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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/28/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claims 8-11 have been newly added.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn in view of election by original presentation.
The Double Patenting Rejection has been updated to reflect amendments to claim 1.
The section 102 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
New Section 103 rejections has been implemented in view of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 and 4.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-11 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the original claim set are all drawn to product claims and are thus separate, distinct inventions. See MPEP 806.05(a) and 806.05(c) - 806.05(j).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,129,353 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the more specific claims of the US patent read on the broader claim set of the currently pending claims.
Regarding claims 1-3,
Claims 1-3 of the US 12,129,353 B2 reads on claims 1-3 of the currently pending application. The claims of US 12,129,353 B2 do not explicitly teach crosslinked nanocellulose materials are nanocellulose materials with a length of from 100 nm to 100 µm.
Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” In re Boylan, 392 F.2d 1017, 157 USPQ 370 (CCPA 1968). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. (underlining added by examiner for emphasis) In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438,164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970).
Consistent with the above underlined portion of the MPEP citation, attention is drawn to the word “cross-section” being defined in column 3, lines 14-17 as the cellulosic nanomaterials may have a width from about 10 nm to about 500 nm and the length is at least ten times the width, which is within the claimed length range for the nanocellulose materials.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct their crosslinked nanocellulose materials with improved physical properties.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (“Aerogels with 3D ordered Nanofiber Skeletons of Liquid-Crystalline Nanocellulose Derivatives as Tough and Transparent Insulators” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2014, 53, 10394-10397) in view of Thielemans et al. (US 2013/0018112 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Kobayashi teaches a liquid crystal aerogel and a hydrogel precursor (a gel) comprising a three-dimensionally ordered cellulose nanofiber skeleton of liquid-crystalline nanocellulose (a cellulosic matrix) and water (a solvent) pre-drying of the hydrogel (Kobayashi: abstract; pg. 10394-10395). Thus, there is a liquid crystal gel embodiment that comprises a cellulosic matrix and a solvent.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the cellulosic matrix is formed from crosslinked nanocellulose material having a length between about 100 nm and 100 µm.
Thielemans teaches cellulose nanoparticle aerogels and hydrogels in which the cellulose gel structure provides improved properties such as adaptability, high internal surface area, high porosity, and low density (Thielemans: abstract; par. 0011). The cellulose nanocrystals may be crosslinked and may have a length of from 100 nm to 1000 nm, which is within the claimed range, to provide said advantages (Thielemans: par. 0016, 0055, and 0060).
Kobayashi and Thielemans are in the corresponding field of cellulose-based hydrogels and aerogels. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the cellulose nanostructures of Kobayashi to be crosslinked with the claimed length dimensions to provide for improved physical properties such as adaptability, internal surface area, porosity, and low density as taught by Thielmanns.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Thielmanns and in further view of Hakemi (US 5,843,333 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
Kobayashi in view of Thielmanns teaches the liquid crystal gel required by claim 1. Kobayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more solvents that are nematic liquid crystals and does not explicitly teach the specific solvents required by claim 1.
Hakemi teaches a liquid crystal composite which can undergo gelation and thus may be considered a liquid crystal gel at some point in the composite formation (Hakemi: abstract; col. 3, lin. 1-30 and col. 52, lin. 6-14) comprising: a polymer matrix which may be composed of cellulose such as ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose and other cellulose materials and nematic liquid crystal compounds such as p-azoxyanisole (4,4’-azoxyanisole), p-methoxy-cinnamic acid (4-methoxy-cinnamic acid), and other claimed materials which corresponds to Applicant’s solvents which are described as nematic liquid crystals and are the specific compositions required in claim 3 (Hakemi: col. 31, lin. 60- 67 – col. 32, lin. 1-67 – col. 33, lin. 1-60 and col. 46, lin. 46-67 – col. 47, lin. 1-27). Hakemi further teaches it is known to utilize nematic materials, such as rod-shaped materials, to form liquid crystal materials with improved dynamic scattering at room temperatures (Hakemi: col. 1, lin. 49-67 - col. 2, lin. 1-8). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that nematic solvents may be utilized as the claimed one or more solvents when forming the liquid crystal cellulose gels of Kobayashi to provide a liquid crystal structure if one of ordinary skill in the art desires a liquid crystal material with improved dynamic scattering at room temperature.
Cranston and Kobayashi are in the corresponding field of liquid crystal materials comprising cellulosic matrix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the nematic solvents of Hakemi as the one or more solvents in Kobayashi for forming the liquid crystal gel to provide improved dynamic scattering at room temperature as taught by Hakemi.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed et al. (US 2016/0175812 A1) in view of Klein et al. (US 2016/0175488 A1).
Regarding claims 4-7,
Mohammed teaches hydrogels comprising cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs), with nanorod like structures with a diameter of between 10 and 20 nm, which may be surface functionalized with TEMPO and may be crosslinked with cations such as calcium ions (Ca2+), which is the same type of structure utilized in Applicant’s specification for the cellulose hydrogels (Mohammed: abstract; par. 0004, 0023-0024, and 0051-0052 and Applicant’s Specification: par. 00059, 00077-00079, and 0086).
While Mohammed is silent towards the hydrogel having the claimed thermal conductivity, transmissivity of electromagnetic radiation, and bulk modulus, Mohammad does the teach the disclosed structure of the cellulose hydrogel, such as CNC nanorods having the disclosed diameter, TEMPO surface functionalized, and crosslinking with Ca2+, as such, the hydrogel is expected to have the same structure and thus the same properties and characteristics, such as those required by claims 4-6. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Mohammed is silent towards the hydrogel comprising a polysiloxane network.
Klein teaches hydrogels and hydrogel-containing composite materials (Klein: abstract). Klein teaches it is known to utilize hydrogel-forming agents are known to aid in forming hydrogels including at least one of cellulose and polysiloxanes (a polysiloxane network) or combinations thereof (Klein: par. 0171).
Mohammed and Klein are in the corresponding field of hydrogels formed from cellulose materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize polysiloxane networks in combination with the cellulose materials of Mohammed as the combination of cellulose and polysiloxane networks are known hydrogel forming aids to aid in forming hydrogels as taught by Klein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 are moot as they do not pertain to the updated prior art rejections of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783