Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 4/2/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 17-27 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-27 remain 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASKAR (US-2019/0225809), hereinafter NASKAR. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, NASKAR discloses A polymer blend material {[abstract]} comprising the following components:
(i) a lignin component; (ii) a nitrile butadiene rubber component {[abstract], [0006], [0013] note that lignin is a subcomponent in (i) thus lignin can be considered (i) and acrylonitrile rubber can be considered (ii), [0024] note NBR or nitrile butadiene rubber};
and (iii) a filler component comprising ceramic particles, wherein component (iii) is present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0030] note additional component is the filler or component (iii) and note that silica is ceramic as evidenced by instant claims 11-12, note the concentration of less than 10 wt% of polymer blend or components (i) and (ii)};
wherein component (i) is present in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 95 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0026] note lignin is present from 5 wt% to 95 wt% in the mixture of lignin (i) and rubber (ii)}.
The Examiner notes that NASKAR teaches a filler or component (iii) concentration of 10 wt% or less that encompasses the claimed range of 0.1-10 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Modified NASKAR, however, is silent on the silica particle size range or the last limitation of claim 1 reciting “ceramic particles having an average primary particle size of 1-100 nm”.
In another embodiment for filler being carbon particles, NASKAR teaches that the carbon particles could have a size between 1-100 nm {[0031]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the teachings of NASKAR regarding the carbon particle size to the silica particle sizes of NASKAR. This would have been obvious to an artisan, since NASKAR discloses that both particles have the same functionality {[0030]}.
Regarding claim 2, NASKAR discloses wherein said lignin component is a hardwood lignin, softwood lignin, organosolv lignin, or grass-derived lignin {[0015]-[0016]}.
Regarding claim 3, NASKAR discloses wherein component (i) is present in an amount of about 30 wt% to about 70 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0026] note teaching within the bounds 30 and 70}.
Regarding claim 4, NASKAR discloses wherein component (i) is present in an amount of about 40 wt% to about 60 wt% by total weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0026] note teaching within the bounds 40 and 60}.
Regarding claims 5-6, NASKAR discloses wherein component (ii) has an acrylonitrile content of at least or above 40 mol% (claim 5), wherein component (ii) has an acrylonitrile content of at least or above 50 mol% (claim 6) {[0022]}.
Regarding claim 7, NASKAR discloses wherein component (i) is dispersed in component (ii) in the form of domains having a size of up to 1000 nm {[0013]}.
Regarding claim 8, NASKAR discloses wherein component (iii) is present in an amount of 1-10 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0030]}.
The Examiner notes that NASKAR teaches a component (iii) concentration of 10 wt% or less that encompasses the claimed range of 1-10 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 9, NASKAR discloses wherein component (iii) is present in an amount of 1-7 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0030]}.
The Examiner notes that NASKAR teaches a component (iii) concentration of 10 wt% or less that encompasses the claimed range of 1-7 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, NASKAR discloses wherein component (iii) is present in an amount of 1-5 wt% by weight of components (i) and (ii) {[0030]}.
The Examiner notes that NASKAR teaches a component (iii) concentration of 5 wt% or less that encompasses the claimed range of 1-5 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30; also see MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claims 11-12, NASKAR discloses wherein said ceramic particles in component (iii) are ceramic oxide particles (claim 11), wherein said ceramic oxide particles are silica particles (claim 12) {[0030]}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASKAR as applied to claims 1 and 11-12 above, and further in view of HEERING (US-2026/0049237), hereinafter HEERING.
Regarding claim 13, modified NASKAR discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12 as discussed above. Modified NASKAR, however, is silent on silica particles being fumed silica particles.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to structural adhesive for printing, HEERING discloses wherein said silica particles are fumed silica particles {[0058-[0059]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of HEERING in the modified polymer blend of NASKAR and have used silica fume as the silica particles. As disclosed by HEERING, silica fume is a known and often used form of silica particles {[0058]-[0059]}.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASKAR as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RODIONOV (US-2018/0334551), hereinafter RODIONOV.
Regarding claim 14, modified NASKAR discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified NASKAR, however, is silent on addition of epoxy-functionalized ceramic particles to component (iii).
In the same field of endeavor that is related to silica fillers in polymeric compositions, RODIONOV discloses wherein component (iii) comprises said ceramic particles in admixture with epoxy-functionalized ceramic particles {[0011] note functionalizing silica particle with epoxy groups}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of RODIONOV in the modified polymer blend of NASKAR and have included an epoxy-functionalized ceramic or silica in component (iii). As disclosed by RODIONOV, a number of enhanced properties can be incorporated in the polymer blend by the epoxy-functionalized silica such as Young's Modulus, fracture energy and toughness of resin {[0025]}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASKAR as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NASKAR471 (US-2015/0368471), hereinafter NASKAR471.
Regarding claim 15, modified NASKAR discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified NASKAR, however, is silent on addition of a polyacrylonitrile-containing polymer to the polymer blend of claim 1.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to polymer blend composition, NASKAR471 discloses further comprising: (iv) a polyacrylonitrile-containing polymer blended with components (i), (ii), and (iii) {[0027]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of NASKAR471 in the modified polymer blend of NASKAR and have included a polyacrylonitrile-containing polymer in the polymer blend. As disclosed by NASKAR471, the advantage of this additional polymer is improvement in tensile strength and toughness {[0002]}.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASKAR as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NASKAR411 (US-2020/0308411), hereinafter NASKAR411.
Regarding claim 16, modified NASKAR discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified NASKAR, however, is silent on addition of an organic peroxide that crosslinks component (ii).
In the same field of endeavor that is related to lignin acrylonitrile polymer blend, NASKAR411 discloses further comprising: (v) an organic peroxide that crosslinks component (ii) {[0063]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of NASKAR411 in the modified polymer blend of NASKAR and have included an organic peroxide that crosslinks component (ii). As disclosed by NASKAR411, the advantage of this crosslinking is improvement in material stiffness {[0005]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights