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. 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. This office action is a response to applicant’s communication submitted December 12, 2023 , wherein claims 3-4, 6, and 9-14 were preliminarily amended. This application is a 371 of PCT/CA2022/050952 filed 06/15/2022 and claims benefit to US provisional application 63/211,291 filed 06/16/2021 . Claims 1-1 8 are pending in this application . Drawings The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3 the terms NaOH and NaOCl are obscured by graph lines, rendering the terms illegible. Additionally the X axis label and Y axis label overlap, rendering them illegible (see ). 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The table presented on page 7 of the instant specification is blurry and illegible (lines 1-5). Additionally some numerical values are cutoff (for example, ). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, the phrase “wherein pretreatment step” should read “wherein the pretreatment step”. In claim 15, the acronym CNC should be defined as it is in all other independent claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation Claim 3 recites “wherein pretreatment step comprises dispersing the cellulose in an aqueous slurry, and the hypohalite is directly added to the aqueous slurry following pretreatment.” The Examiner notes that t he transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (See MPEP 2111.03 (I)) . In the instant case dispersing the cellulose in an aqueous slurry does not exclude filtering/washing steps that may occur. Claim 15 recites the phrase “in a single stage and/or one-pot reaction”. According to the instant specification, “….the process may comprise “a "one-pot" method, where the reactants are added to a single reactor, and the desired product may be recovered from the single reactor.” (pg. 9, para. 0026). Thus, wherein a prior art reference teaches the use of a single reactor, the limitation is met. Claims 17-18 are product by process claims. The Examiner notes that, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process" In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113 (I)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-18 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. Regarding claims 1 and 3-18: Independent claims 1, 15, and 17 recite the phrase "purified cellulose". The phrase "purified cellulose" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what is encompassed by the phrase. According to the instant specification, ""purified cellulose" includes any material which comprises a substantial proportion of cellulose" and "purified cellulose may include alpha-cellulose, dissolving grade pulp, kraft pulp, or other pulps, such as paper-making pulp or recycled pulp (pgs. 4-5, para. 0018). The instant specification also states P urified cellulose may be produced from any suitable lignocellulosic biomass, such as wood, hemp, or cereal straw, and may be bleached or unbleached (pg. 5, lines 12-13). The instant specification states “ As used herein, "purified cellulose" does not include crystalline cellulose, such as microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) or other forms of cellulose where amorphous regions of cellulose have been substantially degraded or removed .” (pg. 5, lines 14-17). However, exemplification is not an explicit definition. The phrase "purified" implies an active step, however based on the specification, it is not clear that it the case, for example it is unclear whether any material comprising a "substantial proportion of cellulose" would be considered a purified cellulose. Thus, the phrase is not clearly defined, and it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the phrase are based on the specification. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 17 are rendered indefinite. Dependent claims 3-14, 16, and 18 are similarly rejected. Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 recites, "the hypohalite is directly added to the aqueous slurry following pretreatment". However, claim 1 of which claim 3 depends, recites inter alia the step of "oxidizing the cellulose with a hypohalite and a transition metal catalyst....". It is unclear if the transition metal salt catalyst is to be added directly to as well, or simply the hypohalite. Based on claim 1, it appears that both hy p ohalite and a transition metal salt catalyst are required in this step. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Regarding claims 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claims 6 -8 , 11, and 13: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance : C laim 6 FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT recites the broad recitation “greater than 10.0”, and the claim also recites, “preferably greater than about 11.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claims 7-8 which depend from claim 6 are similarly rejected. C laim 11 recites the broad recitation “about 5 mol/kg of purified cellulose to about 20 mol/kg (dry weight)” , and the claim also recites “preferably between about 10 to about 16 mol/kg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. C laim 13 recites the broad recitation “0.1 mg/g to 5 mg/g” , and the claim also recites “preferably between about 0.2 mg/g to about 1.0 mg/g” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claims 9-10: Claims 9-10 recite inter alia, “a temperature between about 30° to about 95°”. However, it is unclear what unit of temperature is being referenced in the claims (i.e. C or F). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the invention as these ranges can vary depending on unit. Regarding claims 17-18: There is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrase "purified cellulose" in the claim. Claim 18 which depends on claim 18 is similarly rejected. 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, 9-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) . Regarding claims 1-7, 9-14 and 17-18: Mcalpine teaches method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material includes the step of reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution (abstract). Mcalpine teaches the general method comprises the following steps (a) reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution; (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution; (c) repeating step (a), and (d) recovering a CNC fraction (pg. 2, para. 0016). Mcalpine teaches in one example the method comprises treatment of treated hemp pulp (i.e. purified cellulose) with a pretreatment comprising soaking in reverse osmosis water, then adding iron sulfate or copper sulfate catalyst, adding sodium hypochlorite solution at 75 ° C (pg. 5, para. 0062, Table 3). Mcalpine teaches in this example, 5.65 mol/kg of biomass was used (pg. 5, para. 0063). The ratio of copper catalyst to biomass is 0.66 mg/g (pg. 5, para. 0065, table 4). Mcalpine teaches after the first redox reaction, the biomass has substantially broken down compared to the start, and the suspension is filtered giving a resulting cake (pg. 5, para. 0066-0067). Mcalpine removing oxidation products of the first redox reaction may result in a more complete and better quality crystalline cellulose product (pg. 5, para. 0068). The filter cake from the first redox reaction was resuspended in 1 L of water and NaOH was added to a pH of 12.0-12.3 and then stirred at 85 ° C , then being filtered and washed to form a filter cake (i.e. an aqueous slurry , pg. 5, para. 0068). The filter cake, being a biomass from hemp pulp is interpreted to be encompassed by the phrase "a purified cellulose" as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejections above. Mcalpine teaches following the alkaline treatment, a second redox reaction similar to the conditions set out in the first redox is utilized, with copper sulfate, and NaClO at 75 ° C (pg. 6, para. 0069, table 5). McAlpine teaches wherein the filter cake from alkaline extraction is suspended in water and NaClO is added (i.e. pretreatment step comprises dispersing the cellulose in an aqueous slurry and hypohalite is added to the slurry following pretreatment, pg. 6, para. 0069). The method results in CNC particles that are uniform in size and the average particle size is 212 nm (pg. 6, para. 0073). As shown in figures 6-7 of the drawings the particle size graphs exhibit a singular peak (drawings sheets 8-9, figures 6-7). Mcalpine teaches the method using a hypohalite salt and transition metal catalyst produces a preferably substantially pure CNC, wherein "substantially pure" means that less than 50% of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC (pg. 3, para. 0040). According to the instant specification, use of a transition metal catalyst increased the speed of the reaction, decreases yield, and improves purity (pg. 20, para. 0060). Thus the CNC produced by the McAlpine is identical to that instantly claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. According to the instant specification, use of a transition metal catalyst increased the speed of the reaction, decreases yield, and improves purity (pg. 20, para. 0060). According to the instant specification, the phrase "substantially pure" is not particularly limiting, the specification states the phrase is defined in that less than 50% of the resulting CNC is not CNC (para. 0024). Wherein the patented claims teach the preparation of a substantially pure CNC, the CNC produced by the patented claims is identical to that instantly claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. 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. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-14 and 17-18 above . Regarding claim 8: As discussed above, Mcalpine teaches the method of claim 7 wherein method comprises subjecting the material from the first redox reaction was resuspended in 1 L of water and NaOH was added to a pH of 12.0-12.3 and then stirred at 85 C (i.e. an aqueous slurry , pg. 5, para. 0068). Mcalpine does not teach wherein the amount of NaOH is added in amount from about 2.0 mg/g of cellulose to about 20 mg/g of cellulose as recited by instant claim 8. However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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. (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-14 and 17-18 above in view of Islam (Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2018, cited on PTO-892) . Regarding claims 3 and 15-16: As discussed above, Mcalpine teaches the method of claim 1. McAlpine teaches that production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) consists of digestion with a strong mineral acid such as sulfuric acid followed by mechanical size reduction (pg. 1, para. 0006). Mcalpine does not teach wherein the method of pretreatment with an a l kali and then oxidized with hypohalite and a transition metal catalyst occurs in a single stage and/or one-pot reaction. However, Islam teaches a method of producing nanocrystalline cellulose from rice husk biomass (abstract). Islam teaches the method comprises alkaline delignification of a raw rice husk biomass using NaOH of a biomass and subsequent bleaching using sodium hypochlorite (abstract). Islam teaches these steps are carried out in a single reactor (pg. 467, figure 1). Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of McAlpine by carrying out the alkaline pretreatment and subsequent oxidation reaction in a single reactor (i.e. one-pot) as taught by Islam. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as the art demonstrates that cellulose alkaline and oxidation (i.e. bleaching) can be carried out in a single reactor in order to streamline the process of preparing nanocrystalline cellulose. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 168 , 151 (cited on PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 14, and 17-18: The patented claims teaches (claim 1). The hypohalite comprises hypochlorite, hypoiodite, or hypobromite, and the concentration of the hypohalite is between 0.1M and 0.5M (claim 2). The initial pH of the slurry in either or both the first redox reaction or the second redox reaction is between 9.0 to 12.0 (claim 3). The ratio of hypohalite to cellulosic material in the slurry in the first redox reaction is between 1 mol/kg to about 10 mol/kg (claim 10). The slurry is heated in either or both the first redox reaction or the second redox reaction to between about 50 C and 85 C (claim 11). The method further comprises a step of washing the crystalline cellulose produced by the first redox reaction in an alkaline solution (before the second redox reaction, i.e. pretreatment prior to oxidation, claim 12). The alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0 (claim 13). The alkaline solution is heated to between about 30 °C and about 90 °C (claim 14). The cellulosic material comprises hemp pulp (claim 18, i.e. a purified cellulose material). The patented claims teach the substantially pure CNCs have a particle size distribution with a single peak less than about 200 nm (claim 16). Given that the patented claims teach a substantially pure CNC with a size distribution with a single peak less than about 200 nm produced under comparable alkaline/oxidation conditions, the CNCs produced by the patented claims encompass the CNCs recited by instant claims 17-18 absent evidence to the contrary. Although the patented claims do not utilize the phrases pretreating/oxidizing step a) of patented claim 1 constitutes a pretreatment of cellulose material and step b) utilizing a redox reaction with hypohalite constitutes an oxidation reaction. Thus, the claimed method is encompassed by the patented claims. With respect to the claimed pH values, concentrations and temperatures, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Although the patented claims don’t explicitly state they recover the substantially pure CNC, a person of ordinary skill in the art that producing CNCs following the method, naturally flows as a result of practicing the method. Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, the copending claims teach washing with an alkaline treatment prior to a second redox reaction which occurs in an aqueous slurry comprising the transition catalyst and hypohalite (i.e. adding hypohalite to the aqueous slurry, wherein the alkaline washing and reformation of an aqueous slurry is interpreted to be part of the pretreatment step). Thus the method of instant claim 3 is encompassed by the patented claims. Regarding claim 8: As discussed above, the method further comprises a step of washing the crystalline cellulose produced by the first redox reaction in an alkaline solution (before the second redox reaction, i.e. pretreatment prior to oxidation, claim 12). The alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0 (claim 13). The patented claims do not specify the concentration of NaOH relative to the cellulose material. However, given that the patented claims teach adding an alkaline solution comprising NaOH, Where 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 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)) . Claims 5, and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 168 , 151 (cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-11, 14, and 17-18 above in view of Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 5 and 12-13: As discussed above the patented claims teach all of the above. The patented claims do not specify the use of sodium hypochlorite, or the metal of the transition metal catalyst in a concentration between 0.1 mg/g to 5mg/g. However, Mcalpine teaches method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material includes the step of reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution (abstract). Mcalpine teaches the general method comprises the following steps (a) reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution; (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution; (c) repeating step (a), and (d) recovering a CNC fraction (pg. 2, para. 0016). Mcalpine teaches in one example the method comprises treatment of treated hemp pulp (i.e. purified cellulose) with a pretreatment comprising soaking in reverse osmosis water, then adding iron sulfate or copper sulfate catalyst, adding sodium hypochlorite solution at 75 °C (pg. 5, para. 0062, Table 3). Mcalpine teaches in this example, 5.65 mol/kg of biomass was used (pg. 5, para. 0063). The ratio of copper catalyst to biomass is 0.66 mg/g (pg. 5, para. 0065, table 4). Mcalpine teaches after the first redox reaction, the biomass has substantially broken down compared to the start, and the suspension is filtered giving a resulting cake (pg. 5, para. 0066-0067). Mcalpine removing oxidation products of the first redox reaction may result in a more complete and better quality crystalline cellulose product (pg. 5, para. 0068). Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of the patented claims by utilizing sodium hypochlorite and a copper catalyst at 0.66 mg/g concentration as taught by McAlpine. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as these materials/concentrations are known in the art to be effective at carrying out the necessary reactions in the production of a CNC. Claims 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11 , 168 , 151 (cited on PTO-892) and Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-14, and 17-18 above in view of Islam (Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2018, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 15-16: The patented claims do not teach wherein the method of pretreatment with an alkali and then oxidized with hypohalite and a transition metal catalyst occurs in a single stage and/or one-pot reaction. However, Islam teaches a method of producing nanocrystalline cellulose from rice husk biomass (abstract). Islam teaches the method comprises alkaline delignification of a raw rice husk biomass using NaOH of a biomass and subsequent bleaching using sodium hypochlorite (abstract). Islam teaches these steps are carried out in a single reactor (pg. 467, figure 1). Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the patented claims by carrying out the alkaline pretreatment and subsequent oxidation reaction in a single reactor (i.e. one-pot) as taught by Islam. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as the art demonstrates that cellulose alkaline and oxidation (i.e. bleaching) can be carried out in a single reactor in order to streamline the process of preparing nanocrystalline cellulose. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,886 (cited on PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 17: The patented claims teach a method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material, comprising the steps of reacting the cellulosic material in aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution at a pH greater than 5.5 and a final pH less than 9.5, and recovering a crystalline cellulose fraction (claim 1). The patented claims teach wherein the hypohalite comprises hypochlorite, hypoiodite, or hypobromite (claim 2). The patented claims teach wherein the initial pH of the slurry in between 9.0 to 12.0 (claim 3). The patented claims teach wherein the slurry is heated to between about 50 °C to about 85 °C. The patented claims teach wherein the ratio of hypohalite to cellulosic material in the slurry in between about 1 mol/kg to about 10 mol/kg (claim 10). T The patented claims teach wherein the reaction step (a) is repeated by adding additional hypohalite doses to produce a mixture of microcrystalline cellulose and cellulose nanocrystals (claim 12). The patented claims teach further comprising the steps of washing the crystalline cellulose produced by step (a) in an alkaline solution, and repeating step (a) to produce cellulose nanocrystals (claim 15). The patented claims teach wherein the alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12 (claim 16). The patented claims teach wherein the alkaline solution is heated to between about 30 °C to about 90 °C. Given that the patented claims teach a substantially pure CNC the CNCs produced by the patented claims encompass the CNCs recited by instant claims 17 absent evidence to the contrary. Although the patented claims do not utilize the phrases pretreating/oxidizing step a) of patented claim 1 constitutes a pretreatment of cellulose material and step b) utilizing a redox reaction with hypohalite constitutes an oxidation reaction. Thus, the claimed method is encompassed by the patented claims. With respect to the claimed pH values, concentrations and temperatures, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Although the patented claims don’t explicitly state they recover the substantially pure CNC, a person of ordinary skill in the art that producing CNCs following the method, naturally flows as a result of practicing the method. Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, the copending claims teach washing with an alkaline treatment prior to a treatment in an aqueous slurry comprising the transition catalyst and hypohalite (i.e. adding hypohalite to the aqueous slurry, wherein the alkaline washing and reformation of an aqueous slurry is interpreted to be part of the pretreatment step). Thus the method of instant claim 3 is encompassed by the patented claims. Regarding claim 8: As discussed above, the method further comprises a step of washing the crystalline cellulose produced by the step in an alkaline solution (before the treatment with hypohalite, i.e. pretreatment prior to oxidation, claim 12). The alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0 (claim 13). The patented claims do not specify the concentration of NaOH relative to the cellulose material. However, given that the patented claims teach adding an alkaline solution comprising NaOH, Where 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 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)) . Claims 2, 5, 12-1 4 , and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,886 (cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 17 above in view of Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 2, 5, 12-14, and 18: A s discussed above the patented claims teach all of the above. The patented claims do not teach wherein the purified cellulose comprises a paper-making pulp. The patented claims do not specify the use of sodium hypochlorite, or the metal of the transition metal catalyst in a concentration between 0.1 mg/g to 5mg/g. The patented claims do not teach wherein the pure CNC has a single peak of size distribution wherein the average particle size is less than about 400 nm. However, Mcalpine teaches method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material includes the step of reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution (abstract). Mcalpine teaches the general method comprises the following steps (a) reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution; (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution; (c) repeating step (a), and (d) recovering a CNC fraction (pg. 2, para. 0016). Mcalpine teaches in one example the method comprises treatment of treated hemp pulp (i.e. purified cellulose) with a pretreatment comprising soaking in reverse osmosis water, then adding iron sulfate or copper sulfate catalyst, adding sodium hypochlorite solution at 75 °C (pg. 5, para. 0062, Table 3). Mcalpine teaches in this example, 5.65 mol/kg of biomass was used (pg. 5, para. 0063). The ratio of copper catalyst to biomass is 0.66 mg/g (pg. 5, para. 0065, table 4). Mcalpine teaches after the first redox reaction, the biomass has substantially broken down compared to the start, and the suspension is filtered giving a resulting cake (pg. 5, para. 0066-0067). Mcalpine removing oxidation products of the first redox reaction may result in a more complete and better quality crystalline cellulose product (pg. 5, para. 0068). McAlpine teaches wherein the filter cake from alkaline extraction is suspended in water and NaClO is added (i.e. pretreatment step comprises dispersing the cellulose in an aqueous slurry and hypohalite is added to the slurry following pretreatment, pg. 6, para. 0069). The method results in CNC particles that are uniform in size and the average particle size is 212 nm (pg. 6, para. 0073). As shown in figures 6-7 of the drawings the particle size graphs exhibit a singular peak (drawings sheets 8-9, figures 6-7). Mcalpine teaches the method using a hypohalite salt and transition metal catalyst produces a preferably substantially pure CNC, wherein "substantially pure" means that less than 50% of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC (pg. 3, para. 0040). Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of the patented claims by utilizing sodium hypochlorite and a copper catalyst at 0.66 mg/g concentration and sourcing the purified cellulose from hemp pulp as taught by McAlpine. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as these materials/concentrations are known in the art to be effective at carrying out the necessary reactions in the production of a CNC and hemp pulp is a known cellulose material that is used in the production of CNC. Wherein the general method is rendered obvious in view of McAlpine, the CNC produced necessarily possesses the claimed particle size with a single peak of size distribution as instantly claimed as a result of practicing the method, absent evidence to the contrary. Claims 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,886 (cited on PTO-892) and Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-14, and 17-18 above in view of Islam (Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2018, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 15-16: The patented claims do not teach wherein the method of pretreatment with an alkali and then oxidized with hypohalite and a transition metal catalyst occurs in a single stage and/or one-pot reaction. However, Islam teaches a method of producing nanocrystalline cellulose from rice husk biomass (abstract). Islam teaches the method comprises alkaline delignification of a raw rice husk biomass using NaOH of a biomass and subsequent bleaching using sodium hypochlorite (abstract). Islam teaches these steps are carried out in a single reactor (pg. 467, figure 1). Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the patented claims by carrying out the alkaline pretreatment and subsequent oxidation reaction in a single reactor (i.e. one-pot) as taught by Islam. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as the art demonstrates that cellulose alkaline and oxidation (i.e. bleaching) can be carried out in a single reactor in order to streamline the process of preparing nanocrystalline cellulose. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,955 (cited on PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claim 17: The patented claims teach a cement composition comprising cement and substantially pure cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction which are substantially pure cellulose nanocrystals (claim 1). The redox reaction comprises oxidation with a hypohalite (claim 2) . The redox reaction comprises the steps of reacting a cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution having an initial pH greater than about 6.0 and a final pH less than about 9.0 and recovering a crystalline cellulose fraction (claim 3 ). The hypohalite comprises hypochlorite (claim 4). The CNCs are collected and treated with an alkaline solution (claim 6 ). The alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12 (claim 7 ). The alkaline solution is heated to between about 30 C and about 90 C to treat the CNC (claim 8 ). Wherein the copending claims teach a substantially pure CNC produced by oxidation/alkaline conditions, the CNC produced by the instant claims is encompassed by the patented claims , absent evidence to the contrary. Claims 1-14 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,955 (cited on PTO-892) as applied to claim 17 above in view of Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 1-14 and 18: As discussed above the patented claims teach everything described above. The patented claims do not teach wherein the cellulose material is pretreated with alkaline solution at a pH of greater than about 9.0 comprising NaOH effective to reach the desired pH or wherein NaOH is added from about 2.0 mg/g of cellulose to about 20 mg/g of cellulose. The patented claims do not teach wherein the purified cellulose comprises a paper-making pulp. The patented claims do not specify the use of sodium hypochlorite, or the metal of the transition metal catalyst in a concentration between 0.1 mg/g to 5mg/g. The patented claims do not teach wherein the pure CNC has a single peak of size distribution wherein the average particle size is less than about 400 nm. The patented claims do not teach wherein the oxidation step is between 30 °C to about 95 °C. However, Mcalpine teaches method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material includes the step of reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution (abstract). Mcalpine teaches the general method comprises the following steps (a) reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution; (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution; (c) repeating step (a), and (d) recovering a CNC fraction (pg. 2, para. 0016). Mcalpine teaches in one example the method comprises treatment of treated hemp pulp (i.e. purified cellulose) with a pretreatment comprising soaking in reverse osmosis water, then adding iron sulfate or copper sulfate catalyst, adding sodium hypochlorite solution at 75 °C (pg. 5, para. 0062, Table 3). Mcalpine teaches in this example, 5.65 mol/kg of biomass was used (pg. 5, para. 0063). The ratio of copper catalyst to biomass is 0.66 mg/g (pg. 5, para. 0065, table 4). Mcalpine teaches after the first redox reaction, the biomass has substantially broken down compared to the start, and the suspension is filtered giving a resulting cake (pg. 5, para. 0066-0067). Mcalpine removing oxidation products of the first redox reaction may result in a more complete and better quality crystalline cellulose product (pg. 5, para. 0068). The filter cake from the first redox reaction was resuspended in 1 L of water and NaOH was added to a pH of 12.0-12.3 and then stirred at 85 °C, then being filtered and washed to form a filter cake (i.e. an aqueous slurry, pg. 5, para. 0068). The filter cake, being a biomass from hemp pulp is interpreted to be encompassed by the phrase "a purified cellulose" as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejections above. Mcalpine teaches following the alkaline treatment, a second redox reaction similar to the conditions set out in the first redox is utilized, with copper sulfate, and NaClO at 75 °C (pg. 6, para. 0069, table 5). McAlpine teaches wherein the filter cake from alkaline extraction is suspended in water and NaClO is added (i.e. pretreatment step comprises dispersing the cellulose in an aqueous slurry and hypohalite is added to the slurry following pretreatment, pg. 6, para. 0069). The method results in CNC particles that are uniform in size and the average particle size is 212 nm (pg. 6, para. 0073). As shown in figures 6-7 of the drawings the particle size graphs exhibit a singular peak (drawings sheets 8-9, figures 6-7). Mcalpine teaches the method using a hypohalite salt and transition metal catalyst produces a preferably substantially pure CNC, wherein "substantially pure" means that less than 50% of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC (pg. 3, para. 0040). According to the instant specification, use of a transition metal catalyst increased the speed of the reaction, decreases yield, and improves purity (pg. 20, para. 0060). Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement additional alkaline wash and redox reaction conditions and source cellulose from hemp pulp into the patented method as taught by McAlpine and arrive at the claimed method of producing CNCs. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as these conditions are known in the art to be successful in preparing a pure CNC . Wherein the general method is rendered obvious in view of McAlpine, the CNC produced necessarily possesses the claimed particle size with a single peak of size distribution as instantly claimed as a result of practicing the method, absent evidence to the contrary. Given that the patented claims and Mcalpine teach adding an alkaline solution comprising NaOH, Where 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 (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)) . Claims 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,955 (cited on PTO-892) and Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claims 1-14, and 17-18 above in view of Islam (Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2018, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 15-16: The patented claims do not teach wherein the method of pretreatment with an alkali and then oxidized with hypohalite and a transition metal catalyst occurs in a single stage and/or one-pot reaction. However, Islam teaches a method of producing nanocrystalline cellulose from rice husk biomass (abstract). Islam teaches the method comprises alkaline delignification of a raw rice husk biomass using NaOH of a biomass and subsequent bleaching using sodium hypochlorite (abstract). Islam teaches these steps are carried out in a single reactor (pg. 467, figure 1). Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the patented claims by carrying out the alkaline pretreatment and subsequent oxidation reaction in a single reactor (i.e. one-pot) as taught by Islam. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as the art demonstrates that cellulose alkaline and oxidation (i.e. bleaching) can be carried out in a single reactor in order to streamline the process of preparing nanocrystalline cellulose. Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/664,020 (US 2024 / 0336526, cited on PTO-892). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: The copending claims teach the preparation of a cement composition comprising cement and substantially pure cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less (claim 1). The redox reaction comprises oxidation with a hypohalite (claim 7). The redox reaction comprises the steps of reacting a cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution having an initial pH greater than about 6.0 and a final pH less than about 9.0 and recovering a crystalline cellulose fraction (claim 8). The CNCs are collected and treated with an alkaline solution (claim 10). The alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12 (claim 11). The alkaline solution is heated to between about 30 C and about 90 C to treat the CNC (claim 12). Wherein the copending claims teach a substantially pure CNC produced by oxidation/alkaline conditions, the CNC produced by the instant claims is encompassed by the copending claims, absent evidence to the contrary. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 1-14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/664,020 (US 2024 / 0336526, cited on PTO-892) as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Mcalpine (US 2019 / 0040158, cited on PTO-892) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Regarding claims 1-14 and 18: As discussed above the copending claims teach everything described above. The copending claims do not teach wherein the cellulose material is pretreated with alkaline solution at a pH of greater than about 9.0 comprising NaOH effective to reach the desired pH or wherein NaOH is added from about 2.0 mg/g of cellulose to about 20 mg/g of cellulose. The copending claims do not teach wherein the purified cellulose comprises a paper-making pulp. The copending claims do not specify the use of sodium hypochlorite, or the metal of the transition metal catalyst in a concentration between 0.1 mg/g to 5mg/g. The copending claims do not teach wherein the pure CNC has a single peak of size distribution wherein the average particle size is less than about 400 nm. The copending claims do not teach wherein the oxidation step is between 30 °C to about 95 °C. However, Mcalpine teaches method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material includes the step of reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution (abstract). Mcalpine teaches the general method comprises the following steps (a) reacting the cellulosic material in an aqueous slurry comprising a transition metal catalyst and a hypohalite solution; (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution; (c) repeating step (a), and (d) recovering a CNC fraction (pg. 2, para. 0016). Mcalpine teaches in one example the method comprises treatment of treated hemp pulp (i.e. purified cellulose) with a pretreatment comprising soaking in reverse osmosis water, then adding iron sulfate or copper sulfate catalyst, adding sodium hypochlorite solution at 75 °C (pg. 5, para. 0062, Table 3). Mcalpine teaches in this example, 5.65 mol/kg of biomass was used (pg. 5, para. 0063). The ratio of copper catalyst to biomass is 0.66 mg/g (pg. 5, para. 0065, table 4). Mcalpine teaches after the first redox reaction, the bio