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 .
Claims 1-15, 18, 21-26 are pending and are under examination on the merits.
Claims 1 is amended.
Claims 16, 17 are previously canceled.
Claims 25, 26 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection in the previous action of claims based on US 20200165747 by Lindgren et al in view of WO 2021181007 represented herein by US 20230132641 by Harlin et al is amended below to account for applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Claim(s) 1-15, 18, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200165747 by Lindgren et al in view of WO 2021181007 represented herein by US 20230132641, in further view of CN 106237859 by Ge et al.
Lindgren describes recycling of textile materials.
Regarding claim 1, Lindgren describes a method of recycling cellulose for textile fiber feedstock (paragraph 15, 19 “can be used in a process for production of viscose” reads on “for textile fiber feedstock”).
Lindgren describes:
(i) providing a cellulose-based textile feedstock (step (a) paragraph 16)
(ii) shredding the waste textile feedstock (paragraph 36 “shredder before step (b)”). Lindgren states that the shredding creates a larger surface of the material so that subsequent steps are facilitated but is silent as to the size achieved (paragraph 36). The instantly claimed shredded size is met via secondary reference Harlin below.
(iii) mixing the shredded textile with an aqueous alkali solution (paragraph 37, step (b)). This achieves a pH of 9-13.5, or optionally 11-13.3 (paragraph 37). Alternatively, Lindgren’s description of step c)i) (paragraph 32) also reads on mixing the shredded textile with an aqueous alkali solution, achieving a pH of 9-13.5.
(iv) filtering the first mixture to obtain an alkali treated waste textile feedstock (“dewatered…before step c)ii)” paragraph 43)
(v) mixing the alkali treated shredded waste textile feedstock with an aqueous acid (paragraph 33, 43), achieving a pH of 1.5-5 (paragraph 43).
(vi) filtering the second mixture to obtain cellulose (paragraph 44 recovered; parargraph 55 “hand squeezed”)
Lindgren is silent as to the source of alkali or acid; this is addressed via secondary reference Ge below.
Harlin describes separation of polycotton blends.
Harlin states that an ideal shredding size is for example 1 to 5 mm in length (paragraph 26). Harlin states that this size provides fibers with surface areas optimal for contacting with liquids. Thus one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the shredded cotton fiber size of 1-5 mm where Lindgren is silent because Harlin describes it as ideal for contacting with liquids.
Ge describes an alkali recycling technique.
Ge describes a process for purifying and reusing an alkali solution in viscose production (translation paragraph 7), where notably primary reference Lindgren also concerns viscose production (Lindgren paragraph 19). Ge describes how to recover the alkali for reuse (e.g. Example 1 paragraph 36), states that his process provides high alkali recovery rate (paragraph 7), and states that “to reduce production costs, minimize alkali consumption, and protect the environment, alkali recycling is essential” (paragraph 4). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to reuse the alkali obtained in Ge’s process for Lindgren’s viscose process in order to reduce production costs, minimize alkali consumption, protect the environment and have a high alkali recovery rate.
Regarding claim 2, Lindgren describes samples which are almost entirely cotton (paragraph 26, 35), i.e. a large majority cellulose. This reads on the claimed range.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lindgren describes the possibility of “different types of textiles as long as at least part of the textiles comprise cellulose” (paragraph 35) but is silent as to the chemical makeup of these textiles.
Both Harlin and Lindgren describe the alkali treatment of cotton (cellulose)-based materials at elevated temperature (Harlin paragraph 22, Lindgren paragraph 38 and 41). Harlin state that this treatment can also remove polyester fibers (paragraph 22). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a cellulose-based starting material which contains up to 30 wt% polyester (Harlin paragraph 22, 19) where Lindgren more broadly describes materials which “comprise cellulose” because the alkali treatment described in Lindgren is capable of removing the polyester fibers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Harlin describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Harlin’s description of 1-5 mm meets the term “comprises fibers which have a fibre length of less than 3 mm” as well as “comprises fibres which have a fibre length of at least 1 mm”.
Regarding claim 6, Lindgren describes alkali solutions with pH up to 13.5 (paragraph 32, 37). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Lindgren describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Lindgren describes acid solutions with pH of 1.5-5 (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 8, Lindgren and Ge describe sodium hydroxide (Lindgren paragraph 37; Ge paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 9 and 21, Lindgren is silent as to the specific concentration and Ge describes 40-300 g/L (paragraph 31) and exemplifies 150-200 g/L (paragraph 36-39).
Regarding claim 10, Lindgren describes mixing temperature of step b) as 50-100C (paragraph 38) and step c)i) as 60-120C (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 11, Lindgren describes step c)i) as 20 min-24 hrs, or 30-120 min in an embodiment (paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 12, Lindgren exemplifies acid treatment for 30 minutes at room temperature (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 13, Lindgren describes ozone, an oxidant, present in acid treatment (paragraph 16 step c)ii)).
Regarding claim 14, Lindgren describes washing the cellulose after the alkali treatment and before the acid treatment (paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 15, Lindgren describes a washed product cellulose (paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 18, Lindgren describes a using the recycled material in a process for production of viscose (paragraph 46), i.e. as a textile fiber feedstock.
Regarding claim 22, Lindgren describes mixing temperature of step b) as 50-100C (paragraph 38) and step c)i) as 60-120C (paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 23, Lindgren describes washing the cellulose after the alkali treatment in order to bring down the pH before acid treatment (paragraph 43). Since water has a pH of about 7 Lindgren’s wording inherently contains a minimum limit of “washed to a pH of 7”.
Regarding claim 24, Lindgren describes a washed finished sample (paragraph 55). Since the purpose of washing is to rid the cellulose of impurities, i.e. the previous acid treatment, and the pH of water is about 7, Lindgren’s description “washed” inherently contains a maximum limit of “washed to a pH of 7”.
Regarding claim 25, Ge describes a hemicellulose contents of for example less than 7 g/L (paragraph 38), and describes less than 7-10 g/L (paragraph 33). This is after steps to decrease the concentration from a starting concentration of up to 80 g/L (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 26 there is no requirement that the aqueous acid solution must be chosen from the independent claim (“and/or obtaining the aqueous acid solution from the manufacture of paper pulp…”) therefore the applied art meets the claim at least by describing the alternative (“or” obtaining aqueous alkali solution from the manufacture of viscose”).
Claims 8, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200165747 by Lindgren et al in view of WO 2021181007 represented herein by US 20230132641 by Harlin et al in further view of CN 106237859 by Ge et al in further view of CN 103255613 by Xu et al.
Lindgren is described above.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 21, Lindgren describes step c)i) as a bleaching step (paragraph 32), but is silent as to the chemical used to achieve the high pH or its amount, although Lindgren elsewhere describes sodium hydroxide to achieve high pH (paragraph 37).
Xu describes a bleaching method for cotton.
Xu describes a bleaching (light) method for cotton in which the alkali liquid is sodium hydroxide in an amount of 180-280 g/L (machine translation paragraph 9). Xu describes the combination of alkali with a mixed liquid of organic alcohol with water as achieving uniform penetration (paragraph 13). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use Xu’s specific sodium hydroxide amount with mixed aqueous solvent in order to achieve uniform penetration of the cellulose.
Notably Xu’s concentration also coincides with secondary reference Ge’s concentration, which ranges from 40-300 g/L (Ge paragraph 31; 200 g/L exemplified paragraph 38).
Regarding the concentration of sodium hydroxide claimed, In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at values in the claimed range because Xu describes values overlapping with the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument p.6 of Remarks submitted 4/6/26 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that neither Lindgren or Harlin describes using a used aqueous alkali solution from viscose production. This is moot as the used aqueous alkali from viscose production was previously a product-by-process requirement and is newly a process requirement. As such, new secondary art, CN 106237859 by Ge et al, is applied above to address the new requirement.
Applicant’s argument p.7 paragraph 3 has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant states that in the context of recovering cellulose form waste textiles, the contacting in Harlin prematurely swells the cellulose, however applicant does not cite Harlin or Lindgren for this statement. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Applicant does not support the supposition that Harlin causes premature swelling and that this is a negative for combining with Lindgren. Furthermore, a reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Neither Harlin or Lindgren describe premature swelling as a negative- quite the opposite, indeed an advantage in Lindgren is improvement in swelling, see Lindgren paragraph 17. Thus the combination remains obvious to one of ordinary skill.
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 CHRISTINA W ROSEBACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7154. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-3:30pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 5712721302. 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.
/CHRISTINA H.W. ROSEBACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights