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 .
Reopening Prosecution
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 6/12/26, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Claim Interpretation
Prior to reestablishing the rejections, the Office establishes herein the meaning of the claimed terms. All claims recite a “densified textile aggregate” which is explained in paragraph 39 of the instant specification as “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. The densified textile and/or plastic aggregates can be agglomerates, or they can be extrudates or pellets.” Paragraphs 40-49 list the litany of materials that qualify as “a thermoplastic polymer and post-consumer and/or post-industrial textiles” (also recited in every claim) and paragraphs 52-58 discuss the litany of processes that achieve densification and agglomeration. The breadth provided in the instant specification for these terms is used as the bases for the rejections below.
It should also be noted that the preamble term “a gasifier feedstock” is given due patentable weight based on the prosecution history as established in MPEP 2111.02. However, despite Applicant’s repeated assertions that a gasifier feedstock is patentably distinguishable from the prior art, it is the Office’s position that stating that the composition is a gasifier feedstock is no way further limits the composition even when given patentable weight. Labeling a composition as a feedstock for a gasifier does not change the composition and even with the label, it may or may not be fed to a gasifier. The claim is complete without reliance on the term and the term does not alter the scope of the composition because there is nothing materially different about it being feedstock for a gasifier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 84 recites the broad recitation “a heat treatment process that heats the thermoplastic fibers to or above their Tg,” and claim 1 on which it depends also recites “wherein said aggregate has not received a thermal treatment above 225 °C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Certain materials included in broad limitation “thermoplastic fibers” could have a Tg above 225 °C.
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, 80, 82-84, and 86-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradin (US 2015/0141605 A1).
Regarding claims 76, 80, and 86, Bradin discloses a composition comprising: a feedstock comprising pellets, plastic, cloth, plastic, and coal (paragraph 38). Bradin discloses that polypropylene (a thermoplastic polymer) is present in the feedstock materials (paragraph 178). No thermal treatment is performed on the feedstock. The feedstock is can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 43). The feedstock is considered a densified textile aggregate because it contains pellets as established in the instant specification.
Regarding claims 82 and 83, Bradin discloses that polypropylene (a thermoplastic polymer) is present in the feedstock fibers (paragraph 178).
Regarding claim 84, Gillespie discloses heat treatment (paragraph 41). Tg is undefined since no specific materials or percentages are claimed.
Regarding claim 87, Bradin discloses a composition comprising: a feedstock comprising pellets, plastic, cloth, plastic, and coal (paragraph 38). Bradin discloses that polypropylene (a thermoplastic polymer) is present in the feedstock materials (paragraph 178). No thermal treatment is performed on the feedstock. The feedstock is can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 43). The feedstock is considered a densified textile aggregate because it contains pellets as established in the instant specification. 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.
Regarding claim 88, Bradin discloses a composition comprising: a feedstock comprising pellets, plastic, cloth, plastic, and coal (paragraph 38). Bradin discloses that polypropylene (a thermoplastic polymer) is present in the feedstock materials (paragraph 178). No thermal treatment is performed on the feedstock. The feedstock is can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 43). The feedstock is considered a densified textile aggregate because it contains pellets as established in the instant specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 76-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillespie (US 2017/0226436 A1) in view of Arora (US 2013/0144087 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 can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 41). Gillespie discloses that the plastic include thermoplastic polymers (paragraph 54). Gillespie does not disclose a densification process prior to its heated devolatilization process. Arora—in an invention for providing wastes including textiles and plastic to downstream gasification—discloses pulverization prior to volatile removal for better reaction rates in thermal processing operations (paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to densify the materials of Gillespie prior to its devolatilization to improve the efficacy of the devolatilization as suggested by Arora.
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.
Regarding claim 87, 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 can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 41). Gillespie discloses that the plastic include thermoplastic polymers (paragraph 54). The product of Gillespie is over 50 mole % H2 and a good mixture of hydrocarbons (paragraph 78). It should be noted that all hydrocarbons have an H:C ratio of at least 0.075 by weight. Gillespie does not disclose a densification process prior to its heated devolatilization process. Arora—in an invention for providing wastes including textiles and plastic to downstream gasification—discloses pulverization prior to volatile removal for better reaction rates in thermal processing operations (paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to densify the materials of Gillespie prior to its devolatilization to improve the efficacy of the devolatilization as suggested by Arora.
Regarding claim 88, 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 can be fed to a gasifier (paragraph 41). Gillespie discloses that the plastic include thermoplastic polymers (paragraph 54). Gillespie does not disclose a densification process prior to its heated devolatilization process. Arora—in an invention for providing wastes including textiles and plastic to downstream gasification—discloses pulverization prior to volatile removal for better reaction rates in thermal processing operations (paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to densify the materials of Gillespie prior to its devolatilization to improve the efficacy of the devolatilization as suggested by Arora. Arora discloses that fossil fuels include coal (paragraph 33).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights