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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 02/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 06/18/2025:
claims 1-20 are currently pending;
new 112 rejections are outlined below due to the amendment in independent claim 1; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are maintained for at least the reasons as set forth herein.
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 2-4 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 2 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 305 mmol/g or less” which is indefinite because claim 1 lines 2-3 recites “having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.305 mmol/g or less”, which appears to be consistent with specification at [00118] and Table 13.
Examiner suggests clarifying the recitation so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 275 mmol/g or less” which is indefinite because claim 1 lines 2-3 recites “having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.275 mmol/g or less”, which appears to be consistent with specification at [00118] and Table 13.
Examiner suggests clarifying the recitation so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 246 mmol/g or less” which is indefinite because claim 1 lines 2-3 recites “having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.246 mmol/g or less”, which appears to be consistent with specification at [00118] and Table 13.
Examiner suggests clarifying the recitation so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 305 mmol/g or less”, claim 3 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 275 mmol/g or less”, and claim 4 lines 1-2 recites “wherein the carboxyl content is about 246 mmol/g or less. Claims 2-4 fail to further limit the subject matter or include all the limitations of the claim 1 upon which it depends because claim 1 lines 2-3 recites “having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapidot et al. (US 2017/0088705 A1) (“Lapidot” hereinafter) in view of McAlpine et al. (WO 2017/127938 A1) (“McAlpine” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lapidot teaches a cement composition (see Lapidot at Abstract teaching cementitious formulations including nano crystalline cellulose (NCC)) comprising
cement (see Lapidot at [0035] teaching in one of its aspects, the present disclosure provides an NCC composition for use in the production of a construction unit, see Lapidot at [0039] teaching in some embodiments, the construction unit is a dry mortar formulation; being generally a mixture of… a cementitious material (e.g., Portland cement)), and
substantially pure cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) (specification at [0044] discloses that as used herein, “substantially pure CNC” means that less than 50%... (wt.) of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC, see Lapidot at Abstract teaching cementitious formulations including nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC), see Lapidot at [0009] teaching nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) are fibers produced from cellulose under controlled conditions that lead to the formation of high-purity single crystals). Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) is taken to meet the claimed substantially pure cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) because they are high-purity single crystals.
Lapidot does not explicitly teach that the cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) is formed by a redox reaction and having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less. The phrase “formed by a redox reaction” is a product-by-process limitation. MPEP states that “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product” (see MPEP § 2113.I.). In this instance, Applicant discloses that the crystalline cellulose produced by a redox reaction has surface chemistry different from crystalline cellulose produced by acid hydrolysis… when cellulose is oxidized, many carboxyl groups are formed on the sugar carbon atoms… conversely, when cellulose is acid hydrolyzed… fewer carboxyl groups are formed, and many sulphate half esters are formed (see Specification at [0040]). As such, the product-by-process limitation “formed by a redox reaction” is imparting a structure to the crystalline cellulose, that is the number of carboxyl groups that are formed on the sugar carbon atoms on the surface of the crystalline cellulose.
Lapidot teaches as used hereinbelow, “NCC composition” refers to a composition comprising NCC… may be prepared from any cellulose source material… by acid hydrolysis or by any other method known in the art (see Lapidot at [0028]).
Like Lapidot, McAlpine teaches nanocrystalline cellulose from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art (see McAlpine at [0013] teaches in another aspect, the disclosure may comprise a method of producing cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) from a cellulosic material, see McAlpine at [0029] teaching the present disclosure relates to methods of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material, and see McAlpine at [0030] teaching in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction). Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from the process comprising redox reaction is taken to meet the claimed the “cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) is formed by a redox reaction”.
McAlpine further teaches the carboxyl content… may provide a measure for product purity (see McAlpine at [0056]). McAlpine also teaches three trials were performed… carboxyl content… were relatively unaffected by temperature (see McAlpine at [0081]). Furthermore, McAlpine teaches Table 8… Effect of reaction temperature on reaction time, yield and product quality, shown below with Examiner’s annotation (see McAlpine at [0082]).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g meets the claimed “having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
McAlpine further teaches that the production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) is similar to that of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) production… and CNC may also be generated from MCC using strong mineral acid hydrolysis… the use of strong mineral acid hydrolysis for the production of CNC either from biomass sources or from MCC encounters the same economic, environmental and safety limitations as for the production of MCC (see McAlpine at [0006]). McAlpine also teaches that the predominant production process for MCC using acid hydrolysis is expensive due to high capital and operating costs, and the use of corrosive mineral acids is problematic with respect to safety and environment (see McAlpine at [0005]). And, the yield of MCC from cellulose in industrial production may be as low as 30% (see McAlpine at [0004]). McAlpine teaches that it is also known to produce crystalline cellulose using hydrogen peroxide chemistry which may involve modified Fenton or Haber Weiss reactions, involving a transition metal catalysts… however, such reactions may be lengthy and typically produce crystalline cellulose of heterogenous morphology and size fractions, requiring further processing (see McAlpine at [0007])… thus, there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose (see McAlpine at [0008]). In summary, McAlpine teaches there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose that circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
As mentioned, McAlpine teaches in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction… the resulting material may be washed, concentrated and/or mechanically treated… in this disclosure, the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material (see McAlpine at [0030]). McAlpine further teaches in one aspect, the disclosure comprises a method of processing a cellulosic material… using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst to produce crystalline cellulose, preferably substantially pure CNC… as used herein, “substantially pure CNC” means that less than 50%... of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that McAlpine teaches crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs, and seek those advantages by using the crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst as taught by McAlpine in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot because Lapidot teaches that the nanocrystalline cellulose may be from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art, and crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
Regarding claims 2-4, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.305 mmol/g or less (claim 2), wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.275 mmol/g or less (claim 3), and wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.246 mmol/g or less (claim 4) (see 112 rejection, see McAlpine at [0082] teaching Table 8… Effect of reaction temperature on reaction time, yield and product quality, shown above with Examiner’s annotation). As illustrated above, the carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g meets the claimed wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.305 mmol/g or less (claim 2), wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.275 mmol/g or less (claim 3), and wherein the carboxyl content is about 0.246 mmol/g or less (claim 4) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the CNC is substantially free of all mono-, di- and oligosaccharides (this recitation is taken to mean less than 50% (wt.) of the resulting crystalline cellulose that is not CNC because alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides which are associated with the CNC crystals as disclosed in specification at [0065] disclosing without restriction to a theory, it is believed that the alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides which are associated with the CNC crystals… in addition to solubilizing and removing mono-, di- and oligosaccharides, the alkaline wash may neutralize surface acid groups, and specification at [0044] discloses that as used herein, “substantially pure CNC” means that less than 50%... (wt.) of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC, see McAlpine at [0030] teaching the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction, see McAlpine at [0013] teaching in another aspect, the invention may comprise a method of producing cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) from a cellulosic material, comprising the steps of… (b) washing the cellulosic material in an alkaline solution). Since the cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as taught by McAlpine and the claimed cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as recited in claims 1 and 5 and disclosed in specification at [0040] and [0065] employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., the CNC is substantially free of all mono-, di- and oligosaccharides) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of McAlpine (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 6, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the carboxyl content on the surface of the CNC is measurable by conductimetric titration (see McAlpine at [0056] teaching the carboxyl content… may provide a measure for product purity). The phrase “is measurable by conductimetric titration” is a limitation that is not drawn to the structure of the claimed cellulose nanocrystals, rather it is drawn to the method of measuring the carboxyl content. As such, the phrase “wherein the carboxyl content on the surface of the CNC is measurable by conductimetric titration” does not distinguish the claimed CNC from the prior art McAlpine teaching cellulose nanocrystals comprising carboxyl content.
Regarding claim 7, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the redox reaction comprises oxidation with… hypohalite (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at [0030] teaching the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material).
Regarding claim 8, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the redox reaction comprises the steps of: (a) 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 (b) recovering a crystalline cellulose fraction (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 1 teaching a method of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material, comprising the steps of… (a) reacting the 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 (b) recovering a crystalline cellulose fraction).
Regarding claim 9, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the reaction of step (a) is continued or repeated until the appearance of crystalline cellulose is observed (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 12 teaching wherein the reaction of step (a) is continued or repeated until the appearance of crystalline cellulose is observed).
Regarding claim 10, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7-9 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the CNCs are collected and treated with an alkaline solution to neutralize surface acid groups and reduce carboxyl content (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 13 teaching the resulting cellulosic material is collected and washed in an alkaline solution). Since the cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as taught by McAlpine and the claimed cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as claimed in claims 1 and 7-10 and disclosed in specification at [0065] employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., neutralized surface acid groups and reduced carboxyl content) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of McAlpine (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 11, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7-10 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0 (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 14 teaching wherein the alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0).
Regarding claim 12, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7-10 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the alkaline solution is heated to between about 30o C and about 90° C to treat the CNC (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 15 teaching wherein the alkaline solution is heated to between about 30° C and about 90° C).
Regarding claim 14, Lapidot teaches a cement composition (see Lapidot at Abstract teaching cementitious formulations including nano crystalline cellulose (NCC)) comprising
cement (see Lapidot at [0035] teaching in one of its aspects, the present disclosure provides an NCC composition for use in the production of a construction unit, see Lapidot at [0039] teaching in some embodiments, the construction unit is a dry mortar formulation; being generally a mixture of… a cementitious material (e.g., Portland cement)), and
crystalline cellulose (see Lapidot at [0009] teaching nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) are fibers produced from cellulose under controlled conditions that lead to the formation of high-purity single crystals). Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) is taken to meet the claimed crystalline cellulose.
Lapidot does not explicitly teach that the crystalline cellulose has been treated with an alkaline solution to reduce its carboxyl content. MPEP states that “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product” (see MPEP § 2113.I.). In this instance, Applicant discloses that without restriction to a theory, it is believed that the alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides which are associated with the CNC crystals). As such, the product-by-process limitation “has been treated with an alkaline solution to reduce its carboxyl content” is imparting a structure to the crystalline cellulose, that is there is reduced carboxyl content on the surface of the crystalline cellulose when the alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides.
Lapidot teaches as used hereinbelow, “NCC composition” refers to a composition comprising NCC… may be prepared from any cellulose source material… by acid hydrolysis or by any other method known in the art (see Lapidot at [0028]).
Like Lapidot, McAlpine teaches nanocrystalline cellulose from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art (see McAlpine at [0013] teaches in another aspect, the disclosure may comprise a method of producing cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) from a cellulosic material, see McAlpine at [0029] teaching the present disclosure relates to methods of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material, see McAlpine at [0030] teaching in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction, and see McAlpine at claim 13 teaching the resulting cellulosic material is collected and washed in an alkaline solution). Since the cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as taught by McAlpine and the claimed cellulose nanocrystals formed by a redox reaction and washed in an alkaline solution as claimed in claim 14 and disclosed in specification at [0065] employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., reduced carboxyl content) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of McAlpine (see MPEP 2112.01).
McAlpine further teaches that the production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) is similar to that of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) production… and CNC may also be generated from MCC using strong mineral acid hydrolysis… the use of strong mineral acid hydrolysis for the production of CNC either from biomass sources or from MCC encounters the same economic, environmental and safety limitations as for the production of MCC (see McAlpine at [0006]). McAlpine also teaches that the predominant production process for MCC using acid hydrolysis is expensive due to high capital and operating costs, and the use of corrosive mineral acids is problematic with respect to safety and environment (see McAlpine at [0005]). And, the yield of MCC from cellulose in industrial production may be as low as 30% (see McAlpine at [0004]). McAlpine teaches that it is also known to produce crystalline cellulose using hydrogen peroxide chemistry which may involve modified Fenton or Haber Weiss reactions, involving a transition metal catalysts… however, such reactions may be lengthy and typically produce crystalline cellulose of heterogenous morphology and size fractions, requiring further processing (see McAlpine at [0007])… thus, there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose (see McAlpine at [0008]). In summary, McAlpine teaches there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose that circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
As mentioned, McAlpine teaches in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction… the resulting material may be washed, concentrated and/or mechanically treated… in this disclosure, the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material (see McAlpine at [0030]). McAlpine further teaches in one aspect, the disclosure comprises a method of processing a cellulosic material… using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst to produce crystalline cellulose, preferably substantially pure CNC… as used herein, “substantially pure CNC” means that less than 50%... of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that McAlpine teaches crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst and treated with an alkaline solution circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs, and seek those advantages by using the crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst and treated with an alkaline solution in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst and treated with an alkaline solution as taught by McAlpine in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot because Lapidot teaches that the nanocrystalline cellulose may be from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art, and crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst and treated with an alkaline solution circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
Regarding claim 15, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0 (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 14 teaching wherein the alkaline solution comprises a solution of NaOH having a pH of about 12.0).
Regarding claim 16, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claims 14-15 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the alkaline solution is heated to between about 30o C and about 90° C to treat the CNC (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at claim 15 teaching wherein the alkaline solution is heated to between about 30° C and about 90° C).
Regarding claim 17, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the crystalline cellulose comprises nanocrystalline cellulose (see McAlpine at [0013] teaching in another aspect, the disclosure may comprise a method of producing cellulose nanocrystals).
Regarding claim 18, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the crystalline cellulose is produced by a redox reaction (the phrase “formed by a redox reaction” is a product-by-process limitation). MPEP states that “the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product” (see MPEP § 2113.I.). In this instance, Applicant discloses that the crystalline cellulose produced by a redox reaction has surface chemistry different from crystalline cellulose produced by acid hydrolysis… when cellulose is oxidized, many carboxyl groups are formed on the sugar carbon atoms… conversely, when cellulose is acid hydrolyzed… fewer carboxyl groups are formed, and many sulphate half esters are formed (see Specification at [0040]). As such, the product-by-process limitation “formed by a redox reaction” is imparting a structure to the crystalline cellulose, that is carboxyl groups are formed on the sugar carbon atoms on the surface of the crystalline cellulose. McAlpine teaches in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction (see McAlpine at [0030]). Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from the process comprising redox reaction is taken to meet the claimed the “wherein the crystalline cellulose is produced by a redox reaction”.
Regarding claim 19, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 14 and 18 above, and McAlpine further teaches wherein the redox reaction comprises an oxidation step using… hypohalite (see MPEP § 2113.I., see McAlpine at [0030] teaching the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material).
Regarding claim 20, Lapidot teaches a method of forming a cement composition (see Lapidot at Abstract teaching provided are cementitious formulations including nano crystalline cellulose (NCC), and see Lapidot at [0055] teaching in accordance with the present disclosure, herein defined construction unit is generally prepared by mixing the ingredients… cement… NCC), comprising the steps of:
(a) producing crystalline cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) (see Lapidot at Abstract teaching provided are cementitious formulations including nano crystalline cellulose (NCC), and see Lapidot at [0055] teaching construction unit is generally prepared by mixing the ingredients… cement… NCC). Nanocrystalline cellulose taken to meet the claimed producing crystalline cellulose nanocrystals; and
(b) mixing the CNCs with cement (see Lapidot at [0055] teaching construction unit is generally prepared by mixing the ingredients… cement… NCC).
Lapidot does not explicitly teach crystalline cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less, by oxidizing a cellulosic material. However, Lapidot teaches as used hereinbelow, “NCC composition” refers to a composition comprising NCC… may be prepared from any cellulose source material… by acid hydrolysis or by any other method known in the art (see Lapidot at [0028]).
Like Lapidot, McAlpine teaches nanocrystalline cellulose from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art (see McAlpine at [0013] teaches in another aspect, the disclosure may comprise a method of producing cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) from a cellulosic material, see McAlpine at [0029] teaching the present disclosure relates to methods of producing crystalline cellulose from a cellulosic material, and see McAlpine at [0030] teaching in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction… as used herein, a "redox reaction" is a reaction where one species is oxidized while another is reduced… in this disclosure, the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material). Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from the process comprising redox reaction is taken to meet the claimed “by oxidizing a cellulosic material”.
McAlpine further teaches the carboxyl content… may provide a measure for product purity (see McAlpine at [0056]). McAlpine also teaches three trials were performed… carboxyl content… were relatively unaffected by temperature (see McAlpine at [0081]). Furthermore, McAlpine teaches Table 8… Effect of reaction temperature on reaction time, yield and product quality, shown below with Examiner’s annotation (see McAlpine at [0082]).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
1148
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g meets the claimed having a carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
McAlpine further teaches that the production of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) is similar to that of microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) production… and CNC may also be generated from MCC using strong mineral acid hydrolysis… the use of strong mineral acid hydrolysis for the production of CNC either from biomass sources or from MCC encounters the same economic, environmental and safety limitations as for the production of MCC (see McAlpine at [0006]). McAlpine also teaches that the predominant production process for MCC using acid hydrolysis is expensive due to high capital and operating costs, and the use of corrosive mineral acids is problematic with respect to safety and environment (see McAlpine at [0005]). And, the yield of MCC from cellulose in industrial production may be as low as 30% (see McAlpine at [0004]). McAlpine teaches that it is also known to produce crystalline cellulose using hydrogen peroxide chemistry which may involve modified Fenton or Haber Weiss reactions, involving a transition metal catalysts… however, such reactions may be lengthy and typically produce crystalline cellulose of heterogenous morphology and size fractions, requiring further processing (see McAlpine at [0007])… thus, there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose (see McAlpine at [0008]). In summary, McAlpine teaches there is a need in the art for improved methods of producing crystalline cellulose that circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
As mentioned, McAlpine teaches in one embodiment, the disclosure comprises steps to generate cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) from a lignocellulosic biomass… the primary steps of the process comprise a first redox reaction, followed by an alkaline extraction and a second redox reaction… the resulting material may be washed, concentrated and/or mechanically treated… in this disclosure, the hypohalite is reduced as it oxidizes the cellulosic material (see McAlpine at [0030]). McAlpine further teaches in one aspect, the disclosure comprises a method of processing a cellulosic material… using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst to produce crystalline cellulose, preferably substantially pure CNC… as used herein, “substantially pure CNC” means that less than 50%... of the resulting crystalline cellulose is not CNC.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that McAlpine teaches crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs, and seek those advantages by using the crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crystalline nanocellulose with carboxyl content in the range of 0.214 to 0.305 mmol/g produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst as taught by McAlpine in the cementitious formulation as taught by Lapidot because Lapidot teaches that the nanocrystalline cellulose may be from any cellulose source material and made by a method known in the art, and crystalline nanocellulose produced from redox reaction using a hypohalite salt and a transition metal catalyst circumvents the economic, environmental and safety issues of strong mineral acid hydrolysis in the production of CNCs.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lapidot in view of McAlpine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Youngblood et al. (US 2016/0075601 A1) (“Youngblood” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Lapidot in view of McAlpine teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lapidot further teaches comprising aggregate (see Lapidot at [0044] teaching in some embodiments, the dry mortar formulation may further comprise… aggregates), and
a superplasticizer (see Lapidot at [0047] teaching to increase the fluidity of the dry mortar formulation, a suitable additive may be added to the formulation such as… a superplasticizer).
Lapidot does not explicitly teach that the composition further teaches an air entrainer.
Like Lapidot, Youngblood teaches a cementitious composition comprising cement and nanocrystalline cellulose (see Youngblood at Abstract teaching the disclosure provides a cement paste composition comprising cement, cellulose nanocrystals).
Youngblood also teaches cement-based material prepared from the cement pastes described herein can include other components or fillers as known by those skilled in the art, such as those used to form various types of concretes… for example, the cement-based material can optionally include… air-entraining agents (see Youngblood at [0093]), which is taken to meet the claimed “the composition further teaches an air entrainer”.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that air-entraining agents are suitable components of cementitious composition comprising cement and nanocrystalline cellulose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add air-entraining agents as taught by Youngblood in the cementitious formulations comprising cement and nanocrystalline cellulose as taught by Lapidot in view of McAlpine because air-entraining agents are suitable components of cementitious composition comprising cement and nanocrystalline cellulose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses that the present application has discovered a new and unexpected use and advantage for cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) when utilized in cement compositions, in which the CNCs are produced by redox reactions, rather than conventional acid hydrolysis because the surface chemistry of the CNCs produced by redox reactions, which includes many carboxyl groups formed on the sugar carbon atoms, is different from the CNCs produced by acid hydrolysis… the alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides and neutralize surface acid groups… the carboxyl content may provide a measure for product purity… thus, the advantages as result from the purity of the composition apply when the CNC has a carboxyl content of 0.333 mmol/g or less, as claimed (see Applicant’s arguments at page 4 paragraph 3 to page 5 paragraph 3, and page 6 paragraphs 1, 3 and 6).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that it is not clear from the specification that the claimed property of the CNCs “having carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less” provides the new and unexpected use and advantage for cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) when utilized in cement compositions because specification at [0132]-[0138] and examples 14-16 discloses use of CNC that are substantially free of mono-, di- and oligosaccharides, not CNCs having carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less. Additionally, even if specification at [0063] discloses that the carboxyl content… may provide a measure of product purity, specification at [0065] also discloses that without restriction to a theory, it is believed that the alkaline wash helps solubilize and remove mono-, di- and oligosaccharides which are associated with the CNC crystals… in some embodiments, the alkaline wash of CNC may improve the properties of a cementitious compositions including CNCs from sources other than CNC produced by an oxidative process, such as acid-hydrolyzed CNCs… in addition to solubilizing and removing mono-, di- and oligosaccharides, the alkaline wash may neutralize surface acid groups. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the alkaline wash may also neutralize the surface acid groups of CNCs produced by acid-hydrolyzed CNCs. Furthermore, the specification did not show evidence of the carboxyl content of CNCs produced by acid-hydrolyzed CNCs that has undergone the alkaline wash, only the carboxyl content of CNCs produced by redox (see specification at [00101], [00104], [00107], [00109]-[00110] and tables 8, 10-12). Therefore, Applicants argument is not commensurate with what is claimed because the specification did fully demonstrate the new and unexpected use and advantage of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) “having carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less” when utilized in cement compositions. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant discusses that neither Lapidot and/or McAlpine appreciate the new and unexpected use for CNCs in cement composition, whereby the CNCs are formed by redox reactions are substantially pure (e.g., as indicated by either the fact that they are free of mono-, di- and oligosaccharides, or as otherwise indicated by their carboxyl content as claimed)… Lapidot does not appreciate that using a redox reaction to form CNCs with carboxyl content of about 0.333 mmol/g or less may positively effect… i) the setting time of cementitious compositions; or ii) the strength of cementitious compositions… McAlpine does not contemplate the advantages of mixing the CNCs formed of redox reactions with cement on the setting time or strength of the cement composition (see Applicant’s arguments at page 5 paragraph 4 to page 5 paragraph 6, and page 6 paragraphs 4 and 7).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that MPEP teaches “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (see MPEP 2144.IV). And, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Accordingly, Examiner maintains the prior art rejection based on Lapidot in view of McAlpine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731