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 .
Response to Amendment
All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 4/6/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 4/6/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to limit the average elongation of both elongated and rounded cellulose and/or lignocellulose fibers and the relative amount of elongated fibers, and claims 25-29 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-21, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 11,655,358).
With respect to claims 1-4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 25, 28, and 29 Sato discloses a cellulose fiber-reinforced polyolefin resin composition and exemplifies (Example 11) a composition comprising 100 parts by weight (pbw) polypropylene, 6.8 pbw KC Flock W-100 (cellulose fiber having average aspect ratio of 8.5, i.e., average elongation = 0.12) and 6.8 pbw Arbocel FD600-30 (cellulose fiber having average fiber diameter of 35 µm and average length of 45 µm, i.e., average elongation = 0.78) (Table 1, Example 11; col. 7, lines 60-67). The former reads on claimed elongated cellulose fiber, and the latter reads on claimed rounded cellulose fiber.
Sato fails to disclose (i) that there is relatively more elongated cellulose fiber than rounded cellulose fiber or (ii) that rounded cellulose fibers having average elongation of 0.325-0.750
With respect to (i), while Sato exemplifies equal amounts of elongated and rounded cellulosefibers in Example 11, it is the examiner’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Evidence to support this position is found in other examples in Table 1 which include Arbocel FD60-30 (rounded fiber) and KC FLOCK W-100 (elongated fiber) by themselves. Therefore, each fiber is appropriately use on its own and each one used in a blend with a greater amount of elongated cellulose fiber. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the mixture of two cellulose fibers with the elongated in a greater amount than the rounded fibers.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix and a mixture of two cellulose fibers comprising relatively more elongated cellulose fibers than rounded cellulose fibers.
With respect to (ii), exemplified Arbocel FD600-30 is a rounded cellulose fiber having average fiber diameter of 35 µm and average length of 45 µm, i.e., average elongation = 0.78 (col. 7, lines 60-63) which does not overlap with claimed 0.325-0.70. While not in the examples, Sato teaches that Arbocel cellulose fibers can have diameter of 15-35 µm and length of 18-2,200 µm (col. 4, lines 28-29). As an illustration, should only the diameter of the exemplified Arbocel be reduced to 15 µm, the calculated average elongation is 0.33. Alternatively, should only the length of the exemplified Arbocel be increased to 100 µm, the calculated average elongation is 0.35. Therefore, Sato fairly discloses other average elongation values lower than 0.78.
Given that the exemplified elongated cellulose fiber has an average elongation of 0.78 and further given that Sato teaches that Arbocel elongated cellulose fibers have a range of diameters and lengths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the diameter and length of the rounded cellulose fiber of exemplified rounded cellulose fiber to fairly select an average elongation of up to 0.750, 0.650, and 0.450—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
With respect to claim 5, Example 11 includes total 10 wt % of cellulose fibers.
With respect to claim 6, Sato teaches that the amount of cellulose fiber is 6-95 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the polyolefin resin (col. 10, line 17-28). Sato also exemplifies an amount of cellulose fiber of up to 50 wt % (see Example 12 in Table 1).
With respect to claim 12, the exemplified cellulose fibers have average length of 315 µm (col. 7, lines 64-67) (calculated from average aspect ratio and average fiber diameter) for elongated cellulose fiber and 45 µm for rounded cellulose fiber (col. 7, lines 60-63).
With respect to claim 15, the amount of polypropylene in Example 11 is 73 wt % (Table 1).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Example 11 (Table 1) comprises maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-butene copolymer as compatibilizer.
With respect to claim 18, in Example 11, Sato includes 23.3 parts by mass (i.e., 17 wt % of maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-butene copolymer as compatibilizer).
This total amount of polymeric compatibilizer is outside the claimed range of 0.5-5 wt %, however, Sato teaches the amount of acid (maleic anhydride) grafting is 0.1-10 wt %. Based on Example 1, the amount of maleic anhydride (i.e., the portion that compatibilizes the polypropylene to the cellulose) is present in an amount of 0.017-1.7 wt %.
Give that Sato teaches the compatibilizing amount of maleic anhydride in the acid-modified polymer that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5-5 wt %, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art utilize the maleic anhydride of Sato within the claimed range.
With respect to claim 19, Sato discloses that additives include filler, antioxidant, UV absorber, a flame retardant, or colorant (col. 5, lines 1-4).
With respect to claims 20 and 21, Sato discloses mixing and extruding the composition and forming into a composite article by injection molding and cutting into a test piece (i.e., a granulate) (col. 9, lines 16-27).
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Sato teaches that the elongated cellulose by KC Flock having an aspect ratio of 4-10 (col. 4, lines 20-26), which provide for elongation ratio of 0.1-0.25 for elongated cellulose fibers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 11,655,358) in view of Kimura (US 5,810,796).
The discussion with respect to Sato in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
Sato fails to disclose that the cellulose fibers are sourced from pulp fibers derived from chemical or mechanical ways.
In Example 11, Sato includes a cellulose fiber of tradename KC Flock W-100.
Kimura teaches that KC Flock W-100 that hydrophilic cellulose fine fiber prepared by hydrolyzing, washing with water, drying, and mechanically grinding (col. 12, lines 49-53), i.e., chemithermomechanical pulp fibers.
Given that Sato exemplifies cellulose fibers that are prepared by hydrolyzing, washing, drying, and mechanically grinding as taught by Sato, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include chemi-thermomechanical pulp fibers as source of all cellulose fibers.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-21, and 25-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 10-21 of copending Application No. 18/675,357 (published as PGPub US 2024/0400773). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US appl ‘357 claims a cellulosic composite comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix and 5-80 wt % cellulose and/or lignocellulose fibers comprising a mixture of elongated fibers having average elongation equal to or less than 0.300 and rounded fibers having an average elongation equal to at least 0.325—wherein the mass fraction of rounded fibers is equal to or larger than the mass fraction of elongated fibers.
The present claims state that the amount of elongated is larger than the amount of rounded fibers.
Although US appl ‘357 claims the amount of rounded fibers is equal to or larger than the amount of elongated fibers, it is the examiner’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same properties. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a cellulosic composite comprising a larger amount of elongated fibers than rounded fibers based on the claims of US appl ‘357.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
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 VICKEY NERANGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2701. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. 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.
/VICKEY NERANGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
vn
Prosecution Insights