Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 3/5/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-12 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 Interpretation
Independent claim 1 claims “non-wood” and leaves. The Examiner interprets the leaves of woody trees to read on “non-wood” in light of the specification (however branches and such of trees do not read on the claims).
Independent claim 1 states “in a presence of alkali metal hydroxide” and gives an upper limit of 3% at most. The Examiner interprets the lower limit to be more than a de minimis amount.
Independent claim 1 states “in a presence of acetic acid” and gives an upper limit of 3% at most. The Examiner interprets the lower limit to be more than a de minimis amount.
The term “high concentration” and “low concentration” of claim 5, 7, and 10 are given their definition based upon their dictionary definition in “Handbook of Pulp and Paper Terminology” by Gary Smook.
PNG
media_image1.png
216
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner interprets “high pressure” of claim 7 to be over 3.5 atm based on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The CTMP process is typically used to treat wood. The closest prior art GB121,847 discloses that tree leaves after separating the ribs can be used to make paper pulp with chemical pulping at 5% and 10% caustic soda (NaOH) concentration. Likewise, U.S. 2013/0248760 states that TMP can be used on leaves [0093] but does not disclose the CTMP process of the claims. WO 2014/160262 discloses pulping of cellulosic waste including leaves and grass but does not disclose the pulping process of instant claim 1.
Claims 7-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art SMOOK discloses CTMP pulping in general including a screening stage (separation tool); atmospheric preheating with vapor heating, a plug-screw, a chemical addition to an impregnator, and two refiners. SMOOK failed to disclose the shredding after screening tool and the pressing tool after the shredder tool along with the high concentration hydro-pulper prior to the at least one refiner.
112(f) interpretation
The Examiner uses the three-prong test as described in MPEP to determine if a limitation should be treated under 112(f) [MPEP 2181 (I)].
In claim 7:
“A separation tool to separate” is interpreted under 112(f) as the recitation uses the nonce word “tool”, is modified by the functional language “to separate” and does not recite additional sufficient structure. The Examiner interprets this tool as linked to “a drum separator” and equivalents thereof.
“A high-pressure chemi-thermomechanical chamber that is configured to change a temperature and a pressure” is not interpreted under 112(f) as the examiner does not find “high-pressure chemithermomechanical chamber” to be a nonce word and therefore does not meet the first prong of the test.
“A feeding tool for feeding” is interpreted under 112(f) as the recitation uses the nonce word “tool”, is modified by the functional language “for feeding” and does not recite additional sufficient structure.
In claim 11:
“A water spraying tool for spraying” is interpreted under 112(f) as the recitation uses the nonce word “tool”, is modified by the functional language “for feeding” and does not recite additional sufficient structure.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 both instances of “softing” should be “softening”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
In claim 1 the applicant claims “3.5 atms”. It is not clear if this as a gauge or atmospheric pressure. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets it as a gauge pressure
In claim 1 the applicant claims an alkali concentration of at most 3%. It is not clear if this is by weight, by volume, or molar ratio. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets it “by weight”.
In claim 1 the applicant claims an acetic acid concentration of at most 3%. It is not clear if this is by weight, by volume, or molar ratio. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets it “by weight”.
Nota bene: The Examiner refers to line numbers of each claim not to the line numbers given by the claims page. Therefore each claim starts at “line 1”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the separated raw materials" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preliminary prepared raw materials" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plasticized raw materials" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preliminary preparation of the initial raw materials" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shredded leaves" in line 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preliminary prepared leaves” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plasticized and soft raw material” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 line 17 the Examiner believes there is an extra “or” which makes the clarity of the claim confusing. The Examiner interprets the claim as “alkali metal hydroxide
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
In claim 2 the scope of “delicate” and “stable” is not clear. The instant specification gives certain trees that fall under “delicate” leases and certain trees that fall under “stable” leaves. However, the claim is not limited to only these trees. Therefore it is unclear what category leaves from other trees would fall under.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the preliminary preparation of the initial raw materials” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pressing of the shredded raw materials” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 5 it states that “the chemi-thermomechanical pulp is subjected to the grinding”. This is incorrect. In claim 1 the “semi-fibrous and partially delignified pulp” is subjected to grinding while “the chemi-thermomechanical fibrous pulp” is produced by the grinding.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fibrous pulp” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pulp” in line 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a feeding tool for feeding an alkali metal hydroxide or a solution thereof in a form of an aerosol”. In claim 1 the alkali hydroxide can be fed as a solution or in the form of an aerosol. The claim as written requires the feeding toll to feed the alkali hydroxide as an aerosol only.
Claim limitation “a feeding tool for feeding” of claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The applicant does not disclose any structure in the claim what this tool is (for the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the tool as piping with a control valve). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a water spraying tool for spraying” of claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The applicant does not disclose any structure in the claim what this tool is (for the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the tool as a nozzle). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-12 depend from claim 7 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the shredded raw materials pressing tool" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 7 the applicant refers to “a raw materials pressing tool”. Therefore either the language of claim 7 or 9 has to be changed.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the vibration sorting platform" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 appears to need to be dependent upon claim 11.
Conclusion
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