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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aharon (US 2016/0177066) and further in view of Ziegenbein (US 2018/0002502).
Regarding claim 1, Aharon discloses a cellulosic preparation comprising 1 to 99% wt% or more of cellulose (0040), overlapping the claimed content of 2 to 99% by weight and having a mineral content of 0 to 15 wt% (0080), overlapping the content of less than 9% by weight.
Aharon further teaches an average particle size of 0.01 µm to 500 mm (0021), overlapping the claimed particle size of 1 to 250 nm; and caloric value in the range of 5000-16000 BTU/pound, overlapping the claimed 100 to 1803 KJ/100 grams.
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Aharon teaches the composition may include at least one additional plastic material (0011) however does not expressly disclose a synthetic fiber content of 0.001% to 3% by weight of the nanocellulose composition.
Ziegenbein, in the analogous field of nanocellulose compositions (0002), teaches a tissue or towel paper web comprising natural and/or man-made fibers and cellulose nanofilaments (0010). Man-made fibers including non-cellulosic fibers such as synthetic polymer fibers (0030) preferably added in amounts of up to about 2.5 wt% (0029), overlapping the claimed content of 0.001 to 3% by weight.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the plastics material of Aharon to include synthetic fibers, added in an amount of up to about 2.5 wt% of the nanocellulose composition, as taught by Ziegenbein, enhancing machining and/or strength properties of the webs (0011).
Regarding the overlapping ranges discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Please note, claim 1 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “produced form a cotton-rich textile product”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Aharon teaches hemicellulose content of 0-35 wt% (0080), overlapping the claimed 0.01 to 3% by weight (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Aharon teaches that their system removes grit from wastewater including undesired plastic particles (0085). While Aharon does not expressly teach a range for plastic content of less than 0.04% by weight as claimed, there is no evidence indicating the plastic content is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., Aharon teaches plastic removal), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Aharon does not teach the composition including a textile dye chemical content of 0.001 to 0.03% by weight.
Ziegenbein teaches the addition, if desired, of dye as an aesthetic additive (0063 and (0080).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the composition of Aharon to include textile dye as taught by Ziegenbein, providing a desired aesthetic to the composition.
While Ziegenbein does not expressly teach an amount of the additive to add, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the amount of dye for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Aharon does not teach the composition including a textile detergent content of less than 0.01% by weight of the nanocellulose composition.
Ziegenbein teaches the addition, if desired, of surfactants (instant textile detergent) in an amount of about 0.01 to about 2% by weight (0075), overlapping the claimed less than 0.1% by weight (MPEP 2144.05).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the composition of Aharon to include a surfactant as taught by Ziegenbein, enhancing the absorbency of the composition (0075).
Regarding claim 6, Aharon teaches a sand content of 0-15 wt% (0080), overlapping the claimed less than 1% by weight (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Aharon teaches a dirt content of 0-30 wt% (0080), overlapping the claimed less than 0.2% by weight (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Aharon teaches that their system removes grit from wastewater including undesired metals (0085). While Aharon does not expressly teach a range for metal content of less than 1% by weight as claimed, there is no evidence indicating the metal content is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e., Aharon teaches metal removal), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9-12, Aharon discloses the nanocellulose composition according to claim 1 as discussed above. Aharon teaches use of a cellulosic feedstock (0239) and the cellulosic preparation from wastewater ( 0002), however does not expressly teach the relative humidity of the feedstock, or the dry cotton-rich textile product is new or used cotton-rich clothing. Claims 9 and 10, however, include product by process language with regards to the recitation of “produced from a dry cotton-rich textile product”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 13, Aharon teaches the cellulosic preparation in the form of a powder (0188).
Regarding claim 14, Aharon teaches use in products such as paper, plastics, and medical (0284).
Please note however, the recitation in the claims that the nanocellulose composition is used “for producing at least one selected from the group…” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Aharon discloses the nanocellulose composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the nanocellulose composition of Aharon would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used for producing one of the listed products, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights