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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-13 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.
3. With regard to claims 1 and 2, the limitation of “the two steps being performed at a charge such that the overall charge is at least 12kg/odt” is not clear to the Examiner. Specifically, it is not clear what is meant by the phrase “performed at a charge” and/or the phrase “overall charge”. Do Applicants intend to perform each step by adding ozone in each step such that the combined amount of ozone for both steps is 12g/odt? Does the term “charge” mean the amount or the add on amount of ozone? For purposes of examination the Examiner will construe the charge limitation to mean the amount of ozone. Claims 3-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaschinski, GB 2382592.
With regard to claims 1-2 and 13, the published GB patent issued to Jaschinski teach using ozone to enhance the wet strength of fibrous cellulose material (title and abstract). Jaschinski does teach that ozone is typically used to bleach cellulose/pulp, but is also used to enhance the wet strength fibrous cellulose material as well. Jaschinski teach that the pulp may be a primary fibrous material (raw pulps) or a secondary fibrous material, whereby a secondary fibrous material is defined as a fibrous raw material recovered from a recycling process (page 10). Jaschinski et al., teach that ozone, which is traditionally employed as bleaching and delignification chemical in the pulp industry, can also be used under specific conditions to increase the wet strength of pulp as well as paper or nonwoven, in particular tissue paper, made therefrom (page 8). The Examiner is of the position that based on this disclosure the ozone treatment not only is used to bleach the fibrous cellulose material but also to improve the wet strength of the fibrous cellulose material. Jaschinski specifically teach two ozone treatment steps. Jaschinski teach the use of a treatment sequence comprising an ozonation under acidic conditions followed by an acidic wash for enhancing the wet strength of a cellulosic fibrous material, as well as the corresponding process. Preferably the ozone treatment and the acidic wash are followed by a second ozonation step under acidic conditions (page 8). Jaschinski specifically teach that the use of at least two separate ozonation steps further increases the strength properties of the pulp obtained. Therefore, it is advantageous if ozonation and acidic wash are followed by a second ozonation step under acidic conditions. Jaschinski teach that the amount of ozone to be consumed by the fibers is adjusted according to the desired increase in wet strength, whereby typically pulps having high kappa values require higher amounts of ozone to develop a sufficient wet strength. The weight ratio ozone based on the oven-dried fibrous material can suitably be from 0.1 to 20 wt.%, preferably from 0.5 to 5 wt. % (page 21). Jaschinski further teach that if multi-step ozonation processes are performed, the ozone consumption of each step is preferably smaller, more preferably at least 30% smaller than that of the preceding step (page 21).
With regard to claims 3-5 and 10, Jaschinski further teach that it is preferred to use an organic (for instance sulfuric acid) or organic acids for adjusting an acid pH value. Preferably, the organic acid is a carboxylic acid having 1 to 4 carbon atoms or dicarboxylic acid having 2 to 4 carbon atoms, in particular, formic acid, acetic acid or oxalic acid (page 20). The same acids can also be employed for adjusting the aqueous washing medium (to be used in one of the washing steps after and/or prior to the ozonation) to a suitable acidic pH (page 20). The Examiner is of the position that these acids are functionally equivalent to the acids used to adjust the pH and as the claimed additive in claim 3. Specifically acetic acid has the functionality of a chelating agent and a radical scavenger.
With regard to claims 9 and 12, Jaschinski teach that it is possible to use ozone at low consistency of the fibrous material (typically less than 3%, based on the dry weight of the fibers), medium consistency (from 3 to less than 30%, typically around 10%) and high consistency (at least 30%) whereby the % values refer to the weight proportion of the fibrous material (oven-dried) with respect to the weight of the aqueous reaction medium. Preferably, the consistency of the fibrous material is at least 30%, or even at least 35% (page 21). A consistency of about 35 to 45% has shown to give good results (page 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6, 7, 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claims 6-7, there is no known prior art which teach or suggest the limitation of after the claimed ozone bleaching a peroxide bleaching step (claim 6) and the limitation of after the claimed peroxide bleaching step of claim 6, a chlorine dioxide bleaching step (claim 7).
With regard to claims 8 and 11, there is no known prior art which teach or suggest the limitation of prior to or during the peroxide bleaching step (claim 6), adding a radical scavenger (claim 8) of magnesium sulfate (claim 11).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-272-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789