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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20190367638) and JPH11106310.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 13-14, 16-17, Lin teaches hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers which comprise applicant’s (A) cellulose nanofiber(s) which can be urethanized with an isocyanate which is bound to a hydroxy group on the cellulose nanofibers through a urethane bond, and wherein the cellulose nanofiber further comprises an anionic functional group, specifically wherein the anionic functional group is the claimed sulfate ester group (See entire document; [0143-0166]; abstract; claims; [0019]; [0028]; [0031]; [0144-0147];).
Regarding claim 15, Lin teaches wherein an aqueous dispersion of the cellulose nanofiber has the claimed transmittance and the claimed fiber width (See entire document; [0143-0166]; sections cited above).
Regarding claims 20-31, Lin teaches wherein their hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers which contain the claimed anionic groups and are/can be urethanized with isocyanates for hydrophobicity are useful in paints and cosmetics, and have antiviral activity (see entire document; [0143-0166]; [0081]).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Regarding claims 13-19, Lin does not specifically teach wherein the isocyanates for modification are the instantly claimed (B) specifically those of instant claims 18-19. However, these deficiencies in Lin are addressed by JPH11106310.
Regarding claims 20-31, Lin does not teach wherein their hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers which are/can be modified with isocyanate groups and contain the claimed anionic groups are used to form a dispersion wherein the hydrophobic cellulose nanofiber is dispersed in an oil agent, specifically the claimed oil agent(s). However, this deficiency in Lin is addressed by JPH11106310.
JPH11106310 teaches emulsion compositions for cosmetics, etc. which comprise silicone polysaccharides wherein the polysaccharides can be the claimed modified cellulose, e.g. esterified, sulfated (e.g. sulfate esters), phosphorylated, and wherein the cellulose is further urethanized with the claimed silicone isocyanate monomers of applicant’s formula, specifically they prefer the claimed tristrimethylsiloxysilylpropyl isocyanate as it was the silicone isocyanate used in JPH11106310’s production example 1 which are dispersed in the oil phase of the claimed oil agent (C), which is then incorporated into a cosmetic emulsion (see entire document; abstract; [0001-0034]; production example 1). JPH11106310 further teaches wherein the oil agent can be the claimed silicone oils, hydrocarbon oils, etc. ([0001-0034, inclusive due to the lack of paragraph number in English translation]). Regarding claim 24, JPH11106310 teaches wherein the oil agent should be from 2 wt% or more of the cosmetic formulation and wherein the silicone containing polysaccharide is usually from 0.1 to 20 wt% of the cosmetic composition and that the amounts of the silicone containing polysaccharide are varied depending upon the cosmetic form the emulsion is intended to be used in (See [0022]) and as such it would be obvious to optimize the amounts of the oil agent and the silicone containing polysaccharide/silicone isocyanate modified cellulose to read on the claimed mass ratios in order to form the most effective stabilized emulsion for use in cosmetics. Especially since, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have modified the sulfate ester cellulose nanofibers of Lin with the claimed silicone isocyanates as are taught by JPH11106310 because Lin teaches that their sulfate ester cellulose nanofibers can be urethanized with isocyanates which are not limited in scope to better hydrophobized/functionalize the nanofibers for use in cosmetics and paints, etc. in order to better provide stabilized paint and cosmetic emulsions/formulations. It would have been obvious to modify the cellulose nanofibers of Lin with the specifically claimed organopolysiloxane isocyanates which are taught by JPH11106310 to be used for modification of cellulose and anionic modified celluloses because these modifications increase the hydrophobicity of the cellulose nanofibers and allow for the use of reduced amounts of conventional surfactants while also providing for stable emulsions for cosmetic purposes which is an intended use of the cellulose nanofibers of Lin and therefore by treating the cellulose/cellulose fibers with the claimed organopolysiloxane isocyanates which are taught by JPH11106310 ([0005-0019]) to form the claimed organopolysiloxane urethane modified cellulose nanofibers which would allow for increased stability to the cosmetics and paints/emulsified cosmetics and paints, etc. of Lin.
It also would have been obvious to select isocyanate containing organopolysiloxanes of JPH11106310 which are the same as those instantly claimed to allow for the cellulose nanofibers of Lin to maintain the desired fiber width and transmittance since these were already beneficial properties for the cellulose nanofibers to have when being used in cosmetics and paints as is taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would select the claimed organopolysiloxanes of JPH11106310 because they are known to afford very beneficial properties to celluloses being used in cosmetics as discussed above and as such would also be expected to afford these stability benefits to the cellulose nanofibers of Lin when used in forming cosmetics and cosmetic emulsions as discussed herein.
Regarding claim 25, this is a property which is result effective of forming the claimed hydrophobic cellulose nanofibers which are rendered obvious by the combined references. Thus, because this property is result effective of forming the claimed polymers which are rendered obvious by Lin and JPH11106310 for the reasons discussed above. These nanofibers as taught by the combined prior art would therefore have the claimed light transmittance claimed as this is a result effective property which would naturally flow from forming the claimed fibers which are taught by/rendered obvious by the prior art references for the reasons discussed above.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET 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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights