DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 02/20/2026. Applicant filed a Response on 03/25/2026.
Claims 1-17 and 19-25 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-17 and 19-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Two information disclosure statements filed 09/23/2025 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because they lack the appropriate size fee assertion. Examiner notes that both of the information disclosure statements filed 09/23/2025 also fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because all copies of the foreign references are missing. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden to search and examine the entire application as stated under MPEP Section 808. This is not found persuasive because establishment of a search burden is used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a). The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-17 and 19-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/25/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Amendments filed 01/18/2024, amended claim 4, line 1, to read: “The method of Claim 1”.
The current claim set, filed 03/25/2026, does not include the claim 4 amendments of 01/18/2024. Instead, claim 4 currently reads: “The method of any preceding Claim 1”.
Because this appears to be a typographical error, and in order to advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted claim 4, line 1, to read, “The method of Claim 1,” for this Office Action.
Appropriate correction with proper claim indicators is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are 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, line 4, is indefinite with regard to the term “the one or more high-pressure homogenization steps.” Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “high-pressure homogenization.” No number or plurality of homogenization steps are recited. Therefore, this term causes confusion and lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
It is advised to amend claim 6 as follows:
“The method of Claim 1, wherein the high-pressure homogenization comprises one or more high pressure homogenisation steps, and wherein the mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali is cooled to between -5° C and 15° C, directly after all of the one or more high-pressure homogenisation steps.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the pre-treatment alkali solution" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending claim 10 to be dependent upon claim 8 can overcome this rejection.
Claim 10 has been examined as being dependent claim 8 for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al, CN 103396569 A (Li).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Li with the Restriction Requirement mailed 02/20/2026. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, 10 and 12, Li discloses a method for preparing a nanometer optical transparent film using bacterial cellulose comprising: 1) dissolving the bacterial cellulose (i.e., a method for creating a solution comprising one or more polysaccharide materials, wherein the polysaccharide comprises a cellulose material of claim 12), and 2) preparing a bacterial cellulose nanometer film (Abstract).
Dissolving the bacterial cellulose includes: 1) soaking the bacterial cellulose in water for 24 hours, and drying; 2) adding to a sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution for 12-24 hours (i.e., wherein polysaccharide material is pretreated with an alkali solution of claim 8, wherein the alkali solution is an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution of claim 10), removing and washing to neutrality with deionized water, and 3) stirring with a high-speed mixer until the bacterial cellulose is completely dissolved (i.e., wherein the mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali is treated to increase the homogeneity of the mixture before the high-pressure homogenisation, optionally by using a high shear mixer of claim 4) (Li; page 2, line 57-page 3, line 3).
The preparation of the bacterial nanocellulose film includes: 1) the bacterial cellulose is completely dissolved in sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution (i.e., wherein the alkali is an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution of claim 10); 2) then ground and subject to high pressure homogenization for 30 min (i.e., subjecting a mixture comprising one or more cellulose materials and the alkali to high-pressure homogenisation of claims 1 and 12); then vacuum filtered to form a film (Li; page 3, lines 16-18).
Although Li discloses the additional step of vacuum filtration to form a film, such a step is not excluded by the current claim language. Because Li clearly discloses that the steps prior to forming the film, which include high pressure homogenization of cellulose and alkali, results in a completely dissolved solution of cellulose, Li anticipates the claimed methods for creating a solution.
In Example 3, Li discloses completely immersing bacterial cellulose in a potassium hydroxide solution (i.e., wherein some or all of the one or more polysaccharide materials are pre-treated with a pre-treatment alkali solution of claim 8), then washing to neutrality and performing mechanical stirring at a rotating speed of 8000rpm (i.e., wherein the mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali is treated to increase the homogeneity of the mixture before the high-pressure homogenisation, optionally by using a high shear mixer of claim 4) (Li; page 4, lines 1-4). After being fully dissolved, it is ground and filtered by suction (Li; page 4, lines 4-5).
Next the cellulose is fully immersed in potassium hydroxide solution, washed to neutral, mechanically stirred, fully dissolved (i.e., in hydroxide solution), ground, and then subject to high pressure homogenization, followed by filtering (i.e., subjecting a mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali to high-pressure homogenization, forming a solution comprising cellulose material dissolved in an alkali of claim 1) (Li; page 4, lines 7-12).
Li, therefore, anticipates methods of creating a solution as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Li is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Given that Li does not disclose requiring increasing or decreasing the temperature during the high-pressure homogenization step, those skilled in the art would recognize that the temperature during at least a part of the high-pressure homogenization step of Li would be at room temperature, which would fall within the claimed temperature range of greater than 0oC or not exceeding 35oC (e.g. room temperature), absent a showing otherwise (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 5, Li is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Li discloses that the mixture of alkali and cellulose can undergo a plurality of high-pressure homogenization steps, such as in Example 4 where high-pressure homogenization is performed 8 times (Li; page 4, lines 14-34).
Regarding claim 15, Li is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Li discloses that the cellulose is completely/fully dissolved in the hydroxide solution (Li; page 3, lines 12-13 and page 4, line 8). Li teaches that if some of the bacterial cellulose is not dissolved, stirring is continued until the bacterial cellulose is completely dissolved (Li; page 3, lines 1-3). Because the cellulose solution is completely dissolved prior to homogenization, and because Li’s methods are substantially identical those as claimed as discussed above, it is clear that methods of Li result in solutions wherein more than 95% of the bacterial cellulose dissolves in the alkali following high-pressure homogenization as claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Edelstein, U.S. Patent No. 2,419,341 (Edelstein).
Regarding claim 7, Li is relied upon as set forth above as disclosing the limitations of 5 as discussed above, wherein a mixture of alkali and cellulose can undergo a plurality of high-pressure homogenization steps, such as in Example 4 where high-pressure homogenization is performed 8 times (Li; page 4, lines 14-34). The alkali may be sodium hydroxide (Li; page 3, lines 12-13). After grinding (i.e., high pressure homogenization) the fibers have a width in the range of 20-50nm (Li; page 3, lines 12-14 and 25).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali is held at a temperature of between -5°C and 15oC before high-pressure homogenisation, between two or more high-pressure homogenisation steps and/or after all of the one or more high-pressure homogenisation steps as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Edelstein teaches a method of making solutions of cellulosic materials, particularly to dissolving cellulose in aqueous solutions of an alkali metal zincate or hydroxide (Edelstein; col. 1, lines 1-4). The alkali metal hydroxide can be sodium hydroxide (Edelstein; col. 1, line 48-col. 2, line 1). In the methods, the cellulose fibers have a length of not substantially above 200 microns, with no lower limit to the fiber length (Edelstein; col. 1, lines 25-31 and col.3, lines 16). The cellulose fibers can be effected by cooling the cellulose in contact with the hydroxide to a low temperature, e.g., 0o to -10oC (Edelstein; col. 1, lines 31-35). Edelstein teaches that low temperatures between 0 and -15oC are favorable for the rapid dissolution of cellulose in sodium hydroxide (Edelstein; col. 5, lines 50-60).
Edelstein is analogous art as it teaches a method for creating a solution of cellulose in sodium hydroxide.
In light of the motivation provided by Edelstein to use low temperatures for the rapid dissolution of cellulose in alkali metal hydroxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold the temperature between -15°C and 0oC before high-pressure homogenization, or between two or more high-pressure homogenization steps, in the methods of Li, in order to obtain the rapid dissolution of cellulose in an alkali hydroxide such as sodium hydroxide, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. From the teachings Edelstein, it is clear that low temperatures as claimed have long been known in the art for the dissolution of cellulose in sodium hydroxide.
Temperature of between -15°C and 0oC fall within the claimed range of temperature of -5°C to 15oC.
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).
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Takenishi et al, JP H04348144A (Takenishi).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Takenishi. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Li is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, wherein dissolving the bacterial cellulose includes: 1) soaking the bacterial cellulose in water for 24 hours, and drying; 2) adding to a sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution for 12-24hours, followed by removing and washing to neutrality with deionized water (i.e., wherein the pre-treatment comprises mixing the one or more polysaccharide materials with a pre-treatment alkali solution, separating the one or more polysaccharide materials from said pre-treatment alkali solution, and neutralizing the one or more polysaccharide materials of claim 9), and 3) stirring with a high-speed mixer until the bacterial cellulose is completely dissolved (Li; page 2, line 57-page 3, line 3). The bacterial cellulose completely dissolved in sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution is then ground and subject to high pressure homogenization (Li; page 3, lines 16-18).
Li does not explicitly teach neutralizing the one or more polysaccharide materials with an acid as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Takenishi teaches a suspension of microcellulose having a low degree of polymerization, and a method of producing (Takenishi; page 1, lines 49-50). First alkaline cellulose is obtained by immersing cellulose raw material in an aqueous solution of alkali, wherein the alkali may be sodium or potassium hydroxide (Takenishi; page 2, lines 43-46 and 55-57).
Next the alkali cellulose is passed through a high-pressure homogenizer two or three times, washed with water, and neutralized with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid (Takenishi; page 3, lines 5-12).
In Example 1 and 2, Takenishi discloses forming a mixture of alkali cellulose and aqueous sodium hydroxide, subjecting to high-pressure homogenization to obtain a translucent material, after which the material is washed with water and neutralized with hydrochloric acid (Takenishi; page 4, lines 8-23).
Takenishi is analogous art as it teaches a method of subjecting a mixture of cellulose and sodium hydroxide to high-pressure homogenization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an acid with the water neutralizing agent of Li because Takenishi teaches acids, such as hydrochloric acid, as appropriate neutralizing agents for cellulose/alkali mixtures used high-pressure homogenization methods for dispersion/dissolution.
The combination of known substances for the same purpose (e.g., neutralization of a cellulose and an alkali metal hydroxide) has been held to have been prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerhoevn, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Li is relied upon as disclosing the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein an alkali/cellulose mixture is subject to high-pressure homogenization, wherein multiple homogenization steps may be performed (Li; page 2, line 57-page 3, line 3; page 3, lines 12-18; and page 4, lines 16-34).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein high-pressure homogenization occurs at a pressure of between 100 and 1000 bar (claim 13), or wherein a second high-pressure homogenisation step uses a pressure between 15 and 30% of the pressure in a first high-pressure homogenisation step, optionally wherein the total combined pressure of the high-pressure homogenisation steps does not exceed 1000 bar (claim 14) as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Takenishi is relied upon as teaching a method of forming a mixture of alkali cellulose and aqueous sodium hydroxide, and subjecting to high-pressure homogenization to obtain a translucent material (Takenishi; page 4, lines 8-23). Takenishi teaches that the substantial homogenization of the suspension depends on the pressure and number of passes through the homogenizer, and the upper limit is dependent upon the raw material. The high-pressure processing can be performed at 1000kg/cm2 or more (i.e., 980 bar or more) (Takenishi; page 3, lines 47-50). In Example 2, Takenishi exemplifies a pressure of 860kg/cm2, passed twice (i.e., 843 bar) (Takenishi; page 4, lines 17-21).
980 bar or more overlaps in scope with, and 843 bar falls within, the pressure range of 100-1000 bar of claim 13.
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).
In light of the motivation provided by Takenishi to adjust the pressure during homogenization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the pressure of the homogenization step of Li, including over the presently claimed ranges, based upon the starting cellulose raw material used, and in order to obtain the desired number of passes and degree of homogenization.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsson et al, US 2019/0185586 A1 (Olsson) in view of Momin et al, U.S. 2020/0248405A1 (Momin).
Momin was cited in the IDS filed 09/28/2023.
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Olsson teaches a method for the production of a spinning dope composition, said method including homogenization comprising vigorous mixing of a cellulosic pulp (i.e., the polysaccharide of claim 1, wherein the one or more polysaccharide materials comprise a cellulose material of claim 12) in an alkali solution (i.e., subjecting a mixture comprising the one or more polysaccharide materials and the alkali to homogenization), and thereafter a dissolution involving mixing the cellulosic pulp material in the alkali solution to obtain a spinning dope composition (i.e., a method for creating a solution comprising cellulose dissolved in an alkali) (Olsson; [0015]).
Vigorous mixing in the homogenization involves high shear mixing with a rotation of at least 1000rpm (Olsson; [0050]). Olsson discloses using the alkali sodium hydroxide (Olsson; [0086]).
Olsson teaches the drawbacks and main problems of the prior art processes include energy demand and high energy consumption (Olsson; [0004] and [0011]).
Olsson does not explicitly teach high-pressure homogenization as claimed (claim 1), or wherein the homogenization occurs at a pressure of between 100 and 1000 bar (claim 13).
With respect to the difference, Momin teaches a process for reducing the overall energy consumption in the production of nanocellulose dispersions, wherein the process comprises an intermediate step, thus reducing the overall energy consumption by at least 50% (Momin; Abstract).
The process includes the steps of: (i) swelling the base cellulosic material in a swelling solution; (ii) comminuting the dispersion of swollen cellulosic material through low to medium shear to form a dispersion, and (iii) homogenizing the dispersion through high shear or high pressure homogenization (Momin; [0008]).
Typical swelling agents include inorganic bases, such as alkali metal hydroxides (e.g. potassium hydroxide) (Momin; [0035] and [0037]).
The step of homogenizing the dispersion through high shear or high pressure homogenization can be performed using conventional technologies known in the art (Momin; [0060]). Momin teaches that the high shear homogenizer should operate at 5000 psi to 60000 psi (i.e., 345-4136 bar), and that the high pressure homogenizer should operate at no less than 5000 psi to 65000 psi (i.e., 345-4482 bar) (Momin; [0066-0067]).
Momin is analogous art as it teaches a method subjecting a mixture of cellulosic material and alkali to high pressure homogenization.
