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 Amendment
Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-22 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 12-13 and 15 have been withdrawn. The prior art rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “feed pressure regulator” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719).
Regarding claim 1, Sagerer discloses a process for regenerating a solvent for cellulose in a process for the production of shaped cellulose articles ([0001]), comprising the steps of: A) continuously or discontinuously producing solid shaped cellulose articles from a cellulose solution (spunbonded nonwoven, [0001]), comprising the steps of: i) providing a cellulose solution of dissolved cellulose and a cellulose solvent (NMMO/H2O solvent [0059]); ii) shaping the cellulose solution into a desired geometrical shape ([0017]); iii) consolidating the shaped cellulose solution into shaped cellulose articles in a coagulation liquid ([0051]); iv) releasing or extracting the solvent from the shaped cellulose articles using a non-solvent (recover, [0045] [0055]); wherein, during the continuous or discontinuous process, shaped article waste from the cellulose solution accrues in an unwanted shape and optionally in the desired shape (solvent-laden spunbonded nonwoven which is discharged, [0054]); B) collecting the shaped article waste in the unwanted shape and optionally in the desired shape (discharged, [0045]); C) comminuting the optionally solvent-containing and/or non-solvent-containing shaped article waste from step B) (shredded in a shredding device, [0055]); and D) extracting solvent from the comminuted shaped article waste (NMMO recovery, [0055]), wherein solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to and during shaping is mixed and comminuted together (discharge at multiple locations leading to shredding, [0055-56]), wherein in a precipitation step, the solid solvent-containing cellulose waste is precipitated from cellulose suspensions or solutions prior to the shaping in step A) ii) and wherein said precipitation step is different than the shaping in step A) ii) (filtered, then later added to the spinning dope production, where later shaping would occur, [0019]; filtration is consistent with Applicant’s use of precipitation on page 11 of Applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Sagerer discloses wherein the shaping of the cellulose solution in step ii) is spinning solution extrusion, or spinning into strands, filaments or films, wherein the shaped article waste in the unwanted form is in the form of clumps of the strands, filaments or films (spun bonded, [00[0001] [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Sagerer discloses wherein desired or unwanted shaped article waste after shaping, either alone or with solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to shaping or after comminution, is mixed and comminuted together (discharge at multiple locations leading to shredding, [0055-56]).
Regarding claim 4, Sagerer discloses wherein the comminution in step C) is carried out by the action of mechanical force (shredder, [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Sagerer discloses wherein the solvent for cellulose is N-methyl morpholine N-oxide ([0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Sagerer discloses wherein the solvent or the aqueous solvent mixture of the solvent-containing washing and cutting liquids from step A) iv) and the solvent-containing aqueous extraction liquids from step D) are concentrated after dissolving or extraction (purification, [0019] [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Sagerer discloses wherein the concentration comprises evaporation of non-solvent or crystallization of the solvent (evaporated, [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Sagerer discloses wherein the steps A) i) to iv) are carried out in one or more spinning unit(s) (plant 1, [0051]), wherein solvent-containing aqueous coagulation liquid discharged from the spinning unit is collected via a channel or a channel system (discharge devices 14 constitute channels permitting exit of the mixed fluid, [0056]) and mixed together with the solvent or aqueous solvent mixture from step iv) and fed for cleaning, concentration and recycling (flow together, [0056]; downstream recycling [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, Sagerer discloses wherein the comminution in step C) is carried out in a mill (shredder is a kind of mill, [0055]).
Regarding claim 20, Sagerer discloses wherein the cellulose solution further includes a non-solvent (water, NMMO/H2O solvent [0059]).
Regarding claim 21, Sagerer discloses wherein said non-solvent is water or an aqueous medium (water, NMMO/H2O solvent [0059]).
Regarding claim 22, Sagerer discloses wherein the shaped cellulose articles are filaments, staple fibers, films, membranes, hollow tubes or non-wovens ([0051]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 104711706) in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a process for regenerating a solvent for cellulose in a process for the production of shaped cellulose articles (abstract), comprising the steps of: A) continuously or discontinuously producing solid shaped cellulose articles from a cellulose solution (slag outlet releases produced solid cellulose articles, abstract), comprising the steps of: i) providing a cellulose solution of dissolved cellulose and a cellulose solvent (NMMO/H2O solvent [0002]); ii) shaping the cellulose solution into a desired geometrical shape ([0002-03]); iii) consolidating the shaped cellulose solution into shaped cellulose articles in a coagulation liquid ([0002-03]); iv) releasing or extracting the solvent from the shaped cellulose articles using a non-solvent ([0003]); wherein, during the continuous or discontinuous process, shaped article waste from the cellulose solution accrues in an unwanted shape and optionally in the desired shape (recycling from this process, [0002-05]); B) collecting the shaped article waste in the unwanted shape and optionally in the desired shape (collected within raw liquid waste entrance, [0005]); C) comminuting the optionally solvent-containing and/or non-solvent-containing shaped article waste from step B) ((crushing, [0005]); and D) extracting solvent from the comminuted shaped article waste (leaching, [0005])), wherein solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to and during shaping is mixed and comminuted together (raw liquid waste [solvent-containing the cellulose of the lyocell fibre spinning stock] outlet leads to crushing device where it is comminuted together, [0005]).
Cheng teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cheng does not disclose wherein in a precipitation step, the solid solvent-containing cellulose waste is precipitated from cellulose suspensions or solutions prior to the shaping in step A) ii) and wherein said precipitation step is different than the shaping in step A) ii).
However, in the same field of endeavor of recycling for a lyocell spinning dope ([0005]), Sagerer-Forcic teaches wherein in a precipitation step, the solid solvent-containing cellulose waste is precipitated from cellulose suspensions or solutions prior to the shaping in step A) ii) and wherein said precipitation step is different than the shaping in step A) ii) (filtered, then later added to the spinning dope production, where later shaping would occur, [0019]; filtration is consistent with Applicant’s use of precipitation on page 11 of Applicant’s disclosure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to include filtering before restoring the suspension back to the process because [0019] of Sagerer-Forcic teaches that doing so prepares it for spinning dope production.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the shaping of the cellulose solution in step ii) is spinning solution extrusion, or spinning into strands, filaments or films, wherein the shaped article waste in the unwanted form is in the form of clumps of the strands, filaments or films (spinning raw liquid waste is extruded to form the strip-shaped material, [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng as modified teaches wherein desired or unwanted shaped article waste after shaping, either alone or with solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to shaping or after comminution, is mixed and comminuted together ([0010] [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the comminution in step C) is carried out by the action of mechanical force (shredder, [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the solvent for cellulose is N-methyl morpholine N-oxide ([0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the comminution in step C) is carried out in a mill (shredder is a kind of mill, [0010]).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the cellulose solution further includes a non-solvent (water, NMMO/H2O solvent [0002]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheng as modified teaches wherein said non-solvent is water or an aqueous medium (water, NMMO/H2O solvent [0002]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 104711706) in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Martel (US 2003/0181538) and Ikeda (US 5,207,390).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses wherein for comminution, the comminutor is a shredder ([0010]). Cheng teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cheng does not disclose details about the shredder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of recycling waste by grinding it up ([0009] and abstract), Martel teaches a comminutor with a rotor with one or more protruding cutting elements and one or more counter-cutting edge(s) is used (shredder with sawtooth and counter-rotating spacer assemblies, [0032]), wherein the cutting elements slide past the counter-cutting edges so that shaped articles or shaped article waste between the cutting elements and the counter-cutting edges are comminuted and the shaped articles or shaped article waste are continuously or discontinuously conveyed to the cutting elements for comminution (fed to shredder, [0032]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of shredding waste and solving the problem of shredding waste (abstract), Ikeda teaches the shaped articles or shaped article waste are continuously or discontinuously conveyed to the cutting elements for comminution by means of a feed pressure regulator (elevator cylinder regulates opening of a compression feeder for desired pressure/load, col. 6 ll. 62 to col. 7 ll. 19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to use a shredder as further specified by Martel and fed by the elevator cylinder of Ikeda because [0032] of Martel teaches a variety of options for shredding (Cheng generally refers to a Shredder in [0010]) and col. 6 ll. 62 to col. 7 ll. 19 of Martel teaches that a control system for the elevator cylinder can avoid troubles by providing the proper drive load for the shredder.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Martel (US 2003/0181538) and Ikeda (US 5,207,390).
Regarding claim 5, Sagerer discloses characterized in that for comminution, the comminutor is a shredder ([0055]). Sagerer teaches a process substantially as claimed. Sagerer does not disclose details about the shredder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of recycling waste by grinding it up ([0009] and abstract), Martel teaches a comminutor with a rotor with one or more protruding cutting elements and one or more counter-cutting edge(s) is used (shredder with sawtooth and counter-rotating spacer assemblies, [0032]), wherein the cutting elements slide past the counter-cutting edges so that shaped articles or shaped article waste between the cutting elements and the counter-cutting edges are comminuted and the shaped articles or shaped article waste are continuously or discontinuously conveyed to the cutting elements for comminution (fed to shredder, [0032]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of shredding waste and solving the problem of shredding waste (abstract), Ikeda teaches the shaped articles or shaped article waste are continuously or discontinuously conveyed to the cutting elements for comminution by means of a feed pressure regulator (elevator cylinder regulates opening of a compression feeder for desired pressure/load, col. 6 ll. 62 to col. 7 ll. 19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Sagerer to use a shredder as further specified by Martel and fed by the elevator cylinder of Ikeda because [0032] of Martel teaches a variety of options for shredding (Sagerer generally refers to a Shredder in [0055]) and col. 6 ll. 62 to col. 7 ll. 19 of Martel teaches that a control system for the elevator cylinder can avoid troubles by providing the proper drive load for the shredder.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 104711706) in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mülleder (US 5,773,655.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cheng teaches wherein the solvent or the aqueous solvent mixture of the solvent-containing washing and cutting liquids from step A) iv) and the solvent-containing aqueous extraction liquids from step D) forms (raw liquid waste containing both pass through outlet and through shredder, [0005])
Cheng does not disclose wherein the solvent or the aqueous solvent mixture of the solvent-containing washing and cutting liquids from step A) iv) and the solvent-containing aqueous extraction liquids from step D) are concentrated after dissolving or extraction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cellulose recycling from a moldable cellulose solution (col. 1 ll. 25-35), Mülleder teaches that the solvent or the aqueous solvent mixture of the solvent-containing washing and cutting liquids from step A) iv) and the solvent-containing aqueous extraction liquids from step D) are concentrated after dissolving or extraction (col. 2 ll. 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to evaporate the solution to concentrated it for reuse (recycling) after it has exited because col. 2 ll. 1-3 of Mülleder teaches evaporating and concentrating solution containing NMMO to produce a reusable solution.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng as modified teaches wherein the concentration comprises evaporation of non-solvent (evaporation, Mülleder col. 2 ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cheng does not disclose wherein coagulation liquid from which shaped cellulose articles from step A) iii) are separated after transport from a container with coagulation liquid and is collected together with extracted solvent from step D).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cellulose recycling from a moldable cellulose solution (col. 1 ll. 25-35), Mülleder teaches wherein coagulation liquid from which shaped cellulose articles from step A) iii) are separated after transport from a container with coagulation liquid and is collected together with extracted solvent from step D), (col. 1 ll. 46-53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to recover the coagulation liquid and extracted from the solvent because col. 1 ll. 46-53 of Mülleder teaches doing so is of vital importance.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches a process substantially as claimed. Cheng does not disclose that the steps A) i) to iv) are carried out in one or more spinning unit(s), wherein solvent-containing aqueous coagulation liquid discharged from the spinning unit is collected via a channel or a channel system and mixed together with the solvent or aqueous solvent mixture from step iv) and fed for cleaning, concentration and recycling.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cellulose recycling from a moldable cellulose solution (col. 1 ll. 25-35), Mülleder teaches that the steps A) i) to iv) are carried out in one or more spinning unit(s), wherein solvent-containing aqueous coagulation liquid discharged from the spinning unit is collected via a channel or a channel system and mixed together with the solvent or aqueous solvent mixture from step iv) and fed for cleaning, concentration and recycling (col. 1 ll. 46-53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to recover the coagulation liquid is collected via some sort of channel, mixed with solvent and fed for recycling because col. 1 ll. 46-53 of Mülleder teaches doing so is of vital importance.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mülleder (US 5,773,655.
Regarding claim 9, Sagerer teaches a process substantially as claimed. Sagerer does not disclose wherein coagulation liquid from which shaped cellulose articles from step A) iii) are separated after transport from a container with coagulation liquid and is collected together with extracted solvent from step D).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cellulose recycling from a moldable cellulose solution (col. 1 ll. 25-35), Mülleder teaches wherein coagulation liquid from which shaped cellulose articles from step A) iii) are separated after transport from a container with coagulation liquid and is collected together with extracted solvent from step D), (col. 1 ll. 46-53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Sagerer to recover the coagulation liquid and extracted from the solvent because col. 1 ll. 46-53 of Mülleder teaches doing so is of vital importance.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 104711706) in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zikeli (US 2003-0160348).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng teaches wherein the coagulation liquid is in a container (liquid being used in a process is inherently contained in a container).
However, in the same field of forming articles from a moldable cellulose solution (abstract), Zikeli teaches wherein the coagulation liquid is in a container and a collecting basin for collecting cellulose solvent draining out of the container because of the transport of shaped cellulose articles is associated with the container ([0037] [0061]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to include a collecting basin because [0061] of Zikeli teaches doing so in the same technical context so that it can readily be reused.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zikeli (US 2003-0160348).
Regarding claim 10, Sagerer teaches wherein the coagulation liquid is in a container (liquid being used in a process is inherently contained in a container).
However, in the same field of forming articles from a moldable cellulose solution (abstract), Zikeli teaches wherein the coagulation liquid is in a container and a collecting basin for collecting cellulose solvent draining out of the container because of the transport of shaped cellulose articles is associated with the container ([0037] [0061]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Sagerer to include a collecting basin because [0061] of Zikeli teaches doing so in the same technical context so that it can readily be reused.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (CN 104711706) in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moellmann (US 2009/0221813).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng teaches a method substantially as claimed. Cheng does not disclose wherein the solvent for cellulose is an ionic solvent with an ammonium, pyrimidium or imidazolium cation, 1,3- dialkyl imidazolium, butyl-3-methyl imidazolium or 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium.
However, in the same field of endeavor of recycled solvents for cellulose ([0008]), Moellmann teaches wherein the solvent for cellulose is an ionic solvent with an ammonium (dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides, [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Cheng to use dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides because [0008] of Moellmann teaches that dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides is a known alternative for recycled solvent for cellulose to NMMO (as noted above in [0002] of Cheng, the solvent used in Cheng is NMMO).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moellmann (US 2009/0221813).
Regarding claim 17, Sagerer teaches a method substantially as claimed. Sagerer does not disclose wherein the solvent for cellulose is an ionic solvent with an ammonium, pyrimidium or imidazolium cation, 1,3- dialkyl imidazolium, butyl-3-methyl imidazolium or 1-ethyl-3-methyl imidazolium.
However, in the same field of endeavor of recycled solvents for cellulose ([0008]), Moellmann teaches wherein the solvent for cellulose is an ionic solvent with an ammonium (dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides, [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Sagerer to use dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides because [0008] of Moellmann teaches that dimethyl sulfoxide in combination with ammonium fluorides is a known alternative for recycled solvent for cellulose to NMMO (as noted above in [0059] of Sagerer, the solvent used in Sagerer is NMMO).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719).
Regarding claim 18, Sagerer wherein the solvent or the aqueous solvent mixture of the solvent-containing washing and cutting liquids from step A) iv) and the solvent-containing aqueous extraction liquids from step D) are concentrated after dissolving or extraction to obtain a solution of cellulose solvent which is suitable for dissolving or suspending cellulose (purification, is recycled and therefore suitable for the repeated use with cellulose, [0019] [0059]), or in a concentration of at least 50% (% by weight) of solvent in the solution in the case of N-methyl morpholine N-oxide as the solvent (overlapping range of 20-78% NMMO, [0059]; MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 19-21 under 35 USC 102 over Cheng (CN 104711706) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sagerer-Forcic (US 2022/0106719).
Applicant's remaining arguments, December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the liquid waste pipe of Cheng would not contain “shaped article waste.” This argument is not persuasive because no size minimum has been recited. Very small particles would not be excluded. In Cheng, the spinning solution waste is shredded, followed by downstream extraction of NMMO. The NMMO is contained in this waste and is shredded there, thereby meeting the limitation of solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to and during shaping. The limitation, “solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to and during shaping” identifies the waste that is “mixed and comminuted together.” This is true for Cheng. Waste is traveling with the solvent through the liquid waste outlet. Applicant appears to be arguing that no waste traveling through that pipe is solid, and therefore that it cannot be the solid solvent-containing cellulose waste which accrues prior to and during shaping. This argument assumes that Cheng is somehow excluding any and all solid waste from entering with this liquid, which is an unsupported assumption. Any amount of solid waste would be sufficient for this claim and very small particles would be “shaped article waste.” Applicant also argues that there is no “mixing.” However, the liquid waste includes material from before and during shaping, thus meeting the limitations of the claim.
As to Sagerer-Forcic, Applicant argues that none of the "discharge devices 14" are located before the spinning stage, i.e., not prior to shaping. This argument is not persuasive because the claims merely recite waste which accrues prior to and during shaping to be mixed and comminuted together. While Sagerer-Forcic teaches the spinning step at the beginning of Fig. 1, runoff from that process is all going to the discharge devices, and is thus all comminuted together.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are all based on the alleged deficiencies rebutted above.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744