column). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when the volume average is computed the volume average of the particle sizes of MAPP of Peng applied to the MAPP powder must be in the volume average range recited by Claim 3.
Tsujii teaches the average length of the cellulose fibers is 1 micron to 5,000 microns in ¶[0039]. Using a rough average of (84-1.5)/2 = 41 microns as the average particles size of the volume measurement, the ratio recited by Claim 3 would be 1 / 41 – 5000/41 = 0.024 - ~122 which is in the range recited by Claim 3. Therefore, when tested and computed appropriately, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the recited ratio of the volume particle sizes of Peng applied to the powder of Tsujii must be in the range recited by Claim 3 and also Claim 10.
The exemplified MAPP of Peng is Polybond 3200 which must have an acid value in terms of percent. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the MAPP powder of Tsujii have similar acid values (or in other words, compatibilizer reactivity ability) as that of Peng’s Polybond 3200 because Peng is using the MAPP to react (disperse / compatiblize) similar cellulose fibrillated compositions to Tsujii and this represents combination of known prior art elements, acid levels in grafted PP, for the predictable result of a cellulose / MAPP composite. As the MAPP of Tsujii and Peng is used for the compatibilization as the interactive powder as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, the acid value in terms of percent must be in the claimed range of Claim 6 because it is used for the same purpose. See also the §112 against Claim 6 above.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujii (JP2019001876; reference made to U.S. 20200115471 as English translation) as evidenced by Suzuki (WO2020213457, reference made to U.S. 20220219358 used as English translation) in view of Matsusue (WO2020090711; reference made to US. 20220049071).
Tsujii is applied as above under §102.
As above Tsujii teaches average fiber length of 1 to 5000 microns (0.001 mm to 5,000,000 mm) in ¶[0039]. The claimed length is 1000 microns or shorter and therefore, Tsujii overlaps the claimed range of length of Claim 5.
As above Tsujii teaches a preferred range of average width (diameter) of 0.1 to 0.4 microns which meets the range of average width of Claim 5.
Tsujii is silent on the percentage of fibrillation claimed by Claim 5.
Matsusue, working in the field of defibrillated cellulose similar to Tsujii and Applicant, teaches in ¶[0083- 0084] the percentage of fibrillation is particularly preferred to be more than 2.0 % and less than 30 % to aid in mixing with maleic anhydride modified propylene.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Tsujii, in particular that of Example 3, such that the percentage of fibrillation is particularly preferred to be more than 2.0 % and less than 30 % to aid in mixing with maleic anhydride modified propylene as taught by Matsusue. ¶[0083-0084]. This overlaps the claimed range of Claim 5.
With respect to Claim 4, Matsusue teaches the average length of fibers is preferably 0.02 to 3 mm and the percentage of fiber lengths below 0.2 mm is preferably 26% or more. This overlaps the claimed range as the 26% or more reasonably suggest the balance (which must be more than 10%) is the 0.02 mm to 3.0 mm average value. This reads over Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766