Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/20/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-4, 6010, 12, 17-21, 23-27, 31, 34-35 have been amended. Claims 1-37 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of arguments the objections to the drawings have been withdrawn
In light of amendment the objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn
In light of amendment the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn except as follows:
The 112(b) rejections have been maintained for claims 2, 7, and 24 (see below).
Applicant argues that the LINDGREN in view of SEN should be withdrawn. The applicant argues that LINDGREN while disclosing a viscosity adjustment does the viscosity adjustment on the pulp. Applicant argues that SEN cannot make up for this lack of teaching.
In response during dissolution SEN explicitly states that increasing the temperature during dissolution changes the MW (degree of polymerization) [pg. 7 col. 2 par. 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
40
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that different celluloses are not equivalent and have different physical properties and therefore require different processes.
In response LINDGREN discloses a cellulose pulp obtained from cotton. SEN discloses treating cotton linters. Therefore both SEN and LINDGREN disclose cotton-based cellulose. Further, both LINDGRN and SEN dissolve celluloses.
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 24 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.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant removed the word “preferably” but still limits MeX to ZnCl2:4(H2O) after first listing it can be one of 4 species or mixtures thereof. Therefore it is not clear what the applicant is claiming.
Regarding claim 7 the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 recite the limitation "the recovered cellulose pulp”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes the applicant is referring to “cellulose pulp” in claim 1 line 17. The applicant is therefore using “recovered cellulose pulp” and “cellulose pulp” to mean the same thing. Applicant should change to “the cellulose pulp”.
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.
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 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 18-27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of U.S. 2020/0165747, LINDGREN et al., hereinafter LINDGREN, Review of Cellulose Non-Derivatizing Solvent Interactions with Emphasis on Activity in Inorganic Molten Salt Hydrates by SEN et al., hereinafter SEN
As for claims 1, 2 and 29, LINDGREN discloses taking commuting waste cellulose textile [abstract] comprising cotton [0035, 0036]. LINDGREN discloses the commuted waste cellulose pulp is treated and then can be used to manufacturer regenerated cellulose including viscose [0014]. LINDGREN does not use “Mex” or “MeX” hydrate for dissolving the mixed cellulose pulp (viscose dissolves the pulp using NaOH and carbon disulfide).
SEN discloses that regenerated cellulose can be made by dissolving cellulose in derivatizing (xanthation which is used by the viscose process) [pg. 858 col. 1 par. 2 and pg. 868 ref. 16] and non-derivatizing solvents including molten salt hydrates [pg. 858 col. 2 par. 1]. SEN discloses the specific metal hydrates of ZnCl2 trihydrate, dehydrate, and tetrahydrate [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3] as solvents.
SEN discloses that the cellulose and molten salt is heated to dissolve the cellulose [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3].
SEN discloses that the cellulose is reprecipitated with the addition of water [pg. 863 col. 1 last par.]. SEN explicitly states that increasing the temperature during dissolution reduces the viscosity; that is controlling temperature controls the degree of decrease in viscosity [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to substitute the molten salt hydrate of SEN for the viscose dissolving treatment LIDGREN to dissolve the mixed cellulose pulp. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as inorganic molten salts are inexpensive, non-toxic, and are easily recovered as suggested by SEN [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3]. SEN explicitly notes that the viscose process is not environmentally friendly [pg. 866 col. 1 last par.].
As for claim 4, SEN discloses 67% ZnCl2 in an aqueous solution [pg. 862 col. 1 par. 3] which falls within the claimed range.
As for claims 3, 5 and 6, SEN discloses that the solvent and inorganic salts can be restored via evaporation for further reuse [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3].
As for claim 8, as the MeX solvent of SEN is used to treat textile pulp for dissolving and regenerated cellulose is formed in substantially the same way by adding water it is the Examiners position that during evaporation of the solvent [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3] for recovery some cellulose of type II will also be also formed. Regenerated cellulose forms type II cellulose by definition while wood or plant cellulose is type I.
As for claim 9, SEN discloses 120 for 40 minutes and 140 degrees C for 20 minutes both of which fall within the instant claimed range [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3].
