DETAILED ACTION
All objections and rejections raised in prior Office Actions are withdrawn unless restated below.
Claims 2-3, 7-10, 24 and 27-29 remain withdrawn.
Applicant is reminded that withdrawn claims should be amended to be consistent with amendments to the independent claims. For example, claim 2 recites acid hydrolysis while claim 1 expressly requires enzymatic hydrolysis.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “directly after decomposition into the aqueous slurry.” The common meaning of decomposition is to break something down to its constituent parts including into simpler compounds. For example, composting of organic waste decomposes organic material into simpler compounds. Here, more appropriate and consistent claim terminology should be used, such as “directly after processing into the aqueous slurry” wherein “processing” is recited earlier in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 5 and 11 differ only in that claim 5 recites “and/or” in line 2 and claim 11 recites “or.” However, “and/or” and “or” have the same meaning for the scope of the claims, which is “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 depends from independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 requires both 1) processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles, and 2) wherein no chemical pretreatment affecting the cellulosic fibers is performed on the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles prior to the saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis. Claim 1 would require the processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles to occur before any saccharification.
Dependent claim 13 positively recites “wherein processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles is performed by a chemical, thermochemical . . . treatment.”
A chemical, and particularly a thermochemical treatment, are process that in all of their reasonable understood embodiments would result in at least some degree of affecting the cellulosic fibers which is performed on the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles prior to saccharification. That is, the ordinary meaning of the term “pretreatment” in the context of the technical subject matter of saccharifying a textile material with cellulosic fibers is that the pretreatment affects the cellulosic fibers in some way that benefits the saccharification. For example, the specification, page 8, describes: The structure of lignocellulose is complex and to a certain extent resistant to chemicals and hydrolysis. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass may also result in unwanted byproducts which can inhibit subsequent treatment such as fermentation. Thus, it is important to remove the lignin and hemicellulose from lignocellulosic material through pretreatment.”
As such, claim 13 fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, recitation of wherein processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles is performed by a chemical or thermochemical treatment omits the limitation of claim 1 wherein no chemical pretreatment affecting the cellulosic fibers is performed on the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles prior to the saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis. Claim 1 would require the processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles to occur before any saccharification.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-6, 11-14, 19, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholamzad et al. (Effective conversion of waste polyester–cotton textile to ethanol and recovery of polyester by alkaline pretreatment, Chem. Eng. J. 253, 2014, 40-45) further in view of Carillo et al. (Cellulase processing of lyocell and viscose type fibres, Process Biochem. 39, 2003, 257-61), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), and Wedin et al. (Evaluation of post-consumer cellulosic textile waste for chemical recycling based on cellulose degree of polymerization and molar mass distribution, Textile Res. J. 89, May 2019, 5067-75) (first cited 11/27/2024), as evidenced by Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Vol. III, Mathews Kolanjikombil, Ed. 2018, Woodhead Publishing India Pvt Ltd. (herein, Dictionary).
As an initial matter, the following is noted:
The cited Dictionary provides the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, rayon is synonymous with viscose in the art.
Gholamzad, Carillo and Vecchiato all present complementary techniques regarding generation of sugars, particularly glucose, by enzymatic hydrolysis of textiles. All of Gholamzad, Carillo and Vecchiato are cited and discussed herein since the references evidence the extensive knowledge available to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing regarding hydrolysis of textiles of varying materials including cotton/polyester, viscose/rayon and lyocell. However, it is noted that Vecchiato is considered to be the closest prior art to at least claim 1. The references are summarized below.
Gholamzad, abstract, states:
The majority of textiles typically contain a biodegradable part that is cellulose and a non-biodegradable part which is a polyester. In this study, alkali pretreatment was evaluated for improvement of ethanol production from the cellulose part of a polyester–cotton textile and recovery of the polyester. The pretreatment was conducted by different alkali solutions of NaOH (12 wt%), NaOH/urea (7/12 wt%), NaOH/thiourea (9.5/4.5 wt%) and NaOH/urea/thiourea (8/8/6.4 wt%) at −20, 0, 23, and 100 °C for 1 h. All of the pretreatments resulted in improvement of enzymatic hydrolysis yield to over 88%, while it was only 46.3% for the untreated textile. The best hydrolysis results were observed by the pretreatments at the reduced temperatures (−20 and 0 °C). The maximum yield of ethanol production from the textile by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation was 70%, obtained after the pretreatment with NaOH/urea at −20 °C whereas it was only 36% for the untreated textile. The polyester part of the textile was recovered after the hydrolysis of the cellulosic part and its properties were studied by FTIR, Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), and viscosity measurements and compared with the untreated polyester used in the textile. The results showed that the alkaline pretreatment followed by hydrolysis resulted in recovery of 98% of the polyester without significant change in its properties.
“The waste textile used in this study was a white 40/60 polyester/cotton blend (Poya Baft factory, Isfahan, Iran) [i.e. a waste textile that comprises over 50% by weight of cotton], in which its polyester part was polyethylene terephthalate produced by Polyacryl, Iran. The textile solid content was 98 ± 1.3% as determined by drying at 110 °C until a constant weight. The textile was cut into small pieces (approximately 3 × 3 cm2) and milled by a whirring-blade grinder (KSM2, Braun) to less than 1 mm particles (i.e. comminuted particles) before subjecting to the experiments. Enzymatic hydrolysis was conducted using two enzymes of β-glucosidase (Novozym 188, Novozyme, Denmark) and cellulase (Celluclast 1.5 L, Novozyme, Denmark).” Gholamzad, sec. 2.1.
“The treated and untreated waste textiles were subjected to 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis at 45 °C and pH 4.8 (in 50 mM sodium citrate buffer supplemented with 0.5 g/l sodium azide) with 3% (w/v) solid (substrates) loading, using 30 FPU cellulase and 60 IU β-glucosidase per gram of cellulose.” Gholamzad, sec. 2.3. That, saccharification is undertaken with saccharification enzymes.
Milling to less than 1 mm particles is considered to form a slurry of comminuted waste textiles when added to buffer for saccharification by saccharification enzymes done by mechanical treatment as recited in claim 14.
The discussion of glucose yield in sec. 3.1 of Gholamzad is understood as a description monomer sugars consist substantially of glucose.
Following enzymatic hydrolysis of untreated and pretreated textile, sec. 2.4 of Gholamzad describes simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to produce ethanol, which is processing the monomer sugars into an organic chemical. Glucose yields from treated and untreated textiles is shown in Fig. 1 of Gholamzad.
“Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP 2123(II).
Gholamzad teaches preferred embodiments wherein an alkali treatment is performed and other embodiments wherein no pretreatment is performed (i.e. untreated textile). Where no pretreatment is performed, production of an ethanol yield of 36%, which represents successful generation of fermentable sugar/glucose for ethanol production. As such, Gholamzad does not teach away from embodiments wherein no alkali treatment is performed in view of MPEP 2123(II).
In summary of the above, embodiments of Gholamzad wherein no pretreatment is performed, sec. 2.1 teaches that the untreated 40/60 polyester/cotton blend is milled into small particles that is a mechanical treatment as recited in claim 13. Then, since no further pretreatment is performed, “treated and untreated waste textiles were subjected to 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis at 45 [Symbol font/0xB0]C and pH 4.8 (in 50 mM sodium citrate buffer supplemented with 0.5 g/l sodium azide) with 3% (w/v) solid (substrates) loading, using 30 FPU cellulase and 60 IU b-glucosidase per gram of cellulose.” Gholamzad, sec. 2.3. That is, the untreated particles of textile waste is placed into an aqueous hydrolysis reaction that is processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry followed by saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis comprising treatment with saccharification enzymes, said saccharification providing hydrolysis of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer directly after decomposition into the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles. In the absence of alkali pretreatment, no chemical pretreatment affecting the cellulosic fibers is performed on the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles prior to the saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis and/or formation of a slurry.
Carillo, abstract, teaches:
Differences in hydrolysis behaviour between lyocell and viscose type regenerated celluloses (viscose and modal) have been evaluated by the study of the enzymic hydrolysis by cellulases. Kinetic parameters (Vem and ke) and enzyme catalytic specificity were calculated during cellulase processing. The results show low adsorption, catalytic specificity and rate of hydrolysis (Vem=0.407 h/l h) of lyocell fibres ahead of the viscose-type fibres due to their higher orientation and crystallinity. Fibrillation treatment of lyocell favours cellulase attack by greatly increasing the availability of sites for enzyme adsorption.
“Lyocell, viscose and modal fibres of 1.7 dtex were used.” Carillo, sec. 2.
“Samples of fabric (yarns of 56.8 tex in both warp and weft directions, plain weave construction and weight of 283 g/m2) made with the staple fibres of 1.7 dtex (average length of 38 mm), were subjected to the industrial process of fibrillation by mechanical action in a jet machine. Fibrillation treatments were carried out for 90 min at a temperature of 100 °C and a liquor to fabric ratio of 10:1. The pH of the liquor was adjusted to 10 with Na2CO3..” Carillo, sec. 2.
“Enzymic hydrolysis involved 2.5 g of fibre at a temperature of 50 °C and a liquor ratio of 80/1 (v/w). The hydrolysis were carried out in a thermostated reactor, with mechanical stirring (300 rpm) by using 0.05 M acetate buffer (pH 6). Initial enzyme concentrations of 6, 12.5 and 25 g/l were tested for different hydrolysis times (15, 30, 60 and 155 min). Finally the enzyme were deactivated by increasing the temperature to 80 °C for 15 min. Sample solutions were removed at timed intervals and the concentration of reducing sugars as glucose determined by a dinitrosalycilic acid method using glucose for calibration.” Carillo, sec. 2. Generation of sugar/glucose is shown in Fig. 3 from both lyocell and viscose is shown in Fig. 3 of Carillo.
Carillo describes a fibrillation treatment only for lyocell. Viscose was subject to enzymatic hydrolysis with no apparent pretreatment of any kind. As shown in Fig. 1 of Carillo, viscose has a higher enzyme adsorption than lyocell even without any pretreatment. “The maximum adsorption value was observed for a viscose sample which had the lower degree of crystallinity and amorphous orientation.” Carillo, page 259, right col.
Vecchiato, abstract, states:
Rayon filaments composed of regenerated cellulose are used as reinforcement materials in tires and to a lower extent in the clothing industry as personal protective equipment e.g. flame retardant cellulosic based materials. After use, these materials are currently transferred to landfills while chemical degradation does not allow the recovery of the cellulose (as glucose) nor the separation of the high valuable flame-retardant pigment. In this study, rayon fibers were enzymatically hydrolyzed to allow recovery of glucose and valuable additives. The glucose was successfully used as carbon source for the production of high value compounds such as itaconic acid, lactic acid and chitosan. 14.2 g/L of itaconic acid, 36.5 g/L of lactic acid and 39.2 g/L of chitosan containing biomass were produced from Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus paracasei and Aspergillus niger, respectively, comparable to yields obtained when using commercial glucose as carbon source.
“For enzymatic hydrolysis, rayon samples (1, 30, 60 and 80 g) were incubated in 250 mL 50 mM citric acid buffer (pH 4.8) and 1, 5 and 10 kFPU/g Rf. Thereafter, for the removal of the flame retardant, samples were centrifuged (Eppendorf Centrifuge 5920R, Germany) (25 °C, 3420 x g, 10 min) and ultrafiltered (Vivaflow50, 5,000 MWCO) (Sartorius, Germany). The resulting solution was microfiltered using 0.1 μM vacuum filters (EMD Millipore, Austria) and glucose quantified via HPLC as above.” Vecchiato, page 9, left col.
Fig. 3 of Vecchiato shows embodiments wherein nearly 100% (greater than 90%) of rayon is converted to glucose. As discussed in Vecchiato, recovered glucose is fermented to lactic acid by fermentation with Lactobacillus paracasei. See Vecchiato, Fig. 3 and related text.
The teachings of Gholamzad, Carillo and Vecchiato, as summarized as follows:
-Gholamzad: Use of waste textiles to produce glucose that can be fermented to desired products (e.g. ethanol) is desirable in the art. Mechanical grinding/milling before charging a textile into an aqueous enzymatic saccharification reaction is a known technique in the prior art to increase enzyme access to the cellulose fibers of the waste textile. Forming such an aqueous reaction mixture with milled waste textile is processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted (i.e. broken into small pieces) waste textiles. Gholamzad demonstrates that a saccharification reaction can be performed without any prior chemical pretreatment that affects the cellulosic fiber such that saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis comprising treatment with saccharification enzymes, said saccharification providing hydrolysis of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer directly after decomposition into the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles.
-Carillo teaches that viscose textiles can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to glucose without any particular pretreatment. Carillo discusses that the less crystalize structure of viscose allows for increased enzyme absorption without any pretreatment as compared to other cellulose textiles materials.
-Vecchiato furthers and reinforces the teachings of Carillo that viscose/rayon does not require any particular pretreatment, including chemical pretreatments, in order to produce glucose through enzymatic hydrolysis. Vecchiato further teaches that such generated sugar can be fermented by a microorganism to lactic acid, and that viscose/rayon from tires or clothing (i.e. waste textiles) are particularly desirable sources to produce glucose for fermentation to value added products.
That is, Vecchiato in particular teach the following method:
A process for manufacturing of lactic acid, the method comprising:
-providing waste textiles comprising over 50% viscose/rayon (100% viscose/rayon);
-processing the waste textiles into an aqueous enzymatic reaction; and
-saccharification of the waste textiles into glucose monomer sugars directly after formation of the aqueous enzymatic reaction,
wherein no chemical pretreatment affecting the cellulosic fibers is performed on the rayon/viscose cellulosic fibers prior to saccharification into monomer sugars (glucose) via enzymatic hydrolysis.
The difference between the teachings of Vecchiato and claims 1, 13 and 14, is that Vecchiato does not teach a mechanical pretreatment of waste textile by milling to form small comminuted pieces of waste textile that form a slurry when placed into an aqueous enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification reaction. However, Gholamzad teaches that it is a known technique in the prior to subject a waste textile to milling prior enzymatic hydrolysis. “The textile was cut into small pieces (approximately 3 x 3 cm2) and milled by a whirring-blade grinder (KSM2, Braun) to less than 1 mm particles before subjecting to the experiments.” Gholamzad, sec. 2.1. While not explicitly stated by Gholamzad, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have recognized that such milling is to increase surface area of the textile accessible in the enzymatic saccharification reaction.
As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to subject any waste textile to milling as taught by Gholamzad in order to assist in enzymatic saccharification of Gholamzad. Upon making such a modification to the teachings of Vecchiato, the waste rayon/viscose taught therein is processed into an aqueous slurry (milled textile in an aqueous media understood as forming a slurry within the broadest reasonable meaning of the same). Since 1) Vecchiato teaches that no chemical pretreatment is required for viscose/rayon, 2) Carillo teaches that no chemical pretreatment is required for viscose/rayon, and 3) Gholamzad teaches an embodiment wherein a cotton/polyester textile is not subject to chemical pretreatment, milled and then placed into an aqueous slurry for enzymatic saccharification, an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing would have recognized that chemical pretreatments are not particularly necessary for saccharification of viscose such that upon milling such viscose waste textile of Vecchiato, placement of the milled waste textile into an aqueous enzymatic reaction (forming an aqueous slurry), saccharification and processing/fermenting glucose into lactic acid, the following method is performed as suggested by the cited prior art:
A process for manufacturing of lactic acid from waste textiles comprising cellulosic fibers, the method comprising:
-providing waste textiles comprising over 50% viscose/rayon (100% viscose/rayon) by weight;
-mechanically milling the waste textiles and processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles; and
-saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into glucose monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis comprising treatment with saccharification enzymes, said saccharification providing hydrolysis of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer directly after decomposition of the aqueous enzymatic reaction, and
- processing the monomer sugars into lactic acid;
wherein no chemical pretreatment affecting the cellulosic fibers is performed on the aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles prior to the saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugars via enzymatic hydrolysis.
In view of the above, the features of at least claims 1, 5, 6, 11-14, 25 and 26 except for recitation of IV less than 600 ml/g. For claim 26, again it is noted that Vecchiato, Fig. 3, shows conversion of viscose/rayon at greater than 90% conversion.
However, Gholamzad, Carrillo and Vecchiato do not teach that intrinsic viscosity of the cellulosic fiber within a waste textile is lower than 600 ml/g nor that the waste textile contains over 50% viscose or a mixture of viscose and polyester.
Regarding an IV of lower than 600 mg/l, Wedin, abstract and Table 2, reports IV values for serval types of worn “end-of-life cellulosic textiles [that] can be used for chemical recycling,” which is type of cellulosic textile material that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motived to apply the methods of Vecchiato to beneficially generate fermentable glucose as discussed above. Table 2 of Wedin reports that expected IV for viscose/rayon textiles is well below 600 ml/g, for example 153 ml/g. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to employ as discussed above viscose/rayon waste textiles having an IV that is consistent for such waste textiles as described on Table 2 of Wedin including using the actual rayon textile taught by Wedin with IV of less than 600 ml/g, since the same are explicitly taught by Wedin as rayon/viscose textiles that are appropriate for recycling. Further, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, Wedin indicate that rayon/viscose materials are expected to have, or unsurprising can have, an intrinsic viscosity of well less than 600 ml/g. As such, at the time of filing it is not inventive to employ a rayon/viscose-containing textile material having an intrinsic viscosity of less than 600 ml/g as set forth in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 only requires some minor (e.g. 1% by weight) of lyocell cellulosic fibers be present in the waste textiles. Claim 19 does not require that lyocell be hydrolyzed to produce glucose or other sugar wherein the features of claims 1 and 19 do not require 100% hydrolysis of all cellulose fibers present in the waste textile. Claim 19 does not require that viscose and lyocell be woven into the same textile. That is, a mass of waste textiles having varying composition from different origins with some small amount of lyocell present satisfies claim 19.
As discussed, the cited prior art including Gholamzad, Carillo and Vecchiato are directed towards processing of waste textiles. An ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would understand that waste textiles are not necessarily pure and can comprise a mixture of textiles from various sources. The above rejections address waste textiles that are viscose or a mixture of viscose and polyester. However, any waste textile may be contain additional materials, for example, cotton, wool, nylon, etc. More specifically, Table 1 of Wedin evidences post-consumer textile material that are often in textile waste streams including lyocell. It is not inventive for a textile waste stream to be applied to the methods of Gholamzad, Carillo and/or Vecchiato and other prior art discussed above to have some small amount of contamination of common post-consumer textile materials in addition to cotton and/or polyester including lyocell. That is, since lyocell is a common material found in waste textiles, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have an active expectation that the same can be found in a waste textile stream that may otherwise be primarily viscose and polyester. In the alternative, since Wedin and Carillo teaches that lyocell is a cellulose-based textile appropriate for recycling and Carillo specifically teaches that lyocell can be enzymatically saccharified into glucose, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to subject lyocell containing material, along with viscose, deliberately to enzymatic hydrolysis consistent with the teachings of Gholamzad, Carillo and Vecchiato, as discussed extensively above, with an expectation of success in at least a partial hydrolysis of lyocell to generate fermentable glucose.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholamzad et al. (Effective conversion of waste polyester–cotton textile to ethanol and recovery of polyester by alkaline pretreatment, Chem. Eng. J. 253, 2014, 40-45), Carillo et al. (Cellulase processing of lyocell and viscose type fibres, Process Biochem. 39, 2003, 257-61), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), and Wedin et al. (Evaluation of post-consumer cellulosic textile waste for chemical recycling based on cellulose degree of polymerization and molar mass distribution, Textile Res. J. 89, May 2019, 5067-75) as evidenced by Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Vol. III, Mathews Kolanjikombil, Ed. 2018, Woodhead Publishing India Pvt Ltd. (herein, Dictionary) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 25 and 26 above, and further in view of Basu et al. (Quality characteristics of polyester/viscose and polyester/cotton two-ply yarns, Indian J. Fibre & Textile Res. 31, 2006, 279-85).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Vecchiato does not teach a waste textile comprising viscose/rayon and polyester. As discussed, Gholamzad discusses the use of waste textiles for saccharification wherein such waste textile is a post-consumer textile. The majority of textiles typically contain a biodegradable part that is cellulose and a non-biodegradable part which is a polyester. Gholamzad, abstract. As such, Gholamzad teaches that a combined textile of cellulose (e.g. cotton) and polyester can successfully be subjected to enzymatic saccharification.
Textiles being a mixture of rayon and polyester are known in the art. Basu discusses yarns employed for textiles including “These yarns were made of polyester/viscose (P/V) and polyester/cotton (P/C) blended materials. The single yarn fineness ranged from 20s to 80s Ne and the P/C and P/V blend proportion ranged from 48:52 to 67:33.” Basu, page 280, left col. That is, Basu teach that is known to employ a yarn being 52% viscose by weight for production of textiles.
As discussed, Vecchiato relates to production of lactic acid from rayon/viscose waste. However, in view of the teachings of Gholamzad that textiles containing a cellulose and polyester component can be subjected to enzymatic saccharification, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to employ a textile being a mixture of viscose and polyester as taught by Basu within the teachings of Vecchiato. In particular, Vecchiato teaches that cellulose in rayon (i.e. viscose) can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to glucose with glucose fermented to high-value chemicals. That is, Vecchiato teaches that “Rayon filaments composes of regenerated cellulose are used as materials in . . . the clothing industry . . . . After use, these materials are currently transferred to landfills while chemical degradation does not allow the recovery of the cellulose (as glucose) . . . . In this study, rayon fibers were enzymatically hydrolyzed to allow recovery of glucose and valuable additives. The glucose was successfully used as carbon source for the production of high value compounds.” As such, since Vecchiato teaches that it is advantageous to hydrolyze rayon/viscose-containing material to glucose including from clothes (i.e. textiles), an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to subject such materials, including textiles made from 52% viscose and 48% polyester yarn as taught by Basu to the same methodology to achieve benefits of recovering fermentable glucose rather than waste such material by disposal in a landfill along with recovery of polyester as taught by Gholamzad. That is, Gholamzad teaches that the presence of polyester does not prevent the saccharification of the cellulose part of a combined cellulose-polyester textile.
Regarding discussion of an inert sludge in claims 21-22, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sludge” includes any mixture of liquid and solid components wherein Fig. 2C of Gholamzad shows the solid nature of the polyester in an aqueous environment that within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sludge.” Sludge is not interpreted as requiring the polyester to be settle or non-dispersed nor to have any specific rheology that is not defined by the specification. That is, upon use of a viscose(rayon)/polyester textile that has been milled within the teachings of Vecchiato as discussed above, the solid component of polyester within an aqueous saccharification reaction is an “insert sludge” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the same.
Regarding recitation of “the inert sludge being separated from the mono sugars,” Gholamzad expressly teaches recovery of the polyester fibers as indicated in Table 1 of Gholamzad including from the untreated textile, which removes the polyester/sludge from the monomer sugars to be fermented. When using a viscose(rayon)/polyester textile that has been milled within the teachings of Vecchiato as discussed above, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to recover the polyester present (i.e. sludge) since Gholamzad teaches that such polyester from a waste textile is valuable and beneficial to recover. “Furthermore, the non-cellulosic parts of the textiles [i.e. polyester], which remained after the bioconversion as a purified value-added product, is currently degraded through the disposal methods which cause environmental problems, despite their potential for recycling and reuse.” Gholamzad, pages 40-41.
It is noted that the requirement for IV being 600 ml/g or less is for the cellulosic part of the textile. As discussed above, Wedin indicates that viscose/rayon commonly has an IV of less than 600 ml/g.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholamzad et al. (Effective conversion of waste polyester–cotton textile to ethanol and recovery of polyester by alkaline pretreatment, Chem. Eng. J. 253, 2014, 40-45), Carillo et al. (Cellulase processing of lyocell and viscose type fibres, Process Biochem. 39, 2003, 257-61), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), Wedin et al. (Evaluation of post-consumer cellulosic textile waste for chemical recycling based on cellulose degree of polymerization and molar mass distribution, Textile Res. J. 89, May 2019, 5067-75), and Basu et al. (Quality characteristics of polyester/viscose and polyester/cotton two-ply yarns, Indian J. Fibre & Textile Res. 31, 2006, 279-85) as evidenced by Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Vol. III, Mathews Kolanjikombil, Ed. 2018, Woodhead Publishing India Pvt Ltd. (herein, Dictionary) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 11-14, 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26 above, and further in view of Saad et al. (Pyrolysis-Catalytic-Dry Reforming of Waste Plastics and Mixed Waste Plastics for Syngas Production, Energy Fuels 30, 2016, 3198-3204) and Yu et al. (Products of the Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis, Solid Fuel Chem. 48, 2014, 23-36).
Regarding claim 23, “Even though waste textile contains valuable fibers which could efficiently be recovered, its disposal is currently a serious challenge to waste management. In this study, it was shown that alkaline pretreatment and consequent enzymatic hydrolysis was a proper approach not only for efficient bioconversion of cotton part of waste textile, but also for separation of polyester from waste textile.” Gholamzad, section 4.
That is, Gholamzad teaches that he recovered polyester/PET is a valuable product meaning that it has some economic value. It is understood in the art that polyester and PET are the same material, at least that PET is a type of polyester. There are many uses for PET taught in the prior art wherein at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply PET recovered by the methods of Gholamzad and Vecchiato (as discussed above) to any appropriate purpose for which PET can be applied. For example, Saad, abstract, teaches that PET waste plastics can be converted by pyrolysis to syngas, which Saad explicitly teach is a beneficial use for waste PET. As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply waste PET from any suitable source, including such waste PET produced by the methods of Gholamzad and Vecchiato (as discussed above), to the production of syngas by pyrolysis as taught by Saad, since Saad expressly teaches that the production of syngas from waste PET is beneficial.
Regarding condensing the gas to form a hydrocarbon liquid, Yu explains that one of the primary uses of synthesis gas is formation of liquid hydrocarbons through Fisher-Tropsch synthesis. “The synthesis of hydrocarbons from a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (synthesis gas) is the second stage of the majority of processes for the production of these valuable chemical compounds.” Yu, page 22, left col. For example, Table 3 of Yu describes liquid (at room temperature) synthetic diesel fuel. At the time of filing, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to subject synthesis gas from any source, including pyrolysis of polyester as discussed above, to beneficially form liquid hydrocarbons through Fisher-Tropsch synthesis, which is considered to be “condensing the gas to form a hydrocarbon liquid. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this since Yu teaches that the same is an advantageous use of synthesis gas.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-17, 19, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholamzad et al. (Effective conversion of waste polyester–cotton textile to ethanol and recovery of polyester by alkaline pretreatment, Chem. Eng. J. 253, 2014, 40-45), Carillo et al. (Cellulase processing of lyocell and viscose type fibres, Process Biochem. 39, 2003, 257-61), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), and Wedin et al. (Evaluation of post-consumer cellulosic textile waste for chemical recycling based on cellulose degree of polymerization and molar mass distribution, Textile Res. J. 89, May 2019, 5067-75), as evidenced by Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Vol. III, Mathews Kolanjikombil, Ed. 2018, Woodhead Publishing India Pvt Ltd. (herein, Dictionary) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 11-14, 19, and 25-26 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 106645005 A) and Guifang et al. (Identification of varieties of natural textile fiber based on VIS/NIR spectroscopy technology, 2015 IEEE Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IAEAC), 2015). English machine translation of Yang previously provided.
Regarding claims 15-17, the waste textiles discussed by Gholamzad are those that may otherwise be disposed of by “incineration and landfilling.” Vecchiato, abstract, also states that rayon-containing from clothing (i.e. textiles) may also be disposed of in landfills.
Yang, abstract, states: The present invention provides a non-destructive method for rapid identifying sorting waste clothes textile, firstly using normal chemical analysis method for fibre waste textile garment component identification and determining the fiber type and the content in the waste. combining the dyeing and finishing process of clothes material, using chemical metrology software building waste clothing component, weaving style, colour and dyeing and finishing process of identifying model, combined with industrial automation technology and realizes the quick and non-destructive station of waste clothes sorting or transporting with online sorting. The invention claims a method for identifying and sorting method of identifying accurate, efficient, quick, non-destructive to the textile, is waste clothes efficiently, high value-added application.
“The purpose of the invention is using near infrared spectrum technique, under the premise of without damaging the clothing textile waste, textile waste clothes of different weaving method, different colours and different dyeing process-station or conveying belt online fast fiber ingredient identification and sorting [i.e. mechanical sorting].” Yang, Invention Contents.
As such, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a near infrared (NIR) mechanical sorting as taught by Yang in order to identify suitable textiles that can be applied to the methods of Gholamzad, Carillo and/or Vecchiato as discussed above. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this since the techniques of these references are intended to be applied to waste textiles that may otherwise be destined for a landfill wherein, as explained by Yang, such waste textiles are often available from waste sources wherein various types of waste textiles are mixed and require sorting for recycling purposes, wherein the techniques of Gholamzad and/or Vecchiato are a recycling purpose for waste textiles. It is noted that the conveying belt sorting taught by Yang is considered to be a “a plant wherein recycled textiles are sorted into at least synthetic fabrics and cellulosic fabrics.” See Yang, Embodiments 1 and 2, discussing identifying and sorting pure cotton and pure polyester textiles. Regarding claim 16, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have readily understood that selection of cellulose-containing fabrics, even if polyester is also present, is required for generation of glucose as taught by Gholamzad and Vecchiato. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to mechanically remove non-cellulosic fabrics, such as fabrics containing 100% polyester, from the waste textiles then applied to hydrolysis and fermentation as to meet the features of claims 15 and 16.
Regarding recitation of “NIR/VIS technology in claim 17,” Yang only explicitly discussed NIR. However, NIR/VIS spectroscopy is also known in the prior art. “A new method for discriminating the varieties of natural textile fiber based on visible/near infrared spectroscopy (Vis/NIRS) was developed.” Guifang, abstract. As far as Yang teaches that combined NIR spectroscopy can assist in textile identification, an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to apply NIR/VIS spectroscopy within the methods of Gholamzad and/or Vecchiato, since the same can provide for more accurate identification of textiles to be sorted therein by inclusion of the visible range of light.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-14, 18, 19, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gholamzad et al. (Effective conversion of waste polyester–cotton textile to ethanol and recovery of polyester by alkaline pretreatment, Chem. Eng. J. 253, 2014, 40-45), Carillo et al. (Cellulase processing of lyocell and viscose type fibres, Process Biochem. 39, 2003, 257-61), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), and Wedin et al. (Evaluation of post-consumer cellulosic textile waste for chemical recycling based on cellulose degree of polymerization and molar mass distribution, Textile Res. J. 89, May 2019, 5067-75) as evidenced by Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Textile Terms, Vol. III, Mathews Kolanjikombil, Ed. 2018, Woodhead Publishing India Pvt Ltd. (herein, Dictionary) as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 11-14, 19, and 25-26 above, and further in view of Sixta et al. (Evaluation of new organosolv dissolving pulps, Cellulose 11, 2004, 73-83).
Regarding claim 18, Sixta, abstract, teaches acidic organosolv pulping processes. More specifically, wood can be converted to viscose by employing such organosolv process: “It was the objective of the present study to compare and evaluate these new acidic pulping processes and the Mg-based acid sulfite technology with regard to viscose staple fiber preparation, using Eucalypt wood as a raw material.” Sixta, page 74, left col. “Eucalypt chips (industrial chips, detailed composition unknown, major parts: Eucalyptus globulus Labill, minor part: Eucalyptus globulus ssp pseudoglobulus) were provided by ENCE/Pontevedra, Spain. The chips were passed through a two-roll mill fitted with a 2-mm screen, homogenized in a single lot.” Sixta, page 74, left col. As such, the process of Sixta is within the broadest reasonable meaning of an organosolv pulp mill process.
As such, Sixta teaches that viscose fiber is producible from organosolv pulp milling of wood and any downstream viscose/rayon textile that such viscose fiber is incorporated into is a waste stream from an organosolv pulp mill. Or in the alternative, the viscose staple fiber prepared by Sixta can be directly employed for enzymatic degradation by methods consistent with Vecchiato.
That is, Sixta teaches that the primary source of cellulose found in viscose is from wood that is producible by an organosolv pulping process. Since any viscose fiber is necessarily produced by some process, at the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply viscose fiber as produced by Sixta to the processes of Vecchiato as far as the same is cellulose-containing material that can be beneficially converted to glucose.
Response to arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
383
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, it is noted that the specification positively teaches that the performance of a chemical pretreatment is beneficial. From page 31 of the specification:
PNG
media_image3.png
254
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“Disintegration of the waste textiles by a chemical treatment may include treatment by sodium carbonate and/or sodium hydroxide.” Specification, page 5. It is further noted that the specification contains no working examples of the claims. Regardless, the recitation of several disintegration methods in the alternative (chemical, thermochemical or mechanical) provides a basis for excluding one.
As noted in the body of the rejection, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP 2123(II). Both Gholamzad and Vecchiato demonstrate saccharification of cellulose in textiles without a chemical pretreatment affecting cellulosic fibers. In particular, Vecchiato, Fig. 3, teaches that high amounts of glucose including over 90% can be recovered without such a chemical pretreatment for rayon/viscose, which indicates that rayon/viscose does not require the same pretreatment as cotton for efficient hydrolysis.
Applicant agues:
PNG
media_image4.png
169
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees that Gholamzad does supply a motivation for use of viscose/rayon (alone or combined with polyester) since such motivation comes from Vecchiato successfully demonstrating that viscose can be enzymatically hydrolyzed into glucose. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding omission of a step (i.e. omission of chemical/alkaline pretreatment), as discussed, “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP 2123(II). That is, Gholamzad teaching that NaOH pretreatment is beneficial is not a teaching away that utilization of untreated textile still remains functional. Gholamzad teaches comparative examples of untreated textiles omitting the chemical treatment wherein the examples of Vecchiato also do not employ a chemical pretreatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD M EPSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a-5:30p.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at (408) 918-7584. 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.
/TODD M EPSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights