Detailed Action
The communications received 08/19/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-16 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The equations presented do not clarify what exactly the xH2O, xCell, and X2Cell are referencing.
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 4 and 15-16 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the subsequent processing organ" in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this is understood to read “a subsequent processing organ”
As for claims 15-16, xCell, x2Cell, xH2O are unclear variables in the equation. There is no clarification as to what these variables mean in the specification. Therefore the claim language is indefinite. For purposes of examination that xH2O stands for water content, x2Cell stands for double the content of Cellulose, and xCell stands for content of cellulose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelm et al (WO 2008154668) hereinafter WIL.
As for claims 1 and 9, WIL teaches an apparatus which is a thin film evaporator for producing a transfer mixture according to a direct dissolution method [Fig. 1 #8], and the method of producing a transfer mixture via it comprising:
a feed (1) [Fig. 1 #2],
a housing (4) [Fig. 1 #9] and
an outlet (2) (the outlet that feeds from the tapered portion into the neck) [Fig. 1 #11; pg. 6],
wherein the feed (1) introduces a starting material, made of cellulose, water and a functional fluid, into the housing (4) [Fig. 1 #2-4 leads to area of #13; pg. 5],
wherein an evaporator shaft (5) situated in the housing (4) rotatingly sweeps the starting material over the heated interior of the housing (4) [Fig. 1 #15-17; pg. 5-6],
wherein the starting material heats up (via heater) [Fig. 1 #10] and some of the water evaporates so as to form the transfer mixture which flows to the outlet (2) [pg. 5-6]
with a supply stream wherein the through-flow capacity of the outlet (2) is greater than the supply stream (as the output is the combination of #2-4 while the supply is only #2, therefore the through-flow capacity of the outlet is understood to be larger) [Fig. 1 #2 versus sum of #2-4, the loss from #14 is understood to still result in more through-flow through the outlet as it is understood that it is water that is evaporated out; pg. 5-6].
As for claims 2 and 11, WIL teaches claims 1 and 9 and that the outlet opens into a subsequent processing organ [Fig. 1 #12].
As for claims 3 and 10, WIL teaches claims 1 and 9 and that the transfer mixture passes a subsequent transfer organ (the neck that connects #11 to #12) [Fig. 1 #11 to 12; pg. 6], wherein the through-flow capacity of the transfer organ is greater than the supply stream (as the transfer organ loses no constituents and is understood to have a greater amount when compared to the supply stream #2) [pg. 5-8].
As for claims 4 and 12, WIL teaches claims 3 and 11 that the transfer organ is situated between the thin film evaporator [Fig. 1 #8] and the subsequent processing organ [Fig. 12], therefore the transfer mixture passes through the transfer organ first before entering the subsequent processing organ.
As for claims 5 and 13, WIL teaches claims 2 and 11 and wherein the subsequent processing organ processing the transfer mixture to a molding solution (to a spin nozzle which forms shaped articles) [Fig. 1 #25; pg. 1 and 6].
As for claims 6-7, WIL teaches claim 2 and wherein the subsequent processing organ, transfer organ, and the housing form a common gas space (as they are connected in such a manner) [Fig. 1 #8 and 12 through #11 area].
As for claim 8, WIL teaches claim 1 and the material worked upon does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art [MPEP 2115]. However WIL does teach the functional liquid N-methylmorpholine-N-Oxide [pg. 5].
As for claim 14, WIL teaches claim 9 and further teaches the functional liquid N-methylmorpholine-N- [pg. 5].
As for claims 15-16, WIL teaches claim 14 and that the overall supply is fed into the outlet via being fed into the processing elements before the outlet. When the equations are solved assuming that xH2O stands for water content, x2Cell stands for double the content of Cellulose, and xCell stands for content of cellulose, the minimum and maximum ranges for XH2O amount to ~0.13-0.21 for claim 15 which is ~13-21% and ~0.2-0.21 for claim 16 which is ~20-21% which is the case for the typical premix fed in as the supply stream which has an H2O content of 20% which falls within the claimed ranges [pg. 5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748