In light of the disclosure of Momin of using “high pressure” as claimed during both high shear homogenization as disclosed in Olsson and high pressure homogenization as presently claimed, and because Olsson does not disclose any required pressure for the homogenization step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pressure of the homogenization step of Olsson to within the range of no less than 345 bar to 4136 bar, in order to obtain the homogenization of cellulose and alkali with an overall reduced energy consumption.
345 bar to 4136 bar overlaps in scope with the claimed high-pressure range of between 100 and 1000 bar (claim 13).
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).
Further, because both Olsson and Momin are concerned with the same problem, i.e., high energy consumption during the processing of cellulose, and because both Olsson and Momin are homogenizing the same mixture, i.e., cellulosic material and an alkali metal hydroxide, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success when making such a pressure adjustment.
Regarding claim 2, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Olsson teaches that the cellulosic pulp material in alkali is kept at a temperature of less than 0oC during the homogenization (Olsson; [0015]).
Less than 0oC falls within the claimed range of “or wherein the temperature of the solution during the high-pressure homogenization does not exceed 35oC” as claimed (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 3, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Olsson exemplifies a process wherein an aqueous pulp slurry at a temperature close to 0oC is pumped into a homogenization unit (i.e., wherein the cellulose material is initially mixed with water at a temperature of between -5°C and 10oC). Cold liquid alkali (water and sodium hydroxide) is then pumped into the inlet of the same high shear mixer (i.e., wherein the alkali is cooled and is then added to the mixture comprising the cellulosic material and water) (Olsson; [0098]).
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 10, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The cellulosic pulp material can be pre-treated prior to homogenization by shortening the chains of the cellulose polymers by cleavage of the cellulose chains. This can be done by wet grinding in water or alkali. The addition of the alkali solution, e.g. sodium hydroxide, may be added in only one step prior to homogenization, or may be added in several steps during the process (i.e., wherein the mixture comprising cellulose and the alkali is treated to increase the homogeneity of the mixture before the high-pressure homogenization of claim 4; wherein some or all of the one or more polysaccharide materials are pre-treated with a pre-treatment alkali solution of claim 8; and wherein the alkali is aqueous sodium hydroxide of claim 10) (Olsson; [0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The cellulosic pulp material in alkali is kept at a temperature of less than 0oC during the homogenization and during at least a part of the dissolution (Olsson; [0015]). The homogenization unit and the dissolution unit may comprise cooling means (Olsson; [0069]).
Given that Olsson discloses methods that overlap the presently claimed methods, including cooling the cellulose and alkali mixture to below 0oC directly after homogenization (and before dissolution), it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform such a cooling step in the methods of Olsson in view of Momin, e.g., using the coolers on the homogenization and dissolution units, which is both disclosed by Olsson and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Cooling to less than 0oC falls within the claimed range of cooling to between -5oC and 150C.
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 claim 11, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Olsson teaches that that the alkali solution comprises sodium hydroxide in a concentration range of 7-8 wt%, and the concentration of cellulose is in the range of 5-12 wt%, based on the total weight of the spinning material (Olsson; [0053-0054]).
7-8 wt% alkali falls within the claimed range of between 1 and 15% w/w.
5-12 wt% cellulose overlaps in scope with the claimed range between 1 and 10% w/w polysaccharide material.
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 claim 15, Olsson in view of Momin are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The dissolution is performed during a time period sufficient for “complete dissolution” of the cellulose polymers in the alkali solution, i.e., complete to substantially complete dissolution (Olsson; [0047]).
Because Olsson teaches “complete dissolution,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the methods of Olsson in view of Momin result in solutions wherein more than 95% of the cellulosic material dissolves in the alkali following the high pressure homogenization and dissolution as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections using these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Song et al, CN 108359019A, was cited in the IDS filed 09/28/2023. A machine translation of Song is provided with this Office Action. The citation of prior art refers to the machine translation. Song discloses a method wherein turmeric powder (a polysaccharide which comprises cellulose) is mixed with water and adjusted to a pH of 9 with NaOH to form a solution. The solution then subjected to high pressure homogenization. The turmeric is separated to form a first homogeneous solid and a first homogeneous liquid. A second solid was mixed was water and adjusted to a pH of 9 with NaOH, and subject to high pressure homogenization. The solid is separated to form a second homogeneous solid and a second homogeneous liquid. The solid and first and second homogeneous liquids are mixed to obtain a homogeneous solution (Song et al; page 4, line 53-page 5, line 3).
Otsuki et al, CN 104114037A (see machine translation for citations), teaches a cellulose composition which is easily dispersible in an aqueous medium having a high salt concentration (page 1, lines 55-56). Homogenization is performed for dispersion, wherein homogenization can be performed using high shear or high pressure (page 17, lines 10-31). High shear mixing occurs at 2000-13000rpm, while high pressure homogenization occurs at 10 to 50MPa (100-500 bar) (page 17, line 57-page 18, line 12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights