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All objections and rejections raised in prior Office Actions are withdrawn unless restated below.
Claims 2-3, 7-10, 24 and 27-29 remain withdrawn.
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 .
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, 11-15, 19, 21, 22 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 Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), Marz-Figini (Significance of intrinsic viscosity ratio of unsubstituted and nitrated cellulose in different solvents, Die Angewandte makromolekulare Chemie 72, 1978, 161-71), Vehmaanpera et al. (U.S. 9,593,324 B2) 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).
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.
“The maximum glucose yield, i.e., 91% was obtained through saccharification of the NaOH/urea pretreated textile at −20 °C after 72 h enzymatic hydrolysis.” Gholamzad, sec. 3.1. The discussion of only glucose as a monomer sugar produced by saccharification is understood as a description that such monomer sugars consist substantially of glucose.
“Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation of untreated and pretreated textiles with NaOH, NaOH/urea, and NaOH/thiourea at −20 °C as well as NaOH/urea/thiourea at 0 °C, which showed the highest yield of enzymatic hydrolysis after 72 h, were carried out using S. cerevisiae for 72 h under anaerobic conditions. The results are summarized in Fig. 3. The results showed that pretreatments can generally improve the ethanol yields. The highest theoretical yield, 70%, was obtained using NaOH/urea at −20 °C whereas the ethanol yield of untreated textile was 36%.” Gholamzad, sec. 3.3.
“[A]lkaline pretreatment followed by hydrolysis resulted in recovery of 98% of the polyester without significant change in its properties.” Gholamzad, abstract. “The polyester part of the textile was recovered after the hydrolysis of the cellulosic part and its properties were studied.” Gholamzad, abstract.
As shown in the figure below form Gholamzad, the polyester is recovered from the fermentation wherein in embodiments wherein simultaneous saccharification and fermentation are performed, it is clear that the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation is performed on the polyester-cotton textile described wherein the polyester is recovered after fermentation that occurs simultaneously with saccharification that removes the cotton fiber.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 recites “wherein process the waste textile into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles is performed by a chemical . . . treatment,” wherein the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “chemical treatment” includes an alkali pretreatment as stated by Gholamzad. “[A]lkaline pretreatment followed by hydrolysis resulted in recovery of 98% of the polyester without significant change in its properties.” Gholamzad, abstract. As set forth in page 5 of the specification: “Processing the waste textiles into a slurry of comminuted waste textiles is performed by disintegration of the waste textiles by a chemical, thermochemical, or mechanical treatment. Disintegration of the waste textiles by a chemical treatment may include treatment by sodium carbonate and/or sodium hydroxide [i.e. alkali treatment] or an acid such as sulfuric acid.”
As such, “processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry” as recited in claim 1 includes all physical and chemical processes (e.g. pretreatments) performed on the textile to place the same in an aqueous slurry/suspension suitable for enzymatic hydrolysis. Further, Gholamzad, sec. 2.2, states that after alkaline treatment, “The mixture was mixed every 10 min using a glass rod. Subsequently, the pretreated textile samples were washed with distilled water to obtain pH 7. The washed samples were air-dried for one day.” Then, the air dried samples were enzymatically treated as set forth in Gholamzad, sec. 2.3, which is he formation of an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste. Claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising” an is open to the performance of unrecited method steps, such as original manufacturing of the waste textiles, harvesting of wood or other material for producing viscose, etc., as well as any pre-treatment steps occurring prior to formation of a slurry and hydrolysis.
As shown in the figure above, after such pretreatment, the next immediate step is drying following by formation of a slurry for enzymatic hydrolysis such that saccharification (enzymatic hydrolysis) of commuted waste textiles into monomers occurs directly after decomposition into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles. Again, at least claim 13 allows for the performance of chemical, thermochemical or mechanical treatment that must occur prior to saccharification. As such, the claim language of claim 1 that saccharification into monomers occurs directly after decomposition into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles cannot mean a chemical (i.e. alkali) pretreatment is excluded from the scope of the claims due to 1) claim 13 depending from claim 1, and 2) the definition of “processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry” as set forth in page 5 of the specification.
However, Gholamzad does 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.
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.
While Gholamzad provides working examples of a textile that is a cotton polyester blend, other textiles containing cellulose and polyester are known in the prior art. Vecchiato, abstract, teaches:
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.
As such, Vecchiato teaches that cellulose as found in rayon (i.e. viscose) is enzymatically hydrolysable to glucose which can then be converted to a chemical compound of interest by fermentation or otherwise. This teaching is reinforced by Vehmaanpera teaching the production of fermentable sugars from cellulosic materials including cellulosic materials containing viscose. Vehmaanpera, abstract and claims 7 and 11.
The cited Dictionary provides the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
56
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, rayon is synonymous with viscose in the art. Further, 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 for production of textiles.
Gholamzad does 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 viscose or a mixture of viscose and polyester.
As discussed, Gholamzad relates to production of ethanol from cellulose/polyester waste textiles and specifically exemplifies cotton/polyester textiles. However, an ordinarily skilled artisan at time of filing would have been motivated to any cellulose/polyester textile within the teachings of Gholamzad. In particular, Vecchiato teaches that cellulose in rayon (i.e. viscose) can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to glucose with glucose fermented to high-value chemicals wherein Vehmaanpera further teaches that viscose can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to glucose. 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 methodology of Gholamzad 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 Basu. Again, both the cotton/polyester of Gholamzad and viscose/polyester of Basu are combinations of cellulose and polyester, and any yarn taught by Basu when applied for the production of textiles eventually becomes waste textile as that textile becomes worn.
Upon use of 52/48 viscose/polyester blend waste fabric within the methods of Gholamzad discussed above, the features of claims 1, 5-6, 11, 13-14, 19, and 25-26 are met except for the requirement of IV of lower than 600 ml/g. Regarding claim 26 in particular, as discussed above, Gholamzad teaches a glucose yield of 91% is achievable based on raw sugar content of raw textiles such that it is not inventive to discover that a mixture of waste textiles including viscose/polyester can achieve similar glucose yields wherein Vecchiato, Fig. 2, shows that over 90% of rayon fibers can be converted to glucose upon application of an optimized loading of enzymes.
Regarding an IV of lower than 600 mg/l, claim 1 does not state a specific identity for any solvent/slurry other than being aqueous. Gholamzad, abstract, 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%). Marx-Figini, abstract, report intrinsic viscosity of cellulose solutions of different origins and degrees of polymerization in different solvents wherein FeTNa is a sodium hydroxide solution. Marx-Figini, Table 1 reports Rayo with an intrinsic viscosity of 244 ml/g in FeTNa.
Again, claim 1 does not state a specific identity for solvent/slurry other than being aqueous in which cellulose from rayon/viscose is present. However, Marx-Figini teaches that it is known for rayon/viscose materials to have an intrinsic viscosity of less than 600 ml/g. “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, Marx-Figini indicate that depending upon solvent employed, rayon/viscose materials are expected to 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 claims 21 and 22, “[A]lkaline pretreatment followed by hydrolysis resulted in recovery of 98% of the polyester without significant change in its properties.” As such, in the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation described by Gholamzad, polyester fibers (i.e. a solid) are present and unchanged in an otherwise aqueous saccharification and fermentation, which is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “invert sludge.” That is, 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. Regarding an “invert sludge,” as far as Gholamzad teach that the properties of the polyester are unchanged, the same in an inert sludge that does not chemically participated in and is not changed by the saccharification or fermentation process. Regarding recitation of “the inert sludge being separated from the mono sugars, the formation during simultaneous saccharification and fermentation removes the presence of monomer sugars with the same being converted to ethanol, carbon dioxide and other non-sugar products (and cell mass). Regardless, Gholamzad expressly teaches recovery of the polyester fibers as indicated in the figure above.
Regarding claim 15, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a pre-processing plant” is not a dedicated building or facility. Rather, any equipment that conducts pre-processing at any scale is “a pre-processing plant” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the same. Among the alkaline pre-treatment taught by Gholamzad, sec. 2.2, is “The pretreatments were conducted by mixing 5 g of waste
textile with 95 g alkaline solution at different temperatures of -20, 0, 23, and 100 [Symbol font/0xB0]C for 1 h.” Such pretreatment at 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C is a “hydrothermal treatment” as recited in claim 15. Even if this pretreatment was done is a beaker or other simple container, the same is “a pre-processing plant wherein the waste textiles [are] pre-processed by . . . hydrothermal treatment.”
Regarding claim 12, Gholamzad teaches fermentation of generated glucose to ethanol. However, Vecchiato, abstract, teaches that glucose obtained from hydrolysis of rayon can be converted to other value added chemical including lactic acid by Lactobacillus paracasei. At the time of filing an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to convert generated glucose to any compound taught to be valuable by the prior art including lactic acid as taught by Vecchiato, since all value added products that can be produced by fermentation of glucose are beneficial.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-15, 19, 21, 22, 23 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), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), Marz-Figini (Significance of intrinsic viscosity ratio of unsubstituted and nitrated cellulose in different solvents, Die Angewandte makromolekulare Chemie 72, 1978, 161-71), Vehmaanpera et al. (U.S. 9,593,324 B2) 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, 11-15, 19, 21, 22 and 25-26 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. 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 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, 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, 21, 22 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), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), Marz-Figini (Significance of intrinsic viscosity ratio of unsubstituted and nitrated cellulose in different solvents, Die Angewandte makromolekulare Chemie 72, 1978, 161-71), Vehmaanpera et al. (U.S. 9,593,324 B2) 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, 11-15, 19, 21, 22 and 25-26 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 106645005 A) and Sharma et al. (FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF TEXTILE FIBERS USING UV-Vis SPECTROSCOPY COMBINED WITH MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, J. Appl. Spectroscopy 86, 2019, 96-100). English machine translation of Yang provided.
