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 § 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 13-14 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 13 recites the limitation "said carbon black" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11, from which claim 13 depends, does not previously recite a carbon black. It is therefore unclear to what is being referred to as said carbon black. For purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 12 instead of claim 11 as claim 12 recites a carbon black.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said silica" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11, from which claim 14 depends, does not previously recite a silica. It is therefore unclear to what is being referred to as said silica. For purposes of examination, claim 14 is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 12 instead of claim 11 as claim 12 recites a silica.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoseyov et al. (US 20130171439 A1) in view of Maldas et al. (CA 2029727 A1). Lew, Christopher P. Integrated Forest Biorefineries. RSC Publishing, 2013 (“Lew”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, Shoseyov teaches a composite material comprising a polymer and nanocellulose (cellulose nanomaterials) (Shoseyov, Abstract, and Par. 0021-0023). Shoseyov teaches the polymer can be a polyethylene terephthalate (Shoseyov, Par. 0039), which is the same as the instant hydrophobic polymer per the instant claims 8-9 and therefore Shoseyov’s polymer satisfies the limitation of a hydrophobic polymer. Shoseyov teaches a weight ratio of the nanocellulose to the polymer is from 1:100 to 100:1 (Shoseyov, Par. 0042), which includes embodiments in which the composite material comprises the nanocellulose in a range of amounts which overlap, and therefore render obvious, the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Shoseyov teaches the nanocellulose may be nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) and/or microfibrilated cellulose (MFC) (Shoseyov, Par. 0022 and 0047-0052). Shoseyov describes NCC as being elongated crystalline rod-like nanoparticles (Shoseyov, Par. 0024), which satisfies the claimed limitation of nanocrystals. Shoseyov describes MFC as encompassing nanofibrilated cellulose (NFC) (Shoseyov, Par. 0024), which satisfies the claimed limitation of nanofibrils. Since Shoseyov does not recite that the nanocellulose is required to comprise any additional components, Shoseyov is reasonably interpreted as teaching nanocellulose which consists of a blend of nanofibrils and nanocrystals.
Shoseyov is silent regarding the composite comprising about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% lignin, wherein the nanocellulose is lignin coated, wherein a coating material is disposed at an interface between the hydrophobic polymer and said nanocellulose, wherein said coating material is in contact with said hydrophobic polymer and with said nanocellulose, wherein said coating material consists of at least some of said lignin, and wherein said polymer and said at least some of said lignin are physically entangled at said interface.
Maldas teaches a composite material comprising a thermoplastic polymer, a cellulose component, and a coupling agent wherein the coupling agent is lignin (Maldas, Abstract, Page 1 Lines 8-12 and Page 4 Line 8 – Page 6 Line 58). Maldas teaches that the attachment of lignin to the surface of lignocellulosic materials is a convenient way to increase the strength of reconstructed fibers and particle materials (Maldas, Page 6 Lines 17-20). Maldas teaches coating the cellulose fibers with lignin coupling agent to allow adhesion between the thermoplastic polymers and the cellulose fibers (Maldas, Page 6 Lines 30-40). Maldas teaches the cellulose fibers is mixed with the coupling agent to form fibers which are coated with the coupling agent (Maldas, Abstract, Page 7 Lines 1-4 and Page 9 Lines 49-59). Maldas teaches utilizing from 0.5-10 wt.% or more of the lignin relative to the weight of the thermoplastic polymer (Maldas, Page 6 Lines 30-40). The Examiner notes that while Maldas teaches that the coupling agent may comprise a mixture a mixture of coupling agents such a lignin and isocyanate, the coupling agent may just be lignin (Maldas, Abstract, Page 4 lines 19-21 and Page 7 lines 28-51 – Example 1). As such, Maldas reasonably teaches coating the cellulose fibers with only lignin as the coupling agent, and therefore teaches the coating consists of the lignin.
Shoseyov and Maldas are analogous art as they both teach composite materials comprising cellulose materials and a thermoplastic polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated the nanocellulose of Shoseyov with lignin to serve as a coupling agent. This would allow for better adhesion between the polymer and the nanocellulose (Maldas, Page 6 Lines 30-40). This would further result in an amount of lignin of 0.5-10 wt.% based on the weight of the polymer, which would result in an amount of lignin that renders obvious the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Since the cellulose nanomaterials would have been coated with the lignin coupling agent, the lignin coupling agent would have formed an interface between the polymer and the nanocellulose as required by the instant claim 1. The lignin coated nanocellulose would have read on the lignin-coated nanocellulose recited in the instant claim 1. Furthermore, as the lignin couples to the polymer as taught by Maldas above, this would result in at least some of the lignin being physically entangled with the polymer as required by the instant claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Shoseyov teaches a weight ratio of the nanocellulose to the polymer is from 1:100 to 100:1 (Shoseyov, Par. 0042), which includes embodiments in which the composite material comprises the nanocellulose in a range of amounts which overlap, and therefore render obvious, the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 4, modified Shoseyov teaches a content of the lignin relative to the polymer is 0.5-10 wt.% (Maldas, Page 6 Lines 30-40), which includes embodiments in which the composite material comprises the lignin in a range of amounts which overlap, and therefore render obvious, the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Shoseyov teaches that the lignin may be lignosulfate (i.e. sulfonated lignin) (Maldas, Page 5 Lines 57-59). Lew serves as evidence that lignosulfonates have a degree of sulfonization of up to 0.5 per phenylpropanoid which corresponds to a sulfur content of up to 8 wt.% (Lew, Page 32 – section 1.2.2.3.1) which overlaps the claim 6 range of about 0.1 to about 10 wt.% and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 7, modified Shoseyov teaches the nanocellulose is coated with lignin as stated above for claim 1 and is therefore lignin-encapsulated nanocellulose (Maldas, Abstract, Page 1 Lines 8-12 and Page 4 Line 8 – Page 6 Line 58).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Shoseyov teaches the hydrophobic polymer may be polyester that is polyethylene terephthalate (Shoseyov, Par. 0039).
Regarding claim 11, modified Shoseyov teaches the polymer may include compatibilized blends and thus teaches the composite comprises an additive that is a compatibilizer (Shoseyov, Par. 0039). Alternatively, modified Shoseyov teaches additives can be included in the composite which would naturally fill up some volume and thus satisfy the limitation of a filler (Shoseyov, Par. 0056).
Regarding claim 15, modified Shoseyov teaches said composite is a foam (Shoseyov, Abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoseyov et al. in view of Maldas et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Hamad et al. (US 20110196094 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shoseyov teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 9. Modified Shoseyov is silent regarding the hydrophobic polymer being polylactide.
Hamad teaches a polymer-nanocellulose composite comprising a hydrophobic polymer that is polylactic acid (PLA) and a nanocellulose material (Hamad, Abstract, Par. 0002, and 0007-0008).
Modified Shoseyov and Hamad are analogous art as they both teach polymer-nanocellulose composite materials comprising a hydrophobic polymer and nanocellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polylactic acid as the hydrophobic polymer of modified Shoseyov. This would allow for a dimensionally stable composite with gas barrier properties and good mechanical performance (Hamad, Abstract).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoseyov et al. in view of Maldas et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Plastics Additives (Plastics Additives: An A-Z reference, Geoffrey Pritchard, Ed. Spring Science+Business Medea, 1998).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Shoseyov teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Shoseyov teaches that the composite material may comprise additional materials in order to modify the composite’s appearance (Shoseyov, Par. 0056).
Modified Shoseyov is silent regarding said composite further comprising one or more additives selected from the group consisting of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, graphene, silica, and combinations thereof as required by claim 12, wherein the carbon black is present as required by claim 13.
Plastics Additives teaches that carbon black is by far the most important black pigment and is the second most used pigment in plastics industry (Plastics Additives, Page 491 – under “Black Pigments”). Plastics Additives also teaches that carbon black excels at protecting polymer against weathering as a result of a combination of UV absorption and their ability to function at the particle surface as traps for radicals formed in photodecomposition (Plastics Additives, Page 491 – under “Black Pigments”).
Modified Shoseyov and Plastics Additives are analogous art as they both teach polymeric materials comprising a coloring additive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated carbon black into the composite material of modified Shoseyov as taught by Plastics Additives. This would allow for the providing of a black color to the composite while at the same time protecting it against weathering.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoseyov et al. in view of Maldas et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shiramizu et al. (US 20120328877 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, modified Shoseyov teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Modified Shoseyov teaches that the composite material may comprise additional materials (Shoseyov, Par. 0056).
Modified Shoseyov is silent regarding said composite further comprising one or more additives selected from the group consisting of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, graphene, silica, and combinations thereof as required by claim 12, wherein the silica is present as required by claim 14.
Shiramizu teaches a nanocellulose composite material comprising a filler that is silica (Shiramizu, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0009, and 0035).
Modified Shoseyov and Shiramizu are analogous art as they bot teach nanocellulose composite materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the silica of Shiramizu into the composite material of modified Shoseyov. This would allow for a filler material to fill up the volume of the composite (Shiramizu, Par. 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights