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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art is silent on adding a surfactant to a lignin composite. However, Applicant has not provided an argument to address the combination of Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich which is cited as teaching this feature. Furthermore, as noted previously and below, Friedrich teaches adding a soap surfactant (0023, 0056-0058 and 0101) to a PVA based composition (0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba in view of Laleg’s process by having the step of curing include a step of adding a soap surfactant to the composite mixture. Thus, the claims remain rejected over the combination of references previously cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agumba et al. (“High-performance Esterified-Poly(vinyl alcohol)-Citric Acid-Lignin resin and its application to Wet-spun nanocellulose Filament-Reinforced polymer composite”) in view of Laleg et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0040273) and Friedrich et al. (EP 3207082) Nitta (U.S. PGPUB No. 2009/0247698).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12, Agumba teaches a process comprising combining lignin, citric acid and poly(vinyl alcohol) to form a precursor mixture (Section 2.2, note this mixture will be thermosetting as lignin is thermosetting and crosslinked as citric acid acts as a crosslinking agent); compressing the precursor mixture at 10.1 MPa (approximately 1465 psi); and drying at ambient conditions and room temperature followed by heat curing at a temperature of less than 300 ºC (Section 2.6 and Figure 2). Agumba fails to teach mixing the precursor mixture with an additional aggregate filler as claimed and the curing comprising adding a surfactant, such as soap, to the lignin composition. Agumba further fails to teach the inclusion of an esterification catalyst.
First, Laleg teaches lignin compositions (abstract) comprising: lignin (abstract), polymer (0045), a reactive component, such as an acid (0037), and a colorant, such as silica (0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba’s process by additionally mixing the lignin based precursor with silica, similar to the process disclosed by Laleg. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for coloring Agumba’s composition to yield an aesthetically pleasing final product, as well as providing improved abrasion resistance as silica is known for reinforcing compositions and providing abrasion resistance.
Second, Friedrich teaches adding a soap surfactant (0023, 0056-0058 and 0101) to a PVA based composition (0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba in view of Laleg’s process by having the step of curing include a step of adding a soap surfactant to the composite mixture. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the inclusion of a surfactant will aid in forming a uniform dispersion and will yield products with improved properties.
Finally, Nitta teaches utilizing a titanium esterification catalyst (0028) to esterify PVA (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich’s process by including a titanium esterification catalyst in the mixture. One would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the reaction speed (see Nitta at 0029).
2. Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0255817).
I. Regarding claim 2, Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta make obvious claim 1 but fail to teach the lignin comprising dealkaline lignin. However, Gupta teaches the use of dealkaline lignin (0059) provides improved strength in polymer composites as compared to alkali lignin (Figures 8A and 8B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta’s process/lignin based material by substituting dealkaline lignin for Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta’s lignin. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved strength to Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta’s resultant composite product.
II. Regarding claim 13, Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach pouring the composite into a mold prior to compressing. However, Gupta similarly teaches lignin polymer composites (0132) prepared by hot pressing, wherein the composition is poured into a mold followed by hot pressing (0133). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Agumba in view of Laleg and Friedrich and Nitta’s process by pouring the composition into a mold prior to hot pressing. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for the composite to provide hot pressed products having a desired size and/or shape induced by the mold.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-13 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11-13 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
October 1, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
