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 . 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.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/FI2022/050275 filed on 04/27/2022 and claims foreign priority to application no. FI20215507 filed on 04/30/2021. The certified copy of the foreign priority application filed on 10/23/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023, 02/02/2024, and 12/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary claim amendments filed on 10/23/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are cancelled. Claims 14-34 are newly added.
Accordingly, claims 14-34 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 recites “… treating pulp with acid hydrolysis in in at least one reactor …”. Here, the term “in” is recited twice and one should be removed for grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 22, 26, and 32 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.
Claims 22 and 32 recite “a second reactor is in the second reactor … the mixing includes: … the second mixer”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis the limitation “the second mixer” in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a second mixer”.
For purposes of examination, claims 22 and 32 is being interpreted as a second mixer is in the second reactor.
Claim 26 recites “in a process line through which the mixture flows from the first mixture to the second mixture.”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis the limitation “the first mixture” and “the second mixture” in the claim because there is no prior recitation of “a first mixture” and “a second mixture”.
For purposes of examination, claim 26 is being interpreted as the mixture flows from the first reactor to the second reactor.
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.
Claim(s) 14-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103526624 (in PTO-892, an English translation is also provided in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) in view of Olsson et al. (US20190185586A1 in PTO-892).
CN’624 discloses a method for producing microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) and its production equipment (paragraph 0002).
CN’624 discloses that traditional method of producing MCC involves hydrolyzing the substance in water with acid at around 100 degrees Celsius (paragraph 0005).CN’624 discloses several problems with the hydrolysis reactor used such as consuming a large amount of water and acid as well as difficulty in water washing treatment and wasting large amounts of acid which pollutes the environment and corrodes the equipment (paragraph 0005).
Therefore, CN’624 discloses their invention address these issues present in traditional acid hydrolysis process to produce MCC by providing a method for hydrolyzing plant material under high shear stress (paragraph 0007).
CN’624 discloses their method to produce MCC involve putting the raw materials in an inorganic acid solution with a mass fraction of 0.1-1% plant fiber, wherein the mass of the inorganic acid solution is 2-3 times that of cellulose, and the reaction is carried out in a high shear force reactor at a reaction temperature of 90℃-100℃ (paragraph 0009). CN’624 discloses that a differential speed stirring paddle is installed in the high shear force reactor, and that the plant fibers and inorganic acid solutions swell and mix in the high shear force reactor, and then depolymerize under the shear force provided by the differential speed stirring paddle (paragraph 0010). CN’624 discloses that after the depolymerization is complete, the heating is stopped and a slurry is obtained, which further filtered and rinsed with water to obtain a crude MCC (paragraph 0011). CN’624 discloses that the high shear force reaction device includes a reaction vessel and a jacket lining as well as two agitators and a motor (paragraph 0014).
CN’624 discloses that the high shear force allows the cellulose to be hydrolyzed using much less water and acid as well as lower temperatures (paragraph 0020).
Even though CN’624 discloses a process of preparing MCC by performing acid hydrolysis of a raw material in a reaction vessel under high shear conditions, CN’624 does not disclose that the mixing is performed with the recited energy dissipation range and in the recited time period as well as the d-ratio of the MCC being no greater than 6.0.
Olsson discloses a method for the production of a spinning dope composition, said method comprising a homogenization involving vigorous mixing of a cellulosic pulp material in alkali solution, vigorous mixing implying supplying a power density of at least 150 kW/m3 (kW supplied to agitators per mixed unit of liquid volume) to agitators used in the homogenization step, and thereafter a dissolution involving mixing of the cellulosic pulp material in the alkali solution to obtain a spinning dope composition, wherein the power density supplied to agitators used in the dissolution step is maximum 75 kW/m3 (kW supplied to agitators per mixed unit of liquid volume) (claim 1).
Olsson discloses that the power density supplied to agitators used in the homogenization step is in the range of 150-4000 kW/m3 and wherein the power density supplied to agitators used in the dissolution step is maximum 50 kW/m3 (claim 2). Olsson discloses that the homogenization is performed during a time of less than 120 seconds (claim 4). Olsson further discloses that the power density is preferably 6000-14000 (kW*s)/m3, and for residence times in the range of 1-30 seconds in the homogenization step (claim 8). Olsson discloses that the vigorous mixing in the homogenization involves high shear mixing with a rotation speed of at least 1000 rpm (claim 10).
Olsson discloses that the method also comprises at least one refining step performed subsequent to the dissolution step, providing viscous dissipation and a temperature increase to the spinning dope composition by means of shearing (claim 13). Olsson discloses that the refining step is performed with a power density (kW supplied to the refiner per mixed unit of liquid volume) in the range of 1000-8000 kW/m3, more preferably 1000-6000 kW/m3 (claim 16). Olsson discloses that the one or more refining unit is connected to the dissolution unit and adapted for receiving cellulosic pulp material dissolved in alkali solution from the dissolution unit (paragraph 0077). Olsson discloses that one or several refiners may be used in parallel or in series (paragraph 0078).
Olsson discloses that their production process is operated in a continuous fashion and faster compared to prior art processes (paragraph 0044). Olsson discloses that alkali treatment of cellulosic material in a batch process results in slow and uneven dispersion of the into the pulp (paragraph 0096). Therefore, Olsson discloses that their homogenization ensures that the pulp fibers are almost instantaneously dispersed and that the fibers are experiencing a homogeneous chemical and thermal environment more or less instantaneously (paragraph 0096) in order to produce a high quality dope with low clogging value (paragraph 0088)..
Olsson illustrates in FIG. 4 an embodiment of their system and shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
825
1362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the homogenization unit (1-3) contains a high shear mixer (3) to mix the alkali and pulp. The pulp is then pumped (4) to the dissolution unit (5 and 7), which contains a rotating scraper (7) functioning as an agitator to further mix the alkali-pulp mixture. The alkali-pulp mixture is then pumped to a series of refining units (6), where the temperature is increased and further higher shear mixing of the alkali-pulp mixture is performed.
Here, the homogenization unit (1-3) is being interpreted as the first reactor. The dissolution unit (5 and 7) is being interpreted as a first mixer at an outlet of the first reactor as well as the mixing process that occurs along the process line between the first and second reactor as recited in instant claims 20-21, 25-29, 31, and 33-34. The first refining unit (6) is being interpreted as the second reactor, and the subsequent refining unit after the first refining unit in (6) is being interpreted as a second mixer at an outlet of the second reactor (first refiner unit) and the mixing that occurs after the outlet of the second reactor (first refining unit) as recited in instant claims 25, 27-28, and 33-34. It is noted that even though the subsequent refining unit also meets the limitation of an additional reactor, this subsequent refining unit still meets the limitations of the claims that recite a mixing that occurs after the outlet of the second reactor (first refining unit) because these claims only require a subsequent mixing action and additional processes such as further reactions with the cellulose are within scope of these claims.
Olsson discloses that their system may comprise other units and means of operation including suitable transport and feed systems for the pulp material and alkali, pumps connected to the tube and/or tank units, e.g. rotor-stator pumps, and jacket cooling arrangements for the tank and/or tube units (paragraph 0085). Olsson discloses that the addition of the alkali solution may be added in only one step before or in the homogenization or may be added in two or several steps during the process (paragraph 0053).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the mixing system of CN’624 with the mixing system as illustrated in FIG. 4 of Olsson, which comprises the homogenization mixing unit with a power density of 150-4000 kW/m3 and a mixing duration of less than 120 seconds, the dissolution mixing unit, and the subsequent mixing refiners with a power density of 1000-8000 kW/m3 along the processing line, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution because Olsson discloses that their mixing system ensures high shear dispersive mixing, in which the pulp fibers are almost instantaneously dispersed and experience a homogeneous chemical and thermal environment more or less instantaneously.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both CN’624 and Olsson disclose similar high shear force mixing processes to chemically treat cellulosic material.
Furthermore, the power density of 150-4000 kW/m3 disclosed in Olsson for the first reactor overlaps with the recited power density range in the instant claims, rendering the recited range obvious. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Lastly, even though the combined teachings of CN’624 and Olsson described above do not explicitly teach that the produced MCC has a d-ratio of 6 or less, this d-ratio value of less than 6 would flow naturally from following the suggestions of these combined teachings because the combined teachings disclose the same method of acid hydrolyzing cellulose material to produce MCC using overlapping mixing power densities (150-4000 kW/m3), rpm spinning values (at least 1000 rpm), processing times (less than 120 seconds), and similar reacting temperatures, and as evidenced by FIG. 6, a high shear mixer at 5000 rpm at 80 C with mixing times ranging 5-75 seconds all resulted in the MCC having a d-ratio less than 6.
MPEP 2145 II states “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.m 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.").”
In regards to instant claim 19, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixing system as disclosed by the combined teachings of CN’624 and Olsson described above by further adding acid to the mixture as it is transferred from the first reactor to the second reactor as suggested in Olsson to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Olsson provides guidance that the addition of the chemical (alkali) solution can be done in two or several steps during the process.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights