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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
All outstanding rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 8/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10-21, and 25-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 11,655,358) in view of Raj (US 5,120,776) in view of Drabeck, Jr. (US 6,942,829).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 13-15, 28, and 29-32 Sato discloses a cellulose fiber-reinforced polyolefin resin composition comprising 6-95 parts by mass cellulosic fiber to 100 parts by mass of polyolefin (abstract). Sato 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. Example 11 includes total 10 wt % of cellulose fibers and 73 wt % polyolefin.
Sato fails to disclose (i) that rounded cellulose fibers have average elongation of 0.325-0.750 or (ii) that there is relatively more elongated cellulose fiber than rounded cellulose fiber.
With respect to (i), Sato’s 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 0.325-0.75. 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).
Raj discloses polyethylene composite comprises cellulosic fibers comprising wood fibers (abstract) and teaches that mixtures of fibers having different average aspect ratios can be usefully employed (col. 2, lines 48-49) such as an average aspect ratio of 2-200 (col. 10, lines 3-4), i.e., elongation of up to 0.5.
Given that the exemplified elongated cellulose fiber has an average elongation of 0.78 and further given that Raj teaches that cellulose fibers in a polyethylene composite can have an elongation of up to 0.5, 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 (ii), Sato only exemplifies equal up to equal amounts of elongated and rounded cellulose fiber mixtures and not mixtures with relatively higher amount of elongated fiber (i.e., like claimed at least 55 wt %, 60 wt %, 70 wt %, and 75 wt %). While Sato does not exemplify these claimed amounts, it does not teach away from higher amounts of elongated and fiber and, in fact, exemplifies a composite with 100 wt % elongated fiber (e.g., Example 2, Table 1).
Drabeck, Jr. discloses a polymer-wood composite comprising a thermoplastic polymer such as preferred polyolefins (col. 2, lines 60) cellulosic material (abstract) and teaches that the cellulosic filler material includes reinforcing fibers (high aspect ratio, elongated which provides higher strength and modulus) and non-reinforcing (low aspect ratio, rounded) fibers (col. 3, lines 15-23). Drabeck, Jr. states that in some applications, it is desirable to have a blend with a major portion of a high aspect ratio fiber (elongated fiber) and a minor portion of a low aspect ratio (rounded) fiber (col. 3, lines 38-49).
Given that both Sato and Drabeck, Jr. are drawn to cellulose composite comprising polyolefin and mixtures of short and long fibers and further given that Drabeck, jr. teaches that mixtures containing relatively higher amounts of elongated fiber provides for improved mechanical properties, 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, including at least 55 wt %, 60 wt %, 70 wt %, and 75 wt %
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 claims 10 and 11, while Sato does not teach thermomechanical pulps, Raj teaches that suitable cellulose fibers includes thermomechanical and chemithermomechanical pulps (col. 2, lines 36-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize chemithermomechanial pulp in Sato’s composite comprising cellulosic fibers and polyolefin.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not utilize a higher mass fraction of elongated fibers in Sato’s composite.
First, case law holds “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967). Second, newly cited Drabeck, Jr has been relied upon in a new grounds of rejection set forth above to teach that in some applications, it is desirable to have a blend with a major portion of a high aspect ratio fiber (elongated fiber) and a minor portion of a low aspect ratio (rounded) fiber (col. 3, lines 38-49).
Applicant argues that the data of the instant specification (Tables 1 and 2) establishes unexpected results for adding a greater amount of elongated cellulose fibers relative to rounded cellulose fibers.
The data has been fully considered, however, it is insufficient to establish unexpected results for two reasons. First, the data appears to be expected given that an increase in elongated fibers reinforces (i.e., improved mechanical properties) of a composite., i.e., mechanical properties are expected to increase with the amount of reinforcing fiber. This trend is observed when comparing “Composite 1” (30:10) to Composite 2” (20:20) and “Reference composite 2” (10:30) of Tables 1 and 2 which illustrates a trend of increased tensile strength, flexural strength, elongation at break, and flexural elongation when the amount of reinforcing elongated fibers is increased (from 30:10 to 20:20 to 10:30). Applicant points to decreasing tensile strength with increased elongated fiber content from data in Tables 1 and 2 as evidence that elongated fibers do not expectedly, however, the only reference with a decrease is 100 mass % elongated fibers. For this comparative example, other factors can easily explain the decrease with 100% elongated such as decreased dispersion of elongated fibers as a result of difficulty molding longer fibers which will directly affect the mechanical properties. Evidenced for this position is found in Drabeck, Jr. in col. 3, lines 45-49 which states that “It will be appreciated that high aspect ratio fibers are generally more difficult to process.”
Second, even if the examples had established unexpected results, the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. Case law holds that evidence is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case if not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Specifically, comparing 20:20 to 30:10 is not representative of the claimed ratio therefore does not establish criticality for ratio of greater than 20:20 but less than 30:10. Also, the exemplified fibers are limited to elongated cellulose fiber with average elongation of 0.259 and rounded cellulose fiber with average elongation of 0.410, which are not representative of claimed ranges 0.050-0.280 and 0.325-0.750, respectively.
Conclusion
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