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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (WO 2020/142793) in view of Frankenbach (US 6,495,058 B1) and Mohanty (US 2018/0022921 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11, and 20, Nelson teaches compositions and methods for dispersion and drying of nanocellulose for composites and other systems (Abstract). Nelson teaches a particular method involving ([0055]):
providing a nanocellulose gel comprising nanocellulose and water, Nelson exemplifies gels as having 3 and 6 wt% of nanocellulose (e.g., [00273] and [00303]) and therefore exemplifies gels containing 97 and 94 wt% of water, respectively. These values fall within the claimed range of “70 to 99.5 weight % water,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness. This step reads on claimed steps “(a).”
selecting a dispersion/drying agent for compatibility and mixing it with the nanocellulose gel. Nelson teaches that the dispersion/drying agent may include polyols ([00136]). This step is parallel to the claimed steps “(b).”
removing at least a portion of the water during or after mixing to generate a concentrate. This step reads on claimed steps “(c).” Nelson teaches that the concentrate of nanocellulose and dispersion/drying agent may contain water in a range of from about 0.1 wt% to about 70 wt% ([0094]), which encompasses the claimed ranges of “5 – 20 weight % water” and “8-12 weight % water,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
optionally milling (i.e., milling is not required) – this teaching therefore meets the claimed limitations requiring that the method does not comprise pulverizing or milling the nanocellulose or microcellulose.
recovering the concentrate in solid form or liquid form
Nelson additionally teaches the concentrate may be combined with a matrix material to form a nanocellulose-containing composite product ([0058]), wherein the matrix may be a polymer selected from inter alia polyamides ([0059]). Nelson additionally teaches that the composite product may be extruded ([00239]) and that forming the composite may be done from the melt phase ([00238]); the extrusion process which combines the nanocellulose dispersion with the molten polymer would therefore be conducted at or around the melting temperature of the matrix polymer (Nylon 6 as contemplated by Nelson in view of Mohanty), which would be required to be at a temperature considerably higher than the boiling point of water. Likewise, Nelson teaches that drying occurs when the temperature exceeds 50°C ([00163]). Therefore, water would be removed during the compounding, which meets the claimed limitations of steps “(e).” Introduction of the materials into the extruder parallels the claimed steps “(d).” The exudation of the material after compounding, wherein the composite product is removed from the extruder reads on the claimed steps “(f).”
Nelson differs from claim 1 in claimed steps “(b)” and “(d)” because, while Nelson teaches parallel steps as described above, Nelson is silent with regard to the particular use of “2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol” and with regard to the melting point of the nylon.
Regarding the particular usage of “2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol,” as described above, Nelson teaches that the dispersion/drying agent may include polyols ([00136]). In the same field of endeavor, Frankenbach teaches an invention concerning cotton fabrics, wherein the physiochemical characteristics of cellulose molecules contributes to wrinkles in the fabric (col. 1, lines 20-28). Frankenbach teaches that plasticizers aid in water plasticization of fibers (col. 13, lines 2-3). Frankenbach teaches that suitable plasticizers include polyols including butylene glycols, propylene glycols, and 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol (col. 13, lines 8-19).
Nelson likewise teaches that the dispersion/drying agents, which may include polyols such as propylene glycol and butylene glycol ([00136]), may serve additional functions in addition to their dispersion/drying effect, including functioning as plasticizers ([00155]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06), and Frankenbach teaches a series of plasticizers which overlap with those of Nelson, and which includes 2-ethyl-1,3,-hexanediol. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol in place of the propylene glycol or butylene glycol dispersion/drying agent within Nelson, as 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol is a polyol which is recognized by Frankenbach as a suitable plasticizer for fibers, including cellulose fibers, and because Nelson teaches that the polyol dispersion/drying agents may specifically include those which may additionally function as plasticizers. Nelson requires no covalent bonding or any chemical reactions which would form covalent bonds between the nanocellulose and the dispersion/drying agent, and therefore this step meets the claimed limitation requiring that the 2-ethyl-1,3,-hexanediol is not covalently bonded to the cellulose. The step of Nelson which parallels claimed step “(b),” which has been modified by Frankenbach to include 2-ethy-1,3,-hexanediol, therefore reads on the claimed step “(b).”
Regarding the particular melting point of the nylon material, as described above, Nelson specifically indicates that polyamides are suitable for the inventive composition, and more specifically points to the use of nylons (aliphatic polyamides, [00233]). In the same field of endeavor, Mohanty teaches a polymer blend comprising filler, wherein the filler may be crystalline cellulose ([0087]), and the polymer blend includes polyamides (e.g., p. 17, claim 23). Mohanty specifically points out the suitability of Nylon 6 in the inventive composition ([0081]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use nylon 6 as the nylon within Nelson, as Mohanty teaches nylon 6 as suitable for the formation of cellulose composites. The instant Specification states that nylon 6 is a suitable nylon for the purportedly inventive composition (c.f. claim 10 wherein the nylon is Nylon 6 ). Therefore, while Neslon as modified is silent with regard to the claimed melting point, the nylon 6 of the modified composition is structurally identical to the claimed nylon. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed melting temperature will therefore necessarily be present in the nylon 6 of the modified composition, as applied above.
The step of Nelson which parallels claimed step “(d),” which has been modified by Mohanty to include nylon 6, therefore reads on the claimed step “(d).”
The method of Nelson as modified by Frankenbach and Mohanty therefore meets all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Nelson teaches the further addition of an antioxidant ([00227]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Nelson is silent regarding the amount of antioxidant which may be added to the composition; however, Frankenbach additionally teaches the incorporation of an antioxidant, and indicates their incorporation in amounts ranging from 0% to about 2% (col. 48, lines 50-56). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate between about 0% and about 2% of the antioxidant of Nelson therein, as Frankenbach teaches these amounts as suitable for aqueous dispersions for cellulose applications. The range of 0% to about 2% encompasses the claimed range of “0.5 to 1 weight %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Nelson teaches that various materials properties of the composite are improved due to the inherent properties of well-dispersed nanocellulose ([00246]). Additionally, while Nelson as modified may be silent with regard to the particularly claimed mechanical and environmental properties, Nelson as modified results in a composite product that is structurally identical to the claimed reinforced composite, which contains all of the same components. Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed improved mechanical and environmental properties will therefore necessarily be present in Nelson as modified and as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 15-16, Nelson teaches that the nanocellulose includes cellulose nanofibers or cellulose nanocrystals, inter alia (p. 83, claim 65).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Nelson teaches an embodiment wherein the dispersion/drying agent (which may be 2-ethyl-1,3-hexanediol within the combined composition as described above) may be present in a concentration of about 5 wt% to about 50 wt% ([0090]), which encompasses the claimed range of “5 to 15 weight %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Nelson teaches that the ratio of nanocellulose to the dispersing/drying agent (which includes 2-ethyl-1,3-hexandiol within the modified formulation, as described above) may range from 0.1 to 10, including all intervening ranges ([0092]), which encompasses the claimed range of “1 ± 0.1 to 8 ± 0.8,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Nelson teaches an embodiment wherein the nanocellulose-polymer composite contains from about 0.05 to about 10 wt% of nanocellulose and wherein the remainder of the composition includes the matrix polymer (which may be nylon as described above) alongside the remaining components ([00112]). The range of 0.05 to 10 wt% of nanocellulose overlaps the claimed range of “1-20 weight %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, and the remaining amount of about 90% to about 99.95% overlaps the claimed range of “99-80 weight %,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
