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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-15 are pending in the application.
Claim for Foreign Priority
This application claims the benefit of and priority to Patent Cooperation Treaty national Stage Application No. PCT/IB2021/055942, filed July 02, 2021, is acknowledged and claims foreign priority to IN202021028273.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2022 was filed prior to the mailing of the instant first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. A copy of Forms PTO/SB/08 is attached to the instant Office action.
Drawings
The presented drawings have been considered by the examiner.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: wording throughout the Specification does not have the appropriate spacing (run-on words). Examples are located on page 1 line 21, page 1 line 26, page 1 line 3, page 3 line 26, page 4 line 7, page 4 line 8, page 4 line 12, page 5 lines 23-24, and so forth throughout the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Lyocell and Modal (page 7, line 16), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 1 is missing and is not even to be seen as a canceled claim. Misnumbered claims 2-15 have been renumbered as claims 1-14 by the examiner, respectively. For example, “claim 2” is now renumbered as claim 1 and dependent claims are renumbered consecutive to claim 1.
Renumbered Claim 3 (parts a and b), and 4 (part a) are objected to because of the following informalities: wording does not have the appropriate spacing (run-on words). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Renumbered Claim 14 (previously claim 15) recites the phrase “wherein the diameter if the fiber” is not scientifically accurate. Therefore it is not clear as to what applicant means by this phrase. The examiner suggests the applicant amend the claim to recite “of” instead of “if”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Renumbered claims 1, 8, 10-11, 13-14 (previously claims 2, 9, 11-12,, 14-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN104726969A, English translation document, Textile Scientific Research Institute of Jinan, 2015 (cite 1 of the IDS filed on 12/30/2022). (English translation provided by the examiner in form 892).
The water-economical method of enzymatic conversion of raw plant fibers to textile-grade fibers and sequential treatments of the plant derived biomass in one water bath wherein one of the treatments is an enzymatic treatment (instant claims 1, 10, 13), is taught by CN104726969A which teaches a method of enzymatic conversion of raw flax plant fibers to textile-grade fibers that is both a "one-bath three-step method” wherein one of the treatments is an enzymatic treatment (instant claim 1, 8, 13) (CN104726969A (English translation, See page 2, the entire paragraph starting from line 4 though line 18 specifically line 11) and is water-economical by saving 50% or more of water (instant renumbered claim 10-11) that is utilized in the raw plant fiber treatment process (CN104726969A, page 10, lines 26-28). Furthermore, reference CN104726969A (page 10, line 31) utilizes 10kg of water per 1kg hemp fiber treatment (instant claim 11) (examiner math conversion), which is five-fold less water used than the applicant’s treatment method. The reference of CN104726969A also catalogues their textile fiber product as being “high-grade fabric and functional fabric can be woven with cashmere and silk long-staple cotton blended yarn” having a value of over 60S. The applicant’s method produces fibers not more than 75 denier. A Google AI search by the examiner has determined that 60S spun yarn and 75D (75 denier) filament yarn (instant claim 14) are often treated as functional equivalents in terms of fabric weight and “hand feel” (see PDF: Denier to S Conversion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Renumbered claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104726969A, English translation document, Textile Scientific Research Institute of Jinan, 2015 (cite 1 of the IDS filed on 12/30/2022) (English translation provided by the examiner in form 892).and US8603802B2, 2013, Sung, et. al., Enzymatic Preparation of Plant Fibers, (examiner cited), Agrawal, et. al., Multiple Enzyme Composition for desizing and scouring fabrics (examiner cited).(
Renumbered claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, and 13 are drawn to water-economical method of enzymatic conversion of raw plant fibers to textile grade fibers wherein the method comprises the step of performing sequential treatments of the plant derived biomass in one water bath with increasing pH milieu of the bath with every treatment, and wherein at least one of the treatments is an enzymatic treatment.
Regarding instant claim 1, the water-economical method of enzymatic conversion of raw plant fibers to textile-grade fibers and sequential treatments of the plant derived biomass in one water bath wherein one of the treatments is an enzymatic treatment (instant claims 1, 8, 13), is taught by CN104726969A which is drawn to a method of water-economical enzymatic conversion of raw flax plant fibers to textile-grade fibers that is both a "one-bath three-step method” wherein one of the treatments is an enzymatic treatment (instant claim 1, 8, 13) (CN104726969A, English translation, See page 2, the entire paragraph starting from line 4 though line 18 specifically page 2, line 11) and is water-economical by saving 50% or more of water (instant claim 10) that is utilized in the raw plant fiber treatment process (CN104726969A, page 10, lines 26-28). Furthermore, reference CN104726969A (page 10, line 31) utilizes 10kg of water per 1kg hemp fiber treatment (instant claim 11) (examiner math conversion), which is five-fold less than the applicant’s treatment method. The reference of CN104726969A also catalogues their textile fiber product as being “high-grade fabric and functional fabric can be woven with cashmere and silk long-staple cotton blended yarn” having a value of over 60S. The applicant’s method produces fibers not more than 75 denier. A Google AI search by the examiner has determined that 60S spun yarn and 75D (75 denier) filament yarn (instant claim 14) are often treated as functional equivalents in terms of fabric weight and “hand feel” (see PDF: Denier to S Conversion).
What the reference CN104726969A does not teach is the change of pH, from acidic to alkaline, wherein a second enzymatic treatment then takes place in a one pot process as employed by the applicant (instant claims 1-3).
Although reference CN104726969A does not explicitly teach changing the pH from acidic to alkaline between enzymatic treatments, MPEP 2144.05 states, “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to sequentially optimize the enzymatic reaction (depending on the specific enzymes used) by changing the pH (changing the concentration of [H+]) (instant claims 1, 3-4) in order to perform the next enzymatic step in the one pot raw plant fiber treatment process claimed by the applicant.
What CN104726969A doesn’t teach in regards to the applicant’s claims is wherein the method does not comprise any chemical treatments steps.
This is remedied by the teachings of Agrawal (page 9, Example 1) who does not employ a chemical treatment step (instant claim 5) in their processing of cotton samples.
What CN104726969A and Agrawal doesn’t teach in regards to the applicant’s claims is wherein at least two treatments are enzymatic treatments, wherein the method comprises only one chemical treatment step, and the only chemical treatment step is the bleaching step after enzymatic treatments. Additionally, CN104726969A and Agrawal do not teach the water in the water bath is changed only once during the method for enzymatic plant fiber conversion to textile grade fibers.
This is remedied by the teachings of Sung (column 6, Example 1) which details the process of performing two enzymatic treatments (instant claim 2) in sequential order. Sung then continues their process of plant fiber treatment (column 8, Step 5: Bleaching) by employing a chemical treatment step (instant claim 6). Further, Sung employs their chemical bleaching step (column 8, Step 5: Bleaching) after their enzymatic treatments (instant claim 7). During the process of Sung (column 8, Step 4: Pectinase treatment) the water is changed only once during the method for enzymatic plant fiber treatment (instant claim 12).
At the time of the applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to develop a water-economical method of enzymatic conversion of raw plant fibers to textile-grade fibers and sequential treatments of the plant derived biomass in one water bath based on the teachings of CN104726969A, Sung, and Agrawal. One would have been motivated to employ a change in pH in a one pot system with different enzymatic steps to conserve or save water during the process of treating raw plant fibers. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all the recited references teach the essential steps as well as the motivation to make changes to those steps to arrive at the claimed method of fiber treatment method, employing the teachings of the references to develop a one pot enzymatic reaction system.
Therefore, the method of claims 1-14 would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Status of the claims:
Renumbered Claims 1-14 are pending.
Renumbered Claims 1-14are rejected.
No claim is in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY STAPON whose telephone number is (571)272-6169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am est - 4pm est. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
Anthony Stapon
Examiner AU 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656