As for claim 12, LINDGREN discloses that the textile comprises cotton and can also containing regenerated cellulose fibers of lyocell, rayon, or viscose [0035]. SEN discloses 120 for 40 minutes and 140 degrees C for 20 minutes both of which fall within the instant claimed range [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3].
As for claim 14, LINDGREN discloses taking commuting waste cellulose textile by shredding [0036].
As for claim 15, LINDGREN discloses disintegrating the textile [0036] which the Examiner interprets as milling.
As for claim 16, LINDGREN discloses treating the shredded waste textile with sodium hydroxide [0037] and sodium sulfite which will break down polyester present and be removed via washing [0043].
As for claims 18, 19, 21, and 22, LINDGREN discloses that the textile comprises cotton and can also containing regenerated cellulose fibers of lyocell, rayon, or viscose [0035]. LINDGREN discloses the pulp is a substitute for producing viscose instead of dissolving pulp [abstract, 0014, 0020]. LINDGREN further discloses lowering the viscosity/DP of the pulp [0040, 0043]. LINDGREN does not disclose what viscosity/DP the pulp should be lowered to. SEN discloses that dissolving pulp has a DP of 490 while cotton linters have a DP of 500 [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to control the viscosity of the viscosity controlled recycled textile pulp of LINDGREN to about 490 which falls within the claimed ranges. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as LINDGREN states the textile pulp is a substitute pulp for dissolving pulp [0014, 0020] and SEN states this is the DP of the dissolving pulp. Further, the person of ordinary skill in the art would look to lower the DP and therefore the viscosity to prevent clogging as suggested by LINDGREN [abstract, 0014]. It would be expected that this DP would not clog the nozzles when producing new fibers
As for claim 20, LINDGREN discloses that the shredded textile pulp is treated under acidic conditions which reduces the chain length of the material [abstract, 0040, 0043].
As for claim 23, SEN discloses water or water with an alcohol including ethanol or methanol [pg. 863 col. 1 last par.].
As for claim 24, LINDGREN discloses treating the shredded waste textile pulp with ozone [0028]
As for claim 25-26, SEN discloses that regenerated cellulose pulp can be subjected to acid hydrolysis to form monosaccharides with mineral acids or enzymes [pg. 864 col. 2 par. 2-3].
As for claim 27, SEN discloses forming HMF using titanium dioxide catalyst [pg. 865 col. 1 last par.].
As for claim 30-33, SEN discloses that cellulose esters can be formed with acetic anhydride in a LiCl medium to form cellulose acetate [pg. 866 col. 1 par. 2 and col. 2 par. 2], the cellulose ester can be used as a textile fiber [pg. 865 col. 2 last par.]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDGREN and SEN, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of DD244740A1 SCHERZBERG et al., hereinafter SCHERZBERG.
As for claim 7, LINDGREN and SEN teach the features as per above. SEN discloses that the solvent and inorganic salts can be restored via evaporation for further reuse [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3]. SEN does not disclose further treating the salts to remove heavy metals. SCHERZBERG discloses concentrated brines (such as MgCl2) that have been concentrated by evaporation can be washed with water and centrifuged to remove heavy metals and thereby purify the magnesium salt. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to wash the evaporated ZnCl2 brine of SEN to remove heavy metals and other impurities [see e.g. MPEP 2143 (I)(C)]. It is typically prima facie obvious to apply one known technique to a similar method in need of improvement. In the instant case the evaporated ZnCl2 brine of SEN is purified to remove heavy metals and other impurities before use with the treatment of SCHERZBERG. It is typically prima facie obvious to increase purity of old products [see e.g. MPEP 2144.04 (VII)]. Th person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both SEN and SCERZBERG treat chloride salts that are formed from concentrated brine. Further as the reuse of SEN is circular SCERZBNERG improves the process by giving a method to remove the buildup of any non-process elements.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDGREN and SEN as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of, A Comparative Study on the Waste Cotton Textiles Dissolved in a Solution of ZnCl2 and LiBr, by YAN, hereinafter YAN.
As for claim 10, LINDGREN and SEN teach the features as per above. SEN discloses 120 for 40 minutes and 140 degrees C for 20 minutes [pg. 863 col. 2 par. 3] for dissolving the cellulose in ZnCl2 solutions. They fail to teach the temperature range of 70 to 100 degrees C or 1 to 2 hours. YAN discloses dissolving cellulose including that from waste fabrics in ZnCl2. YAN discloses that higher temperature can dissolve the cellulose quicker while lower temperatures require more time. At ambient temperatures at 70-90 minutes the cellulose is completely dissolved [Table 2], the times of which fall within the claimed range. YAN discloses at 60-80 degrees C the cellulose quickly dissolves which falls the claimed range. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known ZnCl2 treatment temperatures/times of YAN to the cellulose dissolving of LINDGREN/SEN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as both treat waste cellulosic textiles. Further, YAN shows temperature and time are result effective variables that effect the dissolution of cellulose. Therefore it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cellulose dissolution time and temperature thorough routine experimentation.
As for claims 11 and 13, LINDGREN and SEN teach the features as per above. SEN discloses that the cellulose is reprecipitated with the addition of water [pg. 863 col. 1 last par.]. SEN also discloses that the solvent and inorganic salts can be restored via evaporation for further reuse [pg. 861 col. 2 par. 3]. SEN does not disclose how much water is needed for precipitation of cellulose. YAN discloses that between 10-60% ZnCl2 solution concertation the cellulose become insoluble [Table 1], therefore concentration is a result effective variable. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ZnCl2 solution through routine experimentation to obtain insoluble cellulose. The person of ordinary skill in the art would further look to limit the amount of water added as the water must later be evaporated and more water requires more evaporation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDGREN and SEN as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of, U.S. 2018/0215893 FLYNN et al., hereinafter FLYNN.
LINDGREN and SEN teach the features as per above. LINDGREN discloses taking commuting waste cellulose textile by shredding [0036] but does not teach removing metal pieces. FLYNN in the same art of treating textiles [abstract] disclose removing buttons and zipper [0028]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the button and zipper removing techniques of FLYNN to the similar textile processing of LINDGREN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to improve the process of LINDGREN in similar way as FLNN. The process is improved by removing metal components which should not be part of the final precipitated cellulose of LINDGREN/SEN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as the removal of buttons/zippers does not negatively affect any of the subsequent treatment steps as they are extraneous materials.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDGREN and SEN as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, in further view of U.S. 2012/0211184 JEMAA et al., hereinafter JEMMA.
LINDGREN and SEN teach the features as per above. SEN discloses that regenerated cellulose pulp can be subjected to acid hydrolysis to form monosaccharides with mineral acids or enzymes [pg. 864 col. 2 par. 2-3]. SEN fails to explicitly disclose recycling the mineral acids. In the same art of treating cellulose with acids to break it down into monosaccharides JEMMA discloses that the mineral acids can be concentrated after filtering out monosaccharides (300) and recirculated (4) [Figure 2]. At the time of the invention it would be prima facie obvious to concentrate and recycle the mineral acids of SEN as suggested by JEMMA. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by JEMMA to save mineral acid by reuse (instead of dumping the fluent) and therefore save money [0006].
Claims 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDGREN and SEN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 34-37, LINDGREN discloses the recycling of textiles to produce regenerated cellulose. LINDGREN states that known and existing process can be used [0020] which would include the processes used to produce dissolving pulp. LINDGREN fails to disclose how dissolving pulp is produced (although SEN does disclose sulfite dissolving pulp). SMOOK discloses that dissolving pulp is produces using a sulfite or kraft process [pg. 42 col. 2].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the bleaching vessels of SMOOK [pg. 179 col. 2 ozone treatment which is the bleaching treatment used by LINDGREN] and the water treatment plants of SMOOK [pg. 381 col. 2 26.3 used to water treat digesters, water used in cleaning, and bleaching] in the production of kraft or sulfite dissolving pulp for the bleaching water treatment of LINDGREN/SEN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as LINDGREN states known and existing processes can be used to treat the material [0020]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as these treatment parts can already be used to treat cellulose and by using existing equipment capital cost could be saved.
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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748