DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/10/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 24-26 are withdrawn. Claims 1-23 are elected for prosecution.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/10/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-26 is 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 recites the limitation “the washed first modified fibrous raw-material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first permeate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should be “the first aqueous permeate”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second permeate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should be “the second aqueous permeate”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the recovered second modified raw-material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the washing water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the group ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase should be “