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
Claims 34, 35, 39 and 45-52 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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 for producing a resin composition containing 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
with a “high pressure” zone 22 [0071] and a “reduced pressure” zone 23 [0071] (meets Applicant’s extruder with a plurality of pressure zones), wherein the pressure in the “high pressure” zone 22 is 3 to 20 MPa [0030] (meets Applicant’s pressure [P1] of 0.5 MPa or higher) and the pressure in the “reduced pressure” zone 23 is necessarily lower than that of zone 22 (e.g., abstract, [0008], [0010], [0016-0017], [0027-0030], [0062-0075], Example 1, Figures 2 and 3, claims). Specifically, Yusa discloses that the molten resin flowing into zone 23 experiences a slow and “gradual pressure reduction” and, as a result, a “rapid pressure reduction of the molten resin can be prevented” [0069].
In Example 1, Yusa discloses the production of a resin composition which comprises 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, wherein the pressure in the high pressure zone 22 is about 10 MPa [0081] and the pressure in the reduced pressure zone 23 is slowly and “gradually reduced” so as to prevent a sudden rapid pressure reduction [0069].
In essence, Yusa differs from claim 36 in neither explicitly disclosing the pressure in the reduced pressure zone 23 nor defining the ratio of the pressure in the high pressure zone 22 to the pressure in the reduced pressure zone 23. With respect to the first difference, Yusa clearly discloses that the molten resin flowing into zone 23 experiences a slow and “gradual pressure reduction” to prevent a rapid pressure reduction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a reduced pressure in zone 23 that is not drastically lower than the about 10 MPa pressure of zone 22 (e.g., 9 MPa), so as to maintain a slow and gradual pressure reduction and prevent a sudden and rapid pressure reduction. As to the second difference, since the pressure in zone 22 is about 10 MPa and the pressure in zone 23 would be slightly reduced, e.g., 9 MPa, the pressure ratio of zone 22/zone 23 [P1]/[P2] would be greater than 1 (e.g. 10/9) (meets Applicant’s [P1/P2] and [P1/P3] ratios of “greater than 1”). Accordingly, it is within the purview of Yusa’s inventive disclosure, and obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to use an extruder having multiple pressure zones wherein zone 22 has a high pressure of about 10 MPa (meets Applicant’s first high pressure zone with the highest pressure [P1] of 0.5 MPa or higher) and zone 23 has similarly high pressure, e.g., 9 MPa (meets Applicant’s second high pressure zone with a pressure [P2] of 0.1 MPa or higher), giving rise to a ratio of zone 22 pressure/zone 23 pressure 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.6. 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.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in overcoming the 35 USC 103 rejections over WO 2018117160 A1 (Yusa).
Applicant’s argument that Yasu’s reduced pressure zone 23 does not correspond to the claimed “high-pressure” zone and that Yasu does not expressly or inherently disclose that the reduced-pressure zone satisfies the claimed minimum pressure of 0.1 MPa or higher is not agreed with. Yusa clearly discloses that the molten resin flowing into zone 23 experiences a slow and “gradual pressure reduction” and, as a result, a “rapid pressure reduction of the molten resin can be prevented”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a reduced pressure in zone 23 of the extruder per Example 1 that is not drastically lower than the about 10 MPa pressure of zone 22 (e.g., 9 MPa), so as to maintain a slow and gradual pressure reduction and prevent a sudden and rapid pressure reduction. To the extent that the reduced pressure in zone 23 would not be drastically different from the about 10 MPa pressure in zone 22, such would satisfy the claimed minimum pressure of 0.1 MPa or higher. That is, since zone 22 and zone 23 each necessarily have a pressure of 0.1 MPa or higher, said zones meet the “plurality of high-pressure zones at a pressure of 0.1 MPa or higher” required by claim 36.
Applicant asserts that since Yusa uses zone 23 to remove solvent and water, it would be expected that the pressure in zone 23 would be sufficiently reduced to less than atmospheric pressure, i.e., 0.1 MPa. Yusa, however, clearly counsels against a sudden and rapid pressure reduction in zone 23 [0069] and instead mandates that the pressure in zone 23 be slowly and “gradually reduced”. Thus, having the pressure in zone 23 below 0.1 Mpa, as asserted by Applicant, would constitute a drastic and sudden rapid pressure reduction, which is a complete departure from Yusa’s aim to prevent a rapid pressure reduction. That is, while Yusa does not explicitly disclose the pressure in zone 23, given that zone 23 experiences a “gradual” reduction in pressure from the 3-20 MPa pressure used in zone 22, it is reasonably presumed that said gradually reduced pressure would be slightly lower than 3-20 MPa and ≥ 0.1 MPa.
8. Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 USC 112 rejection
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. 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
Prosecution Insights