Regarding claims 15-17, the waste textiles discussed by Gholamzad are those that may otherwise be disposed of by “incineration and landfilling.” Vecchiato 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. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this since the techniques of Gholamzad 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 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 claim 16.
Regarding recitation of “NIR/VIS technology,” Yang only explicitly discussed NIR. However, NIR/VIS spectroscopy is also known in the prior art. Sharma teaches the use of NIR/VIS spectroscopy for forensic identification of textiles/fibers wherein the techniques of Gholamzad are also a manner of forensic examination of textiles/fibers. As far as Gholamzad teach that combined UV/VIS spectroscopy can assist in textile identification, an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to apply UV/VIS spectroscopy within the methods of Yang since the same can provide for more accurate identification of textiles to be sorted therein.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-15, 18, 19, 21, 22 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), Vecchiato et al. (Microbial production of high value molecules using rayon waste material as carbon-source, New Biotechnol. 51, Feb. 2019, 8-13), Marz-Figini (Significance of intrinsic viscosity ratio of unsubstituted and nitrated cellulose in different solvents, Die Angewandte makromolekulare Chemie 72, 1978, 161-71), Vehmaanpera et al. (U.S. 9,593,324 B2) 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, 11-15, 19, 21, 22 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 Gholamzad.
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 or the same incorporated into a 52/48 rayon/polyester to the processes of Gholamzad as far as the same is cellulose-containing material that can be beneficially converted to glucose. It is noted that while Gholamzad is directed towards further recovery of polyester from cellulose-containing materials, the material input into Gholamzad does not have to be all polyester-containing material. For example, an input can be a first material made from viscose and a second material containing viscose and polyester.
Response to arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
310
761
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The process of claim 1 recites the open transitional phrase “comprising.” As such, unrecited process steps including a pretreatment are not excluded from the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 recites:
processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles,
saccharification of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer sugar via enzymatic hydrolysis comprising treatment with saccharification enzymes, said saccharification providing hydrolysis of the comminuted waste textiles into monomer directly after decomposition into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles.
The two underlined an aqueous slurry are not understood to be the same aqueous slurry, each having an indefinite article “an.”
Section 2.2 of Gholamzad states that after pretreatment. “The washed samples were air dried for one day.” The pretreatment of sec. 2.2 of Gholamzad is “processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles.” After drying the waste textiles are then introduced into a second aqueous slurry being the enzymatic hydrolysis wherein the hydrolysis occurs “directly” therein.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
178
728
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As discussed above, claim 1 recites the open transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude an alkali pretreatment. Page 33 of the specification directly discusses “According to one further example, there is also performed a pretreatment of the waste textile stream which is a steam explosion process. Moreover, according to another example, there is also performed a pretreatment being a hydrothermal treatment.” “Furthermore, according to a further example of the present disclosure, the waste textiles are pretreated off-site in order to facilitate processing into an alcohol or fine organic chemicals on site.”
As such, the claims cannot be interpreted as excluding a pretreatment. Further, the claim language “processing the waste textiles into an aqueous slurry of comminuted waste textiles” reads on many pretreatment processes in the art including from Gholamzad.
Regarding reference to Bagenholm-Ruuth, it is noted that the specification does not contain a working embodiments of the claims. Page 30 the specification (In step 4) describes acid hydrolysis of a 100% cotton waste textile. As such, enablement of the claims depends upon enzymatic hydrolysis of viscose or cold alkali fibers not requiring any further disclosure or experimental detail for an ordinarily skilled artisan to accomplish. Bagenholm-Ruuth shows successful hydrolysis even in the presence of sodium carbonate; the claims do not require optimized performance but only a functional level of performance. Schimper et al. (Effect of alkali pre-treatment on hydrolysis of regenerated cellulose fibers (part 1: viscose) by cellulases, Cellulose 16, 2009, 1057-68) describes alkali pretreatment of rayon with NaOH wherein “Short (1 and 2 min) caustic soda pre-treatment leads to enhanced degradation rates with a maximum at 3.5 mol/L NaOH.” Schimper, page 1066, right col. As such, there is no reason for an ordinarily skilled artisan to categorically avoid NaOH pretreatment of rayon/viscose.
Regarding substitution of a viscose material as taught by Vecchiato into the methods of Gholamzad, Vecchiato teach that such viscose/rayon materials are also amenable to enzymatic hydrolysis as to be a waste textile that can be employed. 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).
Further, since the specification lacks any working embodiments of the claims, the specification cannot evidence any “distinct advantages” for the recited process nor that these advantages are not present in the process of Gholamzad. The claims do not recite recovery by “membrane filtration” and there is no reason why the enzymes of Gholmzad are not recoverable by membrane filtration
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 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