Detailed Action
The communications received 10/24/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 18-19, 22-23, 26-28, 30, 32, 34-36, and 38-39 are pending.
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.
Claim 3, 5, and 11-12 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.
As for claims 3 and 5 the limitations use the alternative of comprising or consisting of, this makes the claim unclear as consisting of creates a more restrictive limitation while comprising creates a more open limitation. It is unclear whether the claim is meant to be narrowed. For purposes of examination the claim is understood to solely recite “comprising”.
As for claim 11, the recitation of “typically non-covalent inter-fibre bonding” as it is unclear whether the claim is mean to be further limited by this typical behavior or whether the typical behavior is an exemplar. For purposes of examination this is understood to be an optional example.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second pulp composition" in claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination it is read as if it depends off claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-13, 18-19, 22-23, 28, 30, 32, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKay et al (US 2011/0262377) hereinafter MCK.
As for claim 1 MCK teaches a method comprising:
- providing a wet pulp composition comprising cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibers [Abstract; 0018];
- mixing the wet pulp composition, with at least one additive chemical to obtain a mixture of wet pulp and the at least one additive chemical (maleic anhydride) [0103];
- at a consistency of the mixture of less than 80% (20-35% which falls within the claimed range) [0028], preparing cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic particles from the mixture;
and drying the particles [0030].
As for claim 3, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein the wet pulp composition comprises wet wood pulp having a consistency of less than 60% (20-35% which falls within the claimed range) [0028].
As for claim 4, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein the wet pulp composition is a never-dried pulp composition (as it is understood to be directly applied to the mat/web producing drying and is otherwise silent to any previous drying) [0028-31].
As for claim 5, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein the wet pulp composition comprises chemical pulp [0023-25; 0027].
As for claim 8, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein said at least one additive chemical is selected from the group consisting of: biopolymers (carboxymethyl cellulose) [0103-105], carboxymethyl cellulose [0103-105].
As for claim 9, MCK teaches claim 1 and further comprising, before said particle preparation step, mixing the wet pulp composition with a second pulp composition comprising cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibers, wherein the composition of the second pulp composition is different from the composition of the wet pulp composition (mixing two pulps together before forming a web to generate a mixed pulp, and/or the addition of MCF pulp) [0018; 0020; 0059-62].
As for claim 10, MCK teaches claim 9 and wherein the second pulp composition has a consistency of at least 5% (as it is understood to have a similar consistency to the first pulp of 20-35% which falls within the claimed range) [0028].
As for claim 12, MCK teaches claim 9 and wherein one or both of the web pulp composition and the second pulp composition comprises fibrillated pulp (MCF) [0059-62].
As for claim 13, MCK teaches claim 1 and further comprising before said particle preparation step, dewatering the pulp composition to a consistency of at least 20% (via wire to 20-35 wt.%) [0028].
As for claim 18, MCK teaches that a product is obtained [Abstract].
As for claim 19, MCK teaches claim 18 and that the product comprises the derived particles which comprise non-agglomerated cellulosic or lignocellulosic fibers (as there would naturally be at least some loose cellulosic fibers that would happen to be a part of the article).
As for claim 22, MCK teaches claim 18 and wherein the dry matter content of the product is at least 85wt% (88-97 wt. % which falls within the claimed range) [0030].
As for claim 23, MCK teaches claim 18 and wherein the product comprises at least 80 wt.% of cellulosic and/or lignocellulosic fibers calculated of total dry matter (as the pulp can be essentially solely the matrix material which then would entirely comprise the dry matter amounts above which fall within the claimed range) [see claim 22; 0027-31].
As for claim 28, MCK teaches claim 18 and as the entirety of the article can be non-plastic which gives a 0 wt.% of plastic, this falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 30, MCK teaches claim 18 and wherein the length weighted average fibre length is larger than 0.5 mm (3-5 mm which falls within the claimed range) [0051].
As for claim 32, MCK teaches claim 18 and wherein the particles (as the statement in the teaching is that the fibrous materials have this density therefore it is a dry density) have a dry density of 150-800 kg / meters cubed which falls within the claimed range (the lowest 0.15 g/cm cubed to the highest 0.8 g/meters cubed) [0107].
As for claim 38, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein fibers in the particles are dispersible to a molten thermoplastic or thermoset matrix to obtain a dispersion of the fibers in the molten matrix (as thermoset materials can be combined with the pulp, the thermoset matric understood to be in its molten liquid state) [0073-75].
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.
Claim(s) 14, 27, 34-36, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCK.
As for claim 14, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein during said particle preparation the mixture has a consistency of 10-80% (as the pulp starts off with a consistency of 30-60 wt. % then to 88-97 wt.% which means that during the particle preparation the mixture would have an overlapping consistency with the claimed range) [0029-30].
As for claim 27, MCK teaches claim 18 and that the produced product can be hydrophobic [0102] which means that the water contact angle of the particles in the article would require a water contact angle of greater than 90 degrees which overlaps the claimed range.
As for claim 34, this is understood to be a combination of claims 1 and 32, claim 32 has an overlapping range of the dry density.
As for claim 35, MCK teaches claim 34 and that the particles are 3D (as fibers) and have all three dimensions in the millimeter range (as generally speaking cellulose fibers are 30 mm wide and 2-3 mm long, the matrix material used as the pulp in claim 34 is understood to be of the general cellulosic type) [0061].
As for claim 36, MCK teaches claim 34 and for the teachings pertaining to plastic material see claim 28 and otherwise the dry matter can be up to 90-94 wt. % which would leave a range of 6-10 wt.% water which falls within the claimed range [0030].
As for claim 39, MCK teaches claim 1 and wherein during the mixing step, the wet pulp composition has a consistency of 10-30% (as it is understood that some mixing continues on the wire which causes the consistency to be about 20-35 wt.% which overlaps the claimed range) [0028].
Claim(s) 7, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCK in view of ALDÉN et al (US 2020/0318292) hereinafter ALD.
As for claim 7, MCK teaches claim 1 but does not teach wherein said at least one additive chemical comprises a hydrophobization agent which makes the fibers or fibre surfaces more hydrophobic such that a certain COBB value is reached.
ALD teaches a pulp derived product and the method of its production [Abstract] in which a COBB value of less than 50 g/meters squared is achieved upon the application of sufficient hydrophobization agent (sizing) such as an alkylketene dimer (AKD) [0051; 0141], this is done to improve the waterproofing of the resultant product [0050].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the hydrophobization agent of ALD and its resultant COBB value to the additive of MCK in order to improve the waterproofing of the resultant product of MCK. As both ALD and MCK pertain to pulp products formed with additives added around the head box [ALD: 0054] they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 26, MCK teaches claim 18 and MCK/ALD as applied to claim 7 teach that the particles/fibers would have the COBB value.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCK in view of Kim et al (US 2023/0085774) hereinafter KIM.
As for claim 11, MCK teaches claim 9 and but does not teach wherein the second pulp composition comprises modified wood pulp fibers which are capable of decreasing inter-fibre interactions typically non-covalent inter-fibre bonding.
KIM teaches a pulp composition comprising modified wood pulp fibers which are capable of decreasing inter-fibre interactions in order to improve the strength of the paper [Abstract; 0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had any one of the pulps of MCK or both include the modifying strength additive of KIM which reduces inter-fibre interactions in order to improve the resultant paper strength of MCK. As both KIM and MCK.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights