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 in the reply filed on 5/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Imppola et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0315748.
Regarding claim 1, Imppola teaches a flexible calcium carbonate (hybrid material, see abstract) comprising: micro fibrillated cellulose (MFC [0018]); and calcium carbonate attached to the micro fibrillated cellulose [0018].
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Han et al, “Development of Flexible Calcium Carbonate for Papermaking Filler” (NPL already of record) May 2020.
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a flexible calcium carbonate (see abstract) comprising: micro fibrillated cellulose (MFC [0018]); and calcium carbonate attached to the micro fibrillated cellulose [0018].
Regarding claim 3, Han further teaches that he length of the FCC can be as little as 30 microns (page 13 line 10). The end point of the range would stand as an example for testing and would provide the overlapping range with specific specifically for the average artisan to act as an example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Imppola et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0315748.
Regarding claim 2, Imppola does not provide an explicit weight ratio of the MFC to calcium carbonate, but does provide ranges of each component. Imppola states that the calcium carbonate has a max amount in one embodiment of 25 wt% to a lower end of 6% [0077]. Imppola also teaches that the concentration of MFC in the made to be 1-6% [0019] in the processes incorporated by reference for the discloser [0018-0019]. This provides a weight ratio of as much as 25:1 and as little as 1:1 (6% to 6%).
It is the Examiner’s stance that this ratio is an encompassing rage to the claimed value and therefore is taught with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to find the workable ranges of the weight ratio based on the starting points stated above as it has been held that finding the workable ranges of a known properties through routine optimization is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Imppola further teaches that the MFC that has the calcium carbonate attached to it has a length of 10-200 microns [0052] and can be any length as desired as there is a wide length available to the user [0052]..
It is the Examiner’s stance that this range is an encompassing rage to the claimed value.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to find the workable ranges of the weight ratio based on the starting points stated above as it has been held that finding the workable ranges of a known properties through routine optimization is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights