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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The art rejections still apply for previously presented claims 76-87. New claim 88 requires a new rejection.
Applicant again asserts on pages 5-7 of the Remarks that the term “gasifier feedstock” found only in the preamble of claim 76 is not given patentable weight as intended by Applicant. Applicant should review the response to Arguments in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 6/17/25. The preamble term “gasifier feedstock” does not materially distinguish the composition. The Office has taken a clear position on this matter.
Applicant asserts on page 8 that “Braden discloses only cloth, which is not a densified textile aggregate, and pellets of grass, hay, and wood.” It is the Office’s position that a mixture of cloth and pellets of grass, hay, and wood is a densified textile aggregate. The instant specification recites that “The densified textile aggregates are a collection of particles, briquettes, agglomerates, pellets, or rods, or any other shape or size that different from the native shape of the textile from which the densified textile aggregate is made” (paragraph 39) and “The form of the textiles useful to make densified textile aggregates are not limited, and can include any of the forms of articles or materials used to make textiles described above; e.g. fibers, yarns, fabrics, cloths, finished article forms, or pieces thereof. The densified textile aggregates can be of varying age and composition” (paragraph 48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 76-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gillespie (US 2017/0226436 A1).
Regarding claim 76, Gillespie discloses a composition comprising: a slurry comprising discarded clothing textiles (paragraph 56), plastic (paragraph 54), and fossil fuels (paragraph 62). Gillespie discloses that the composition is densified (paragraph 68).
Regarding claims 77-79, Gillespie discloses that the materials are pulverized to less than 2mm (paragraph 69) and have a solids content of at least 62 wt% (see Table 1). Since the composition is as claimed, it possesses the same ostensible values as claimed in a test that may or may not be performed. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 80, Gillespie discloses solid fossil fuels (paragraph 62).
Regarding claims 81-83, Gillespie discloses that the textiles contain plastic (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 84, Gillespie discloses heat treatment (paragraph 41). Tg is undefined since no specific materials or percentages are claimed.
Regarding claim 85, Gillespie discloses that the feed is not more than 10% biomass (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 86, Gillespie discloses that the feedstock is an agglomeration of various materials including those recited in claim 76 (paragraphs 46-65). This feedstock exists prior to any treatment or reaction.
Claims 76, 87, and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradin (US 2015/0141605 A1).
Bradin discloses a composition comprising: a feedstock comprising pellets, plastic, cloth, plastic, and coal (paragraph 38). The feedstock is considered a densified textile aggregate because it contains pellets. The feedstock comprises H:C ratio of at least 0.075 by weight since it produces methanol, olefins, and polymers (paragraph 8). It should be noted that all hydrocarbons have an H:C ratio of at least 0.075 by weight.
Claims 76 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arora (US 2013/0144087 A1)
Arora discloses a composition comprising: biomass comprising cloth (paragraph 48) and coal (paragraph 77). The feedstock is considered a densified textile aggregate because it has been torrefied and pulverized (paragraph 77).
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 IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725