DETAILED ACTION
For this Office action, Claims 1-17 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 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 1-16 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 1, upon which Claims 2-16 are dependent, recites “a manufacturing process of cellulosic pulp or a fibrous cellulosic web, such as paper or board” (Lines 1-2); however, this limitation is considered indefinite because the claim language is unclear whether the process can relate to general cellulosic pulp/web processes or must be related to paper or board processes to read on the claim. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume any process relating to cellulosic pulp/web processes may read on the claim.
Claims 2-6, 9-11, and 14-16 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. The cited claims each recite instances of preferred language, wherein a limitation is followed by a more preferred version of the limitation. These limitations render the claims indefinite, as the claim language is unclear whether the original limitations or the preferred limitations are required to read on the claims. The issue is compounded in certain instances when “more preferred” language is used in addition to the preferred language. Each instance of this issue throughout the claim set is recited below. For purposes of this examination, the examiner will assume the preferred language is NOT required to read on the claims.
Claim 2 recites “…the charge density of at least 1.75 meq/g dry, preferably at least 2 meq/g dry” (Lines 2-end).
Claim 3 recites “a turbidity of less than 1000 NTU, preferably less than 500 NTU, more preferably less than 250 NTU” (Lines 3-end).
Claim 4 recites “a degree of substitution DS at least 0.32, preferably at least 0.37, more preferably at least 0.4” (Lines 3-end).
Claim 5 recites “a viscosity of at least 80 mPas, preferably at least 100 mPa, mpre preferably at least 150 mPas (Lines 2-3).
Claim 6 recites “starch, which preferably has a viscosity of at least 10 mPas, more preferably at least 12.5 mPas, even more preferably at least 15 mPas (Lines 2-3).
Claim 9 recites “the charge density in a range of 0.1-5.0 meq/g, preferably 0.1-4.0 meq/g, even more preferably 0.7-2.5 meq/g” (Lines 2-end).
Claim 10 recites “a standard viscosity SV of at least 2.0 mPas, preferably at least 2.5 mPas, more preferably at least 3.0 mPas (Lines 2-end).
Claim 11 recites “a dry weight ratio from 80:20 to 20:80, preferably from 70:30 to 30:70, more preferably from 60:40 to 40:60” (Lines 2-end).
Claim 14 recites “amount of 2-50 weight%, preferably 5-30 weight %, more preferably 7-20 weight%” (Lines 2-end).
Claim 15 recites “content in the range of 20-90%, preferably 20-85% (Lines 2-end).
Claim 16 recites “in the range of 1-5 weight%, preferably 1.5-4 weight%” (Lines 2-end).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberkofler et al. (herein referred to as “Oberkofler”, US 6080277; found in IDS filed 12/19/2023) in view of Adam (US Pat Pub. 2018/0134958).
Regarding instant Claim 1, Oberkofler discloses a treatment system for treating effluent and/or sludge from a manufacturing process of cellulosic pulp or a fibrous cellulosic web, such as paper or board, wherein the effluent and/or sludge is in form of a suspension comprising solid material and/or particles suspended in an aqueous liquid phase (Abstract; Examples such as Example 23, Col. 15, Line 50-Col. 16, Line 11; and Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; treatment system for sludge using cellulose, examples consider liquid phase/sludge), the treatment system comprising:
a water-soluble cationized polysaccharide component (Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; cationized cellulose);
a synthetic copolymer of (meth)acrylamide and at least one cationic monomer (Example 21, Col. 14, Line 60-Col. 15, Line 20; Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; see polyacrylamide, cationic poolyacryamide suggests addition of cationic monomer; see also poly-DADMAC).
However, while charge density is considered important to Oberkofler and discloses a pH of 4 (Col. 1, Lines 44-48; Col. 3, Lines 20-24; Col. 11, Line 48-Col. 12, Line 11), the reference is silent on said charge densities.
Adam discloses a biopolymer composition for remediating degraded soil and for preventing soil erosion in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of using cellulose as a flocculant (Abstract; Paragraph [0039]). Adam further discloses the variation of charge density of cationized cellulose enhances or otherwise optimizes the flocculating affinity for said cellulose (Paragraph [0039]; see charge densities and flocculant with respect to cellulose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the charge densities of the polysaccharide and cationic copolymer of Oberkofler to be the optimal charge density for its use, such as 1.5 meq/g dry for the polysaccharide and 5 meq/g for the cationic copolymer, as taught by Adam because Adam discloses such routine optimization will provide for better flocculating abilities of the compounds (Adam, Paragraph [0039]). See also MPEP 244.05, I. and II. A. B. with respect to routine optimization. Without any further unexpected results, such routine optimization would be considered obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reach a results effective variable with charge density and flocculation affinity.
Regarding instant Claim 2, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler discloses wherein the cationized polysaccharide component comprises cationized cellulose (Oberkofler, Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; cationized cellulose).
Similar to above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the charge densities of the polysaccharide of Oberkofler to be the optimal charge density for its use, such as 1.75 meq/g dry for the cellulose, as taught by Adam because Adam discloses such routine optimization will provide for better flocculating abilities of the compounds (Adam, Paragraph [0039]). See also MPEP 244.05, I. and II. A. B. with respect to routine optimization. Without any further unexpected results, such routine optimization would be considered obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reach a results effective variable with charge density and flocculation affinity.
Regarding instant Claim 3, Claim 1, upon which Claim 3 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses whrein the cationized polysaccharide component comprises cationized cellulose having a turbidity of less than 1000 NTU (Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; Table 3; cationized cellulose is used, turbidty is well below 1000 NTU).
Regarding instant Claim 4, Claim 1, upon which Claim 4 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses wherein the cationized polysaccharide component comprises cationized cellulose having a degree of substitution DS at least 0.32 (Example 19; Col. 14, Lines 10-39; degree of substation for carxymethylcellulose of 0.55).
Regarding instant Claim 7, Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 is dependent, has been rejected above. The combined references further disclose wherein the cationized polysaccharide component consists of cationized cellulose (Oberkofler, Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; cationized cellulose).
Regarding instant Claim 8, Claim 1, upon which Claim 8 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses wherein the synthetic cationic copolymer is a copolymer of (meth)acrylate and at least diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) (Example 21, Col. 14, Line 60-Col. 15, Line 20; Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; see poly-DADMAC).
Regarding instant Claim 9, Claim 1, upon which Claim 2 is dependent, has been rejected above.
Similar to above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the charge densities of the synthetic cationic copolymer of Oberkofler to be the optimal charge density for its use, such as 0.1-5.0 meq/g dry for the cellulose, as taught by Adam because Adam discloses such routine optimization will provide for better flocculating abilities of the compounds (Adam, Paragraph [0039]). See also MPEP 244.05, I. and II. A. B. with respect to routine optimization. Without any further unexpected results, such routine optimization would be considered obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reach a results effective variable with charge density and flocculation affinity.
Regarding instant Claim 11, Claim 1, upon which Claim 11 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses wherein the treatment system comprises cationized polysaccharide component and the synthetic cationic copolymer in a dry weight ratio from 80:20 to 20:80(Col. 2, Line 64-Col. 2, Line 5; see wide range of ratios for selected species).
Regarding instant Claim 12, Claim 1, upon which Claim 12 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses a method for treatment of effluent and/or sludge in form of a suspension comprising solid material and/or particles suspended in an aqueous liquid phase in a manufacture of cellulosic pulp or fibrous cellulosic web, wherein the method comprises adding the treatment system into the suspension (Abstract; Examples such as Example 23, Col. 15, Line 50-Col. 16, Line 11; and Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; see also other examples).
Regarding instant Claim 13, Claim 12, upon which Claim 13 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses wherein the cationized polysaccharide component and the synthetic cationic copolymer of the treatment system are added separately to the effluent and/or sludge (See Example 6; Col. 8, Line 60-Col. 9, Line 32; example shows discrete addition of cellulose and cationizing agent).
Regarding instant Claim 14, Claim 12, upon which Claim 14 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses long fibre material as soid material in amount at least 2-50 weight-% (Col. 4, Lines 27-31; see that long fibers are seen as longer than 0.5 mm, mean particle size can be from 0.1 to 1 mm, suggesting approximately half may be above 0.5 mm).
Regarding instant Claim 15, Claim 1, upon which Claim 15 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses wherein the sludge comprises inorganic mineral particles and has ash content in the range of 20-90% (Example 1, Col. 4, Lines 44-49; Col. 5, Lines 26-38; Col. 7, Lines 51-7; inorgnaics such as aluminum may be added; ash is expected to be retained and solids content including ash can be 20%).
Regarding instant Claim 16, Claim 12, upon which Claim 16 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler further discloses the sludge has solids content in the ragne of 1-5 weight-% (Col. 4, Lines 44-49; solids content can be 3%).
Regarding instant Claim 17, Oberkofler discloses a method for treating effluent and/or sludge from a manufacturing process of cellulosic pulp or a fibrous cellulosic web, wherein the effluent and/or sludge is in form of a suspension comprising solid material and/or particles suspended in an aqueous liquid phase (Abstract; Examples such as Example 23, Col. 15, Line 50-Col. 16, Line 11; and Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; treatment system for sludge using cellulose, examples consider liquid phase/sludge), the method comprising:
adding to the suspension a treatment system comprising a water-soluble cationized polysaccharide component (Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; cationized cellulose); and a synthetic copolymer of (meth)acrylamide and at least one cationic monomer (Example 21, Col. 14, Line 60-Col. 15, Line 20; Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; see polyacrylamide, cationic poolyacryamide suggests addition of cationic monomer; see also poly-DADMAC),
allowing the treatment system to flocculate the suspension (Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; substances are added to suspension and allowed to flocculate), and
dewatering the suspension by mechanically separating the flocculated solid material and/or particles from the aqueous liquid phase (Example 33, Col. 17, Line 41-Col. 19, end; see dewatered sludge).
However, while charge density is considered important to Oberkofler and discloses a pH of 4 (Col. 1, Lines 44-48; Col. 3, Lines 20-24; Col. 11, Line 48-Col. 12, Line 11), the reference is silent on said charge densities.
Adam discloses a biopolymer composition for remediating degraded soil and for preventing soil erosion in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of using cellulose as a flocculant (Abstract; Paragraph [0039]). Adam further discloses the variation of charge density of cationized cellulose enhances or otherwise optimizes the flocculating affinity for said cellulose (Paragraph [0039]; see charge densities and flocculant with respect to cellulose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the charge densities of the polysaccharide and cationic copolymer of Oberkofler to be the optimal charge density for its use, such as 1.5 meq/g dry for the polysaccharide and 5 meq/g for the cationic copolymer, as taught by Adam because Adam discloses such routine optimization will provide for better flocculating abilities of the compounds (Adam, Paragraph [0039]). See also MPEP 244.05, I. and II. A. B. with respect to routine optimization. Without any further unexpected results, such routine optimization would be considered obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to reach a results effective variable with charge density and flocculation affinity.
Claims 5, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberkofler et al. (herein referred to as “Oberkofler”, US 6080277; found in IDS filed 12/19/2023) in view of Adam (US Pat Pub. 2018/0134958) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Branlard et al. (herein referred to as “Branland”, US Pat Pub. 2010/0025626).
Regarding instant Claim 5, Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler discloses that viscosity will rise during processing (Example 17, Col. 12, Line 55-Col. 13, Line 36 viscosity rises in the resultant mixture).
However, the references are silent on the range of specific viscosity values or ranges.
Branland discloses two-layer compacted solid product for water potabilization and preparation method in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water with cellulose (Abstract; Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]). Branland further discloses a solution with cellulose as a solute that reaches a viscosity of up to 200 to 400 mPas (Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the viscosity of the cationized cellulose to be at least 80 mPas as taught by Branland because Branland discloses such viscosity for cellulose solution is expected (Branland, Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]).
Regarding instant Claim 6, Claim 1, upon which Claim 6 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler discloses the use of cationized starch (Col. 1, Lines 27-36) and that viscosity will rise during processing (Example 17, Col. 12, Line 55-Col. 13, Line 36 viscosity rises in the resultant mixture).
However, the references are silent on the range of specific viscosity values or ranges.
Branland discloses two-layer compacted solid product for water potabilization and preparation method in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water with cellulose (Abstract; Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]). Branland further discloses a solution with cellulose or stach as a solute that reaches a viscosity of up to 200 to 400 mPas (Paragraph [0061]; Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]; see that starch can be used as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the viscosity of the cationized starch to be at least 80 mPas as taught by Branland because Branland discloses such viscosity for cellulose solution is expected (Branland, Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]).
Regarding instant Claim 10, Claim 1, upon which Claim 10 is dependent, has been rejected above. Oberkofler discloses that viscosity will rise during processing (Example 17, Col. 12, Line 55-Col. 13, Line 36 viscosity rises in the resultant mixture).
However, the references are silent on the range of specific viscosity values or ranges.
Branland discloses two-layer compacted solid product for water potabilization and preparation method in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, as it solves the mutual problem of treating water with cellulose (Abstract; Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]). Branland further discloses a solution with cellulose as a solute that reaches a viscosity of up to 200 to 400 mPas (Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the viscosity of the synthetic cationic copolymer to be at least 2.5 mPas as taught by Branland because Branland discloses such viscosity for cellulose solution is expected (Branland, Paragraphs [0083]-[0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C GURTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3189. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30pm MT.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/RICHARD C GURTOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 05/22/2026
Prosecution Insights