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 .
Applicant's arguments filed12/19/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See argument below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Maintain
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,6-13,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wadlington(US 5586412; 12/24/1996) and Downing(US 4064636; 12/27/1977) or Hancock(New method of delinting cottonseed with sulfuric acid, Information Circular – Tennessee, Division of Geology, 1938, 61, 1-8) and CN 207159444; 03/30/2018 or Zhang et al.(CN 206345960; 07/21/2017).
Wadlington teaches, “ A method and apparatus for recovering cottonseed from the lint in batch quantities for planting purposes. The system utilizes a dilute acid approach and provides for gradual mixing of the fuzzy seed and a dilute acid solution followed by batch drying and hydrolysis in a rotating drum reaction chamber in which heated air at a controlled temperature is circulated. The process conditions and the flight pattern of the fuzzy seed within the rotating drum are controlled to avoid trauma to the seed and thereby assure suitability of the recovered seed for planting purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”.
Wadlington teaches the use of a rotary drum(#34) in the cotton delinting process(see Abstract and Summary). Wadlington teaches reaction hot air temperatures ranging from 130-140 oF for the drying of cotton in the fuzzy cotton delinting process (see #36,Summary of Invention, clam 4). Wadlington applies(sprays) dilute sulfuric acid in the cotton delinting process of not more than about 10%. See claims 2 and 3. Wadlington teach that the Reaction Tank(rotatable drum #34) is angled horizontal to Clean Seed Bulk Holding Tank(Outlet Drum #58) See Diagram above. Wadlington teach a fuzzy cottonseed Storage Tank(#12,#14) where unclean cottonseed is held prior to acid application. Wadlington does not teach a exposing a fuzzy cotton seed to a buffing drum for neutralization or the rotatory drum having baffles.
Downing teaches a method of delinting cottonseed by spraying sulfuric acid on the fuzzy cottonseed from a tank(drum) followed by treating the acid-treated cotton seed with neutralizing substance such as the base ammonia. See abstract and point (25). After spray treatment of fuzzy cottonseed with diluted acid(sulfuric acid), the wetted seed was dried under high temperate conditions up to 600 degree F using hot air in a cyclone. See abstract and point (18). Downing at point 11 teaches dilute acid sprayed from a tank(drum) to the fuzzy cottonseed. Downing teach at point (7) teach that wetted seed passes through the drier horizontally with agitation. Downing at point (25) teaches clean dried cottonseed leaving the drier passes through the neutralizer comprising base(ammonia) to neutralize any remaining acid. Downing does not teach an invention comprising storage bins.
Hancock teaches a method of delinting cottonseed with sulfuric acid using an oil drum. Hancock teach treating 64 pound fuzzy cottonseed with 5 quarts of concentrated tech. sulfuric, agitated for 8 minute, drained, washed in 6 gallons of water comprising 2 compounds of CaO(base,buffing drum,neutralization, neutralization station) and dried on trays(dryer station, aeration system).
It would have been obvious to modify the invention of Wadlington to include buffing, neutralization system of Downing or Hancook since all inventions are individually drawn to the delinting fuzzy cotton seeds. It is obvious to combine inventions having the same utility.
The modified invention of Wadlington-Downing or Hancook doesn’t teach or suggest an invention comprising a baffling device.
However, CN 207159444; 03/30/2018 or Zhang et al.(CN 206345960; 07/21/2017) teach cotton delinting systems comprising baffles(e.g. can be paddles) to aid in the separation of cotton from lint. It would have been obvious for an Artisan in the field to further modify the modified invention of Wadlington -Downing or -Hancook to further include baffles. An Artisan would have been motivated to do this in order to maximize the separation of lint from cotton. The combination of references does not teach multiple neutralization steps. In the absence of a showing of the benefit of multiple neutralization steps, the single neutralization step taught in the prior art renders obvious multiple neutralization steps. Wadlington heats a 149 oF while instant claims heats at about 140 oF which suggests that moisture content found in instant fuzzy cottonseed and instant delinted cotton seed would be pretty close when comparing instant process to Wadlington’ process. Absent a showing to the 149 oF heat(Wadlington process) over the prior art’s 140 oF(instant process), the prior art would expect the same benefit, if any, in the instant fuzzy and delinted cottonseed.
Response to Applicant’s Argument
Wadlington teaches reaction hot air temperatures ranging from 130-140 oF for the drying of cotton in the fuzzy cotton delinting process (see #36,Summary of Invention, clam 4).
Downing teaches a method of delinting cottonseed by spraying sulfuric acid on the fuzzy cottonseed from a tank(drum) followed by treating the acid-treated cotton seed with neutralizing substance such as the base ammonia. See abstract and point (25). After spray treatment of fuzzy cottonseed with diluted acid(sulfuric acid), the wetted seed was dried under high temperate conditions up to 600 degree F using hot air in a cyclone.
The Examiner further argues that Applicant has not demonstrated the benefit of using extremely high temperatures like 800 oF while the Wadlington uses a much lower temperature range of 130oF -140oF to accomplish the same goal as is accomplished in the cited in Wadlington, i.e. the treating/processing fuzzy cottonseed lint process.
Applicant argues,
Wadlington does not disclose or teach the manner of acid application required in claim 1.
The Examiner argues that although the Wadlington does not disclose or teach the manner of acid application required in claim 1, Wadlington does teach a manner of acid application. However Applicant does not demonstrate the benefit of instant manner of acid application over Wadlington’s manner of acid application.
Wadlington does not disclose or teach the fluid bed drying method required in claim 1.
The Examiner argues that although the Wadlington does not disclose or teach the fluid bed drying method required in claim 1, Wadlington does teach fluid bed drying . However Applicant does not demonstrate the benefit of instant fluid bed drying over Wadlington’s fluid bed trying method.
Neither Hancock nor Downing disclose or teach the manner of acid application required in claim 1.
The Examiner argues that although Neither Hancock nor Downing disclose or teach the manner of acid application required in claim 1. Both Hancock and Downing do teach a manner of acid application. However Applicant does not demonstrate the benefit of instant manner of acid application over Hancock nor Downing s manner of acid application.
Applicant amended claim 15 to recite,
“15. (Currently Amended) A method of processing cottonseed, the method comprising: applying an acid solution to a quantity of fuzzy cottonseed within an acid application device, wherein the acid application device comprises a rotatable drum including internal baffles on an interior surface of the drum and the acid application device further comprises a spray bar, said applying the acid solution to the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprising spraying the acid solution onto the cottonseed with the spray bar; transferring, after said applying the acid solution, the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed to a seed neutralization station including a neutralization device; and neutralizing the acid solution on the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed in the neutralization device by at least one of submerging the cottonseed in a neutralization solution bath and spraying a neutralization solution on the cottonseed in the neutralization device, the method further comprising: transferring, after neutralizing the acid solution, the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed to a fluid bed dryer station; and drying, at least partially, the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed at the fluid bed dryer station, wherein drying the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprises supplying heated air to the cottonseed with the fluid bed dryer at temperatures of between about 150.degree. F. (65.degree. C.) to about 300.degree. F. (149.degree. C.) and the temperature of the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed during drying is from about 110.degree. F. (43.degree. C.) to about 145.degree. F. (63.degree. C.)”
Applicant maintains the argument “Wadlington heats a 149 oF while instant claims heats at about 140 oF which suggests that moisture content found in instant fuzzy cottonseed and instant delinted cotton seed would be pretty close when comparing instant process to Wadlington’ process. Absent a showing to the 149 oF heat(Wadlington process) over the prior art’s 140 oF(instant process), the prior art would would show the same benefit, if any, in the instant fuzzy and delinted cottonseed.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to include, “the acid application device further comprises a spray bar, said applying the acid solution to the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprising spraying the acid solution onto the cottonseed with the spray bar as the horizontal drum rotates about a horizontal axis”. Wadlington at paragraph 15 allows for the inclusion of spraying diluted acid solution on fuzzy seed. Wadlington does not specifically to a spray bar. However an button or knob to press to release a substance can be considered a spray bar. Wadlington teaches a reaction chamber which can be considered the reaction drum.
Applicant has amended claim 11 to include, “ the acid application device further comprises a sprav bar, said applying the acid solution to the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprising spraying the acid solution onto the cottonseed with the sprav bar as the horizontal drum rotates about a horizontal axis”. Wadlington at paragraph 15 allows for the inclusion of spraying diluted acid solution on fuzzy seed. Wadlington does not specifically to a spray bar. However an button or knob to press to release a substance can be considered a spray bar. Wadlington teaches a reaction chamber which can be considered the reaction drum.
Applicant has amended claim 15 to include, “acid application device further comprises a sprav bar, said applying the acid solution to the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprising spraying the acid solution onto the cottonseed with the sprav bar as the horizontal drum rotates about a horizontal axis”. Wadlington at paragraph 15 allows for the inclusion of spraying diluted acid solution on fuzzy seed. Wadlington does not specifically to a spray bar. However an button or knob to press to release a substance can be considered a spray bar. Wadlington teaches a reaction chamber which can be considered the reaction drum.
Similarly, Downing teaches a method of delinting cottonseed by spraying sulfuric acid on the fuzzy cottonseed from a tank(drum) followed by treating the acid-treated cotton seed with neutralizing substance such as the base ammonia. See abstract and point (25). After spray treatment of fuzzy cottonseed with diluted acid(sulfuric acid), the wetted seed was dried under high temperate conditions up to 600 degree F using hot air in a cyclone which can be considered a drum. See abstract and point (18). Downing at point 11 teaches dilute acid sprayed from a tank(drum) to the fuzzy cottonseed. Object(button, considered a spray bar) must to pressured to release spray. Downing teach at point (7) teach that wetted seed passes through the drier horizontally with agitation. Downing at point (25) teaches clean dried cottonseed leaving the drier passes through the neutralizer comprising base(ammonia) to neutralize any remaining acid. Downing does not teach an invention comprising storage bins.
The rejection of record is maintained .
Applicant amended claims 1 and 15 to recite a drying step stating, “the fluid bed dryer station, wherein driving the quantity of fuzzy cottonseed comprises supplying heated air to the cottonseed with the fluid bed dryer at temperatures of between about 150 degree F. (65.degree. C.) to about 300.degree. F. (149.degree C). “
The Examiner reiterates that Wadlington teaches a rotary drum(#34) in the cotton delinting process(see Abstract and Summary). Wadlington teaches reaction hot air temperatures ranging from 140 oF to 600 oF for drying cotton. The drying cotton temperature ranges of the Wadlington and instant claims overlap rendering instant drying temperature obvious in view of Wadlington absence of a showing of unexpected results for instant temperature range over Wadlington’s temperature range of 140 oF to 600 oF.
Applicant points out that “The Office acknowledges that Wadlington does not teach exposing a fuzzy cotton seed to a buffing drum for neutralization or a rotary drum having baffles.” The Examiner teaches that Downing cures Wadlington(see Downing point 25) teaching neutralizing acid treated linted cottonseed with base such as ammonia in drums having baffles.
Applicant argues, none of the cited references(Wadlington, Downing or Hancock) describe fluid bed drying of the seeds or any appropriate conditions for fluid bed drying. For example, Wadlington describes a rotary drum method and the issues and conditions attendant such a method to be considered. As detailed in applicant's specification, methods employing a rotary drum tumbled with hot air as described in Wadlington may be more prone to damaging the seeds. For example, in certain such processes the air temperature may reach 800°F which may damage the seeds. Applicant employs an alternative fluid bed drying method under the required conditions that is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art. The Examiner argues that Wadlington’s claim 4 teach the use of hot air 130oF -140oF for drying is sufficient for the cottonseed lint process. The Examiner further argues that Applicant has not demonstrated the benefit of using extremely high temperatures like 800 oF while the Wadlington uses a much lower temperature range of 130oF -140oF to accomplish the same goal as is accomplished in the cited in Wadlington, i.e. the treating/processing fuzzy cottonseed lint process.
Applicant agues, “As amended, independent claim 11 requires neutralizing the acid solution on the fuzzy cottonseed by spraying, the neutralization device comprising a rotary device configured to spin the cottonseed in the rotary device.” The Examiner reiterates that each one of the cited references teach neutralization via application of base(e.g.ammonia) to acid solution as a treatment of fuzzy cotton.
Applicant argues, “Wadlington is cited as disclosing a method and apparatus for recovering cottonseed from the lint in batch quantities for planting purposes utilizing a dilute acid approach to provide for gradual mixing of the fuzzy seed and a dilute acid solution followed by batch drying and hydrolysis in a rotating drum reaction chamber in which heated air at a controlled temperature is circulated.
The Applicant reiterates “The Office acknowledges Wadlington does not disclose the neutralization step.”
The Examiner would like to reiterate that Downing and Hancock taught the treatment of fuzzy cottonseed process by using neutralization, buffering and drying steps as discussed in the original 103 rejection above. Since each of Wadlington, Downing and Hancock is to removing lint from cottonseed, it would been obvious to combine Wadlington, Downing and Hancock. Thus, it obvious to combine references of the same utility.
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.
Telephonic Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTON NATHANIEL PRYOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0621. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00 M-F.
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, Goon Y Scarlett can be reached on 571-270-5241. 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.
/ALTON N PRYOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights