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 .
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/034319 09/14/2022
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
JAPAN 2021-192970 11/29/2021
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 appear to be of the same scope.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 recites a packed bulk density. The limitation is indefinite because the claim does not recite how the packed bulk density is measured, and the packed bulk density depends on its method of measurement. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation by reference.
Claim 3 recites “water-soluble high polymers.” The limitation is indefinite because the specification does not provide a definition or guidance for what is meant by “high.” “High” is a relative term.
Claims 7-14 are drawn to methods which require determining viscosity in accordance with JIS-Z8803 (2011) “Methods for Viscosity Measurement of Liquid” at 25°C at 6 rpm. This limitation is unclear because the method is not described in the claim. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference is permitted only in exception circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for Applicant’s convenience. MPE 2173.05(s).
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koshkava (Powder Technology 261 (2014) 288-298).
Koshkava teaches spray freeze drying of cellulose nanocrystals to obtain a powder with a porous structure. A filament-like agglomerate structure consisting of nanofibers
was formed at a low CNC concentration of 2 wt%. See abstract. The CNC powder which was subjected to spray freeze drying was as follows in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The thickness of fibers was 20-65 nm. Page 294, Section 4.3. The particle size was about 20 µm. Figure 8a. The specific surface area was 40-45 m2/g (Figure 11). Because the cellulose nanofibers were dried and contained no additional components, negligible water was present so the particles comprised 50 mass% or more fine cellulose fibers.
Koshkava is silent regarding the packed bulk density. The claimed properties are considered to be inherent in Koshkava’s product because Koshkava’s product was prepared in the same way as the product in the current specification (spray freeze drying a 2% solution of cellulose nanofibers).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimaoka (US 2019/0085511 A1, March 21, 2019, cited on IDS).
Shimaoka teaches a composition containing ultrafine cellulose fibers [0001]. The mean diameter of the composition is 100 to 1350 µm [0017], preferably 500 to 1200 µm [0095]. The average fiber width is 1000 nm or smaller [0031]. The bulk density is 0.1 to 0.7 g/mL [0017]. The specific surface area is 20-500 m2/g [0115]. The composition contains inorganic fine particles which are silica fine particles [0017]. The composition is redispersed in a solvent such as water and polyhydric alcohol [0187]. The water content of the composition is preferably 10% by mass or smaller [0182], leaving ~90% as ultrafine cellulose fibers.
The current specification paragraph [0054] states that the porosity is a function of the claimed specific surface area. Since Shimaoka teaches the same specific surface area which is recited in the current claims, Shimaoka’s particles are inherently porous.
Shimaoka teaches ranges of particle size and bulk density which overlap with the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to prepare Shimaoka’s product having an average particle size of 0.1 to 1000 µm and a bulk density of 0.1 to 200 mg/cm3. Shimaoka teaches a particle size of 100 to 1350, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1000. Shimaoka teaches a bulk density of 0.1-0.7, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 200. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimaoka (US 2019/0085511 A1, March 21, 2019) in view of Lin (US20190367638A1).
Shimaoka teaches as set forth above, but is silent about the B-type viscosity of the dispersion other than to say that the viscosity may be regulated in an appropriate range [0049].
Lin teaches that the viscosity of an aqueous dispersion of cellulose nanofibers is preferably 1000 mPas to 18000 mPas (1000-18000 cps) [0072]. The TI value is 3 to 30 or 5 to 20 [0073]. The fiber diameter is 1-500 nm (see abstract). Inorganic particles can also be included [0088].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to prepare the Shimoaka dispersion having a viscosity of about 1000 mPa (equal to 1000 cps) and a Ti value of 2 or more because Shimoaka teaches that the viscosity can be regulated as appropriate, and Lin teaches that 1000 mPa is an acceptable viscosity for a dispersion of cellulose nanofibers. Lin also teaches that the Ti value is greater than 2.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights