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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 should read “for converting cellulose waste into a cellulose and nanocellulose composition,” for proper grammar.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Silva (US 2015/0147311) in view of Mair (HS 4,966,331).
Regarding claim 1, De Silva (US 2015/0147311) discloses –
An apparatus for converting cellulose waste into cellulose and nanocellulose composition, the apparatus comprising (par. 17, the device creates a mixture of cellulose and other derivatives including nanocellulose):
a tank (Fig. 3A-B show tank including surface 30) having a tank floor (the griding surface 30 reads on the limitation of a floor);
a shaft (drive shaft 20), and wherein the shaft has a first end driven (the top end in fig. 3a) and
a second end (the lower end including rods 24); a
member connected to the second end of the motor shaft to rotate the spherical member when the motor is energized (roller 28); and wherein the cellulose waste is introduced into the tank and drawn between the member and the tank floor to compress the cellulose waste (pars. 61-62 disclose the function of grinding and compression of the waste).
De Silva does teach that heating in the process is desirable (par. 82, 261), but appears to be silent with regards to specifically a heating jacket, a motor for driving the shaft, and the member being specifically a spherical member.
Mair (HS 4,966,331) teaches a grinding device (title, abstract) including heating means in the form of a heating jacket (Fig. 1 heating means 8, Col. 2 lines 36-40) and wherein the rotatable grinding shaft is driven by a motor (motordrivable stirrer 4, Col. 2 lines 53-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by De Silva such that the tank is heated by a heating jacket and the shaft is rotated by a motor as taught by Mair to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully implement the rotating shaft and the desired heating function of the device of De Silva according to means known in the art as provided for by Mair.
Regarding the limitation that the member is specifically spherical: De Silva teaches the roller 28 that rotates 34 has a shape that can be tapered in any manner to ensure contact with the grinding surface (par. 62), suggesting the modification of the shape of the roller 28. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by De Silva such that the members 28 are specifically spherical to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as the shape of a claimed feature is arbitrary unless there is proof to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of claims 2 and 11 respectively. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is De Silva (US 2015/0147311).
De Silva teaches a system for converting cellulose waste into cellulose and nanocellulose (par. 17), including a rotating member (see figs. 3A-B). De Silva is silent with regards to a first floor insert disposed between the spherical member and floor having a surface that matches a shape of a surface of the spherical member. De Silva is further silent with regards to the features of claim 11 including an enclosure, receptacle, chamber, and processor that include the tank, member and motor. Therefore claims 2 and 11 are allowable over the prior art.
Claim 8 is allowable as De Silva is similarly silent with regards to a plurality of fins disposed at equal intervals over a surface of the spherical member.
The remaining claims are allowable for depending on one of the claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights