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 with traverse of Group III comprising a polyamide-based resin and cellulose fibers in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all of the inventions would not present more burden on search and examination. This is not found persuasive because contrary to applicant’s contention, the search fields for the various inventions are not co-extensive, as each requires a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies). In fact, due to the all-encompassing breath of the generically- recited first and second components, each invention requires an extensive prior art search. Moreover, applicant has not submitted evidence or identified such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admitted 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.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 34, 35, 39 and 45-52 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 21, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 40, lines 8-10, the confusing proviso “wherein the distributive mixing is a mixing state in which the dispersed state of the second component in the first component changes but without any substantial change in the size of the second component” is indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what said “change” entails.
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.
Claims 36-38 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018117160 A1 (Yusa) abstract and machine translation per IDS filed 9/12/2025.
Yusa discloses a method of producing a resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin (meets Applicant’s first polymer) and cellulose nanofibers (meets Applicant’s organic fiber) comprising kneading the thermoplastic resin and cellulose nanofibers in a multi-zoned extruder. Specifically, Yusa discloses an extruder (Fig. 2) having the configuration
PNG
media_image1.png
206
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
having a “high pressure” kneading zone 22 [0071] and a “reduced pressure” zone 23 [0071] (meets Applicant’s extruder with a plurality of pressure zones), wherein the pressure in zone 22 is 3 to 20 MPa [0030] (meets Applicant’s pressure [P1] of 0.5 MPa or higher) and the pressure in zone 23 is lower than that in zone 22 (e.g., abstract, [0008], [0010], [0016-0017], [0027-0030], [0062-0075], Example 1, Figures 2 and 3, claims).
In Example 1, Yusa discloses the production of a resin composition which includes kneading (meets Applicant’s kneading step) an ABS resin (meets Applicant’s first polymer), a block copolymer of nylon and polyethylene oxide (meets Applicant’s first polymer or second polymer) and cellulose nanofibers (meets Applicant’s organic fiber) in the above-described multi-zoned extruder comprising a high pressure zone 22 and a reduced pressure zone 23 (meets Applicant’s extruder with a plurality of pressure zones), wherein the pressure in zone 22, i.e., the highest pressure zone is about 10 MPa [0081] (meets Applicant’s highest pressure [P1] of 0.5 MPa or higher) and the pressure in zone 23 is “gradually reduced” [0069], i.e., pressure would be lower than 10 MPa [0069].
In essence, Yusa differs from claim 36 in not expressly defining the ratio of the pressure in the highest pressure zone 22 [P1] to the pressure in the reduced pressure zone 23 [P2]. Yusa, however, clearly discloses that the pressure in zone 22 is “gradually reduced” [0069]. Thus, it would have been within the purview of Yusa’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to gradually reduce the 10 MPa pressure in zone 22 to below 10 MPa in zone 23 (e.g., 9 MPa), giving rise to a ratio of zone 22 pressure/zone 23 pressure [P1]/[P2] of greater than 1 (e.g. 10/9) (meets Applicant’s [P1/P2] and [P1/P3] ratios of “greater than 1”).
As to claim 37, the pressure of the outflow resin material in zone 22 is necessarily lower than its inflow and the pressure of the resin material outflow in zone 23 is lower than its inflow due to the gradual pressure reduction via vacuum pump P. It is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the pressure drop in an extruder zone based on factors such as type of thermoplastic material, viscosity of the melt and screw geometry. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to appropriately determine a suitable inflow/outflow pressure drop (inclusive of that presently claimed) in accordance with the selected thermoplastic resin with the reasonable expectation of success
As to claim 38, Yusa’s compositions contain 0.1 to 50 wt.% carbon nanofibers, based on the thermoplastic resin [0021]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon nanofiber content falling within the presently claimed scope with the reasonable expectation of success in accordance with the desired properties.
As to claim 42, Yusa discloses cellulose nanofibers.
As to claim 43, Yusa’s cellulose nanofibers have a diameter of 4 to 100 nm and a length of 1 µm (1000 nm) or more [0017], which would necessarily engender a length/diameter ratio of greater than 30.
As to claim 44, Yusa discloses [0029] the form of the cellulose nanofibers “is not particularly limited and, may be, for example, a dry powdered” material, thus rendering obvious the use of cellulose nanofibers in dry form.8. Claims 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018117160 A1 (Yusa) described hereinabove in view of JP 2018009095 A (Yamada) abstract and machine translation per IDS filed 9/12/2025.
It is within the purview of Yusa’s inventive disclosure [0016], and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to prepare resin compositions wherein the cellulose nanofibers are uniformly dispersed in a polyamide as the thermoplastic resin. Yusa discloses that the method for producing the resin composition “is not particularly limited” [0027], thus implying that any suitable method that achieves a uniform cellulose nanofiber dispersion can be satisfactorily used. In this respect, Yamada discloses a method for producing similar-such resin compositions wherein the dispersed cellulose nanofibers are made finer by using a masterbatch technique. Specifically, Yamada’s examples expressly show a production process which includes a first step in which polyamide is mixed with raw cellulose chips in an extruder to form a polyamide/cellulose nanofiber masterbatch wherein the cellulose chips form nanosized fibers (meets Applicant’s dispersive mixing step wherein the size of the organic fibers changes) and a second step in which the polyamide/cellulose nanofiber masterbatch is further diluted with additional polyamide (meets Applicant’s distributive mixing step), wherein the cellulose nanofiber content in the masterbatch is 31.6 wt.% (meets Applicant’s [CA] concentration), the cellulose nanofiber content in the final composition is 10 wt.% (meets Applicant’s [CB] concentration), and the ratio of the cellulose nanofiber content in the masterbatch relative to final composition is ~3 (meets Applicant’s [CA]/[CB] ratio). Thus, it would have been within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a masterbatch technique as taught by Yamada to produce Yusa’s resin compositions comprising a uniform dispersion of cellulose nanofibers in polyamide.
As to claim 41, Yamada clearly discloses that the kneading/mixing temperature “is more than the melting fusing point (or softening point) of resin (polyamide resin and 2nd resin” (page 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the cellulose material to a polyamide melt with the reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ana L Woodward whose telephone number is (571)272-1082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Heidi Kelley can be reached on 571-270-1831. 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.
/ANA L. WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765