Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 3/20/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 21 has been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 17, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-20 and 22-25 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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification have been accepted. The objection is withdrawn.
Response to arguments
In light of amendment the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
In light of amendment the 102 rejections towards KALLOINEN, JIANG, and MAJOVA have been withdrawn.
The Examiner maintains the rejections towards KALLOINEN in view of BOWER.
Applicant argues that the combination of KALLOINEN and BOWER fails because KALLOINEN fails to disclose yarn making while BOWER fails to disclose DES solvent treatment.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
KALLOINEN discloses that the cellulose fraction of wood pulp produced can be used to produce cellulose derivatives and textiles [pg. 17 lines 15-18 and claim 39]. Likewise BOWER uses cellulose wood pulp to produce a cellulose derivative rayon and then forms yarn for textiles.
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, 2, 4-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/229732 KALLIOINEN et al., hereinafter KALLIOINEN, in view of U.S. 3,619,223 BROWER et al., hereinafter BROWER.
As for claims 1, 17-20, and 22, KALLIOINEN discloses associating a lignocellulosic material with a HBA and HBD eutectic solvent [pg. 7 lines 4-7 and pg. 8 lines 5-9]. KALLIOINEN discloses microwave heating the material [pg. 8 lines 14-15]. This dissolves lignin from the lignocellulosic material into the liquid [pg. 8 lines 30-35 and pg. 9 lines 29-31].
KALLIOINEN discloses processing the material after eutectic treatment by bleaching it and alkaline extraction [pg. 10 lines 30-31]. KALLIOINEN discloses pure cellulose [pg. 5 lines 11-12].
KALLOINEN discloses the pure cellulose can be used for textile manufacture [pg. 17 lines 15-18 and claim 39] but does not disclose the specifics including yarn making, and blending.
BROWER discloses making viscose (a cellulose derivative regenerated cellulose) yarns from wood pulp.
BROWER discloses the pulp can be blended with cotton linters [col. 1 lines 15-18]. The wood pulp/cotton linters can be dissolved to form rayon in a modified viscose process [col. 1 50-60 and col. 2 lines 35-40] in which the cellulose is dissolved and then regenerated into filaments and then into yarns and finally textiles [col. 3 example 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified viscose process of BROWER to form viscose rayon fibers from the wood pulp of KALLIOINEN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create a value-added textile product from the wood pulp of KALLIOINEN which also has higher strength according to BROWER compared to other viscose processes. [abstract].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as BROWER uses a wood pulp and KALLIOINEN teaches a high purity wood pulp and states that it can be used for textile manufacture. BROWER discloses a process to turn wood pulp into a regenerated cellulose (viscose rayon) for textiles and yarns. KALLOINEN states that the cellulose can be used for cellulose derivative of which regenerated cellulose (viscose) is one.
As for claim 2, KALLIOINEN discloses wood [pg. 5 lines 20-23].
As for claim 4, KALLIOINEN discloses incubating for at least 2 hours [pg. 8 lines 10-12], mixing [pg. 7 line 17], immersing/embedding in a 10:1 liquid:wood ratio [pg. 8 line 9] and optionally sonicating [pg. 8 lines 16].
As for claims 5 and 6, KALLIOINEN discloses the HBA choline [pg. 7 lines 17-20].
As for claim 7, KALLIOINEN discloses the HBD urea or carboxylic acid [pg. 7 line 19].
As for claim 8, KALLIOINEN discloses the HBD lactic acid [pg. 7 line 24].
As for claim 9, KALLIOINEN discloses glycerol [pg. 7 line 24].
As for claim 10, KALLIOINEN discloses lactic acid and urea [pg. 7 line 20 and pg. 7 line 19].
As for claim 11, KALLIONEN discloses choline chloride and lactic acid [pg. 7 line 34-35].
As for claim 12, the lignocellulosic material is heated by contacting it with the hot eutectic liquid [pg. 8 lines 10-15] which is a thermal heating.
As for claim 13, KALLIOINEN discloses microwaving [pg. 8 lines 14-15].
As for claim 14, KALLIONEN discloses separating the used eutectic solution (L1) from the treated material (S1) [Figure 1].
As for claims 15 and 16, KALLIOINEN discloses washing and drying the solid material [pg. 12 lines 5-10 and pg. 14 line 11]
As for claim 23, the wood of KALLOINEN is pretreated by chipping it into wood chips [pg. 5 lines 20-30].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALLOINEN and BROWER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN114086415A JIANG et al., hereinafter JIANG.
As for claim 3, KALLOINEN and BREWER teach the features as per supra. KALLOINEN states the starting material can additionally be agricultural non-wood materials including stover, bagasse, cotton and straw. KALLOINEN does not disclose hemp.
JIANG discloses taking hemp core material [0002] and treating it with a deep eutectic solvent (DES) comprising a HBD and a HBA and heating [0009]. JIANG specifically teaches choline chloride as the HBA and lactic acid as the HDB [0023].
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to substitute one known non-wood for another known non-wood intended to be treated by a DES and heating [MPEP 2144.06 (II)].
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-17, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Deep Eutectic Solvent Delignification: Impact of Initial Lignin by MAJOVA et al., hereinafter MAJOVA, in view of U.S. 3,619,223 BROWER et al., hereinafter BROWER.
As for claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11, MAJOVA discloses treating lignocellulose kraft pulp [Table 1] with a eutectic solvent comprising choline chloride as a HBA and lactic acid as a HBD [pg. 7303 last par.] while thermally heating to 60 degrees C [pg. 7303 last par.] to remove lignin. MAJOVA does not disclose turning the wood pulp into yarn.
BROWER discloses making viscose (a cellulose derivative regenerated cellulose) yarns from wood pulp.
BROWER discloses the pulp can be blended with cotton linters [col. 1 lines 15-18]. The wood pulp/cotton linters can be dissolved to form rayon in a modified viscose process [col. 1 50-60 and col. 2 lines 35-40] in which the cellulose is dissolved and then regenerated into filaments and then into yarns and finally textiles [col. 3 example 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to use the modified viscose process of BROWER to form viscose rayon fibers from the wood pulp of MAJOVA. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create a value-added textile product from the wood pulp of MAJOVA which also has higher strength according to BROWER compared to other viscose processes. [abstract].
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as BROWER uses a wood pulp and MMAJOVA teaches a high purity wood pulp.
As for claim 4, MAJOVA discloses stirring [pg. 7303 last par.]
As for claim 10, MAJOVA discloses choline chlorine and urea as a possible deep eutectic solvent [pg. 7307 par. 1]
As for claim 12, MAJOVA discloses thermally heating to over 60 degrees C [pg. 7303 last par.].
As for claims 14 and 16, MAJOVA discloses washing the pulp to remove the DES which is also a separation process [pg. 7303 last par.].
As for claim 15 and 17, MAJOVA discloses that the use of DES treatment can be for paper (which is dry) application which is what pulp can be turned into after it is formed [pg. 7302 par. 1].
As for claims 23-25, the lignocellulose fibers have been treated by kraft pulping prior to DES treatment which uses caustic (NaOH) in addition to sodium sulfide [Table 3 and pg. 7303 last par.].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights