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 .
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 1-9 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 is not clear. Claim 1 is drawn to a recycled mixed textile, but includes the limitation “wherein a molded body is produced from the recycled mixed textile by a lyocell-method or viscose-method”. The lyocell and viscose methods dissolve the cellulosic material and then cast or extrude the dissolved solution into a mold and then solidify the solution to form a molded article, in which case there would not be any mixed textile present, but instead there would be a molded, non-textile article. Therefore, the claimed structure is not clear. Additionally, it is not clear how the molded body formed from a solution would be a recycled mixed textile, however, the claims as originally presented are drawn to a recycled mixed textile, therefore, if the claims are now drawn to a non-textile molded body, the claims would be drawn to a new invention, rather than the originally presented invention. For purposes of the art rejection below, a fiber is considered to be a molded product. In support of this, note Firgo et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,601,767 which employs the terms molding to mean spinning a cellulose containing solution into a precipitation bath.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bahia, U.S. Patent No. 6,258,304.
Bahia discloses forming fibers which are equated with the claimed molded structure by incorporating an amount of a polymer into the cellulose solution and then extruding the solution to form a molded fiber which is solidified. The process is the lyocell process. The plastic material can be polyester or polyamide. See col. 2, lines 1-40; col. 2, line 66 – 22; col. 5, lines 31-40; examples, claims 3 and 4. Bahia differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the polymer and cellulose are obtained from a mixed textile including cellulosic fibers and synthetic fibers including first and second synthetic plastics wherein the first synthetic plastic is at least partially selectively depleted from the mixed textile. However, the instant claims are drawn to a product, not a process. Bahia discloses a fiber, (molded body), which is formed by the lyocell process and wherein the solution of the fiber before precipitation includes a thermoplastic polymer in addition to the cellulose fiber. Therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
With regard to claims 3-7, Bahia does not disclose the source of the cellulose or the plastic components. However, Applicant’s specification does not set forth any characteristics which necessarily differentiate virgin cellulose or polymer from "recycled" cellulose or polymer or any other cellulose or polymer, such that the recitation of "virgin" or "recycled" imputes certain unique characteristics or properties to claimed cellulose or polymer, other than indicating the source of the cellulose or polymer. Therefore, the recitation of "virgin" and "recycled" only appears to be directed to the intermediate product or source of the material which is eventually used in the claimed invention. The recitation of cellulose and polymers in the prior art combination appears to meet the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, as set forth above, since the instant claims are drawn to a product, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any process differences in how the composition which is spun (molded) is formed result in an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. If the first concentration is considered to be depleted to be zero, the composition of Bahia would include cellulose and polyester.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the previous rejections.
A new rejection is set forth in view of the amended claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789