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All outstanding rejections, except for those maintained below, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment filed on 6/26/2026.
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 6/26/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to further limit the average elongation both both elongated fibers and rounded fibers, and claims 25-29 are new. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 12-17, 19-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 11,655,358).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13-15, 25, 28, and 29, Sato discloses a cellulose fiber-reinforced polyolefin resin composition and exemplifies compositions comprising polypropylene, 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, i.e., rounded), and KC Flock W-100 (cellulose fiber having average aspect ratio of 8.5, i.e., average elongation = 0.12, i.e., elongated) (Table 1; col. 7, lines 60-67). In Examples 7-10 and 12, a greater amount of rounded fibers (Arbocel FD600-30) than elongated fibers (KC Flock W-100) is used. In Example 11, an equal amount of the cellulose fibers is added. Specifically, Example 7 includes 100 parts by weight (pbw) polypropylene, 27.3 pbw Arbocel FD600-30 (rounded), and 14.5 pbw KC Flock W-100 (elongated), which provides for a weight ratio of rounded to elongated of 65:35 and composite comprising 55 wt % polypropylene and 23 wt % cellulose fibers.
Sato fails to explicitly disclose that the rounded cellulose fiber have an average elongation of 0.325-0.750.
Exemplified Arbocel FD600-30 is a rounded cellulose fiber having average fiber diameter of 35 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 disclose the average elongation values within claimed range of 0.325-0.75.
Given that exemplified rounded cellulose fiber has an average elongation of 0.78 and further given that Sato teaches that Arbocel cellulose fibers having 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 to fairly select an average elongation of 0.325 up to 0.750, 0.650, and 0.450—absent a showing of unexpected or surprising results.
With respect to claim 12, the exemplified fibers have average length of 315 µm (col. 7, lines 64-67) (calculated from average aspect ratio and average fiber diameter) for elongated fiber and 45 µm for rounded fiber (col. 7, lines 60-63).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Example 7 (Table 1) comprises maleic anhydride-modified ethylene-butene copolymer as compatibilizer.
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 exemplified elongated cellulose by KC Flock has an aspect ratio of 4-10 (col. 4, lines 20-26), which provides or elongation ratio of 0.1-0.25 for elongated cellulose fibers.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 11,655,358).
The discussion with respect to Sato in paragraph 5 above is incorporated here by reference.
With respect to claim 6, Example 7 of Sato includes 23 wt % cellulose fibers (Table 1).
Sato does not exemplify a composition comprising a mixture of rounded and elongated cellulose fibers in a total amount of 30-50 wt %, however, Sato discloses adding 6-95 parts by weight (pbw) of total cellulose fiber to 100 parts by pbw polyolefin (polypropylene).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the amount of cellulose fiber in the composite and still remain within the disclosure of Sato.
With respect to claim 18, in Example 7, Sato includes 30.9 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.
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, 5, 6, 10-21, and 25-29 of copending Application No. 18/675,209 (published as PGPub US 2024/0400772). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US appl ‘209 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 of 0.05-0.280 and rounded fibers having an average elongation of 0.325-0.750—wherein the mass fraction of elongated fibers is larger than the mass fraction of rounded fibers.
The present claims state that the amount of rounded fibers is equal to or larger than the amount of elongated fibers.
Although US appl ‘209 claims the amount of elongated fibers is larger than the amount of rounded 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 an equal or larger amount of rounded fiber than elongated 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 6/26/2026 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