DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
This is a first action on the merits for this continuation application filed on 06/14/2023
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 6, 9, and 16; applicant recite the acronyms “SR” and “DC”. The examiner is unable to understand what such acronyms represents, and is therefore unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1. It is respectfully requested that applicant amend claim 1 to write what each acronym represents similar to the acronym “SAP”. The same applies to claims 4-5, 7-11, and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somma et al. (US 2019/0224886 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0291762 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Somma et al. discloses a method [0001] for sterilizing and decontaminating post-consumer absorbent sanitary products to be recycled, wherein said the post-consumer absorbent sanitary products are contaminated by organic compounds deriving from human metabolism and comprising drug residue, the post-consumer absorbent sanitary products comprising fractions of plastic, super-absorbent polymers (SAP), and optionally cellulose [0003], the method comprising the steps of:
- sterilizing (SR) the post-consumer absorbent sanitary products by heating to a temperature equal to or lower than 140°C [0023] and at a pressure comprised between 1 bar and 3.6 bar [0023] to obtain sterilized post-consumer absorbent sanitary products; and
wherein the treatment is carried out at a temperature equal to or higher than 60°C [0023], and
wherein the sterilized post-consumer absorbent sanitary products are subjected to the decontaminating step (DC) by means of having a humidity lower than 80% [0027].
Somma et al. appears silent to teach using oxidizing agent such as a gas containing ozone.
Watanabe et al. discloses a method for recycling cellulose fiber sanitary absorbent bed pads or diapers [0022] where the recycled fibers are subjected to a sterilization or microbiocidal treatment using ozone (oxidizing agent) or heating or autoclaving [0029] in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties [0019]. 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 to add Watanabe et al. ozone gas sterilization step to Somma et al. method in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties.
Regarding claim 2, Somma et al. discloses that the post-consumer absorbent sanitary products to be recycled comprise the fractions of plastic, cellulose, and SAP and comprise diapers for babies, incontinence pads for adults, sanitary napkins, bed linings [0002].
Regarding claim 3, Somma et al. appears silent to teach using oxidizing agent such as a gas containing ozone.
Watanabe et al. discloses a method for recycling cellulose fiber sanitary absorbent bed pads or diapers [0022] where the recycled fibers are subjected to a sterilization or microbiocidal treatment using ozone (oxidizing agent) or heating or autoclaving [0029] in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties [0019]. Watanabe et al. further discloses the concentration of the oxidizing agent [0088]. 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 to add Watanabe et al. ozone gas sterilization step to Somma et al. method in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties.
Regarding claim 6, Somma et al. discloses that the method does not comprise steps of immersion of the post-consumer absorbent sanitary products in water or in aqueous solutions [0023-0029].
Regarding claim 7, Somma et al. discloses that the sterilizing step (SR) and the subsequent decontaminating step (DC) are carried out in a closed reactor, preferably an autoclave [0023], more preferably a rotary autoclave.
Regarding claim 10, Somma et al. appears silent to disclose that the shredded post-consumer absorbent sanitary products having a particle size of less than 10 cm, preferably less than 3 cm, more preferably less than 1 cm.
Watanabe et al. discloses a method for recycling cellulose fiber sanitary absorbent bed pads or diapers [0022] where the recycled fibers are subjected to a sterilization or microbiocidal treatment using ozone (oxidizing agent) or heating or autoclaving [0029] in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties [0019]. Watanabe et al. further discloses particle size values for the shredded sanitary products [0111]. 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 to add Watanabe et al. ozone gas sterilization step to Somma et al. method in order to ensure that the recycled fibers have low dirt content and excellent appearance and strength properties.
Regarding claim 11, Somma et al. discloses that the method further comprising the step of drying (OR) said the shredded post-consumer absorbent sanitary products [0028] and obtaining shredded and dried post-consumer absorbent sanitary products comprising plastic, SAP, and optionally cellulose.
Regarding claim 12, Somma et al. discloses that the method further comprising the step of separating [0029] plastic, optionally cellulose, and SAP from the shredded and dried post-consumer absorbent sanitary products.
Regarding claims 13-15, Somma et al. discloses that the plastic separated from the absorbent sanitary products is decontaminated by organic compounds [0007 and 0030-0032] deriving from human metabolism and comprising drug residue.
Regarding claim 16, Somma et al. discloses that the absorption capacity (AC) of the super- absorbent polymers separated from the absorbent sanitary products has a reduction [0030] of less than 4% as compared to the absorption capacity of pristine super-absorbent polymers.
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somma et al. (US 2019/0224886 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0291762 A1) as applied to claims 1, 7, and further in view of Robitaille et al. (US 2011/0076192 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, and 8-9, the combined Somma et al. appears silent to disclose vacuum pressure values and cycle times along with the use of a reactor for the oxidizing treatment method.
Robitaille et al. discloses an ozone gas sterilization method [0010] that includes vacuum pressure values (Table I in [0103]) and cycle times in order to initiate the formation of free radicals and accelerates the formation of hydroxyl radicals from ozone [0009]. Robitaille et al. further discloses the use of a reactor (Fig.1:10). 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 to add Robitaille et al. ozone gas treatment pressure/cycle time steps to the modified Somma et al. method in order to initiate the formation of free radicals and accelerates the formation of hydroxyl radicals from ozone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798