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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims depend on claim 1. This is not found persuasive because an apparatus which enacts the process of claim 1 must merely be capable of doing so, therefore the requirements of claim 1 are not imparted on the apparatus of claim 11. As such the search for the apparatus in this respect is much broader than a search for the process of Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/26.
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 1-10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “elastomeric material” in line 1, and the claim also recites “preferably elastomeric fibers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reason.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites “65-80C” and the claim also recites “preferably 70-75C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation "said concentrated solution (3’)" in the penultimate line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the concentrated solution may be referring to the increased amount of elastomeric material in the solvent, but the claim is not clear and correction must be made. Applicant may amend the end step (d) to appoint the concentrated solution when it is created.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy this deficiency and are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest art is that cited in the European Search report, EP 2596932, corresponding to US 20140255255 by Heilberg. However, Heilberg does render obvious or anticipate the instant invention. With regard to instant claim 1 Heilberg describes (paragraph 66): 1) A module with closed circuit of washing, extraction, drying of the nylon product and condensation of the solvent used in the circuit at 90C. The solvent is designed to dissolve elastane (paragraph 22). But Heilberg states that if a second phase of washing occurs, the machine is drained from all the solvent which is then distilled (paragraph 22). Heilberg therefore does not describe instant claim 1 step c), feeding the solvent exiting the extraction chamber back to the extraction chamber to increase the content of elastomeric material dissolved in the solvent.
Dissolution of elastomers from textiles is a narrow field with little literature. In “Recycling of Waste Cotton Textile Containing Elastane Fibers through Dissolution and Regeneration” Wang et al describe dissolving elastane from a cellulose/elastane textile in three different solvent systems (p.3 item 2.3.1) but is silent as to re-introducing the solvent which already contains the dissolved elastane. In “Removal of spandex from nylon/spandex blended fabrics by selective polymer degradation” by Yin et al also describes a simple solvent-based removal (p.19 col 1). US 20230147533 by Keh et al describe removing spandex via biosolvents (abstract) and describes reuse of the solvent (paragraph 21) but only after separating the spandex from the biosolvent (paragraph 26).
The art US 20110065817 by Van Weynbergh generally describes circulating solvent as an alternative to agitation, but this is inside the apparatus, not involving “solvent exiting said extraction chamber” as instantly claimed (paragraph 23).
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy this deficiency.
It is noted herein that claims 11-16 will not be rejoined in the case of allowance of claims 1-10 because the apparatus need only be capable of carrying out the process; therefore it does not require all the limitations of a future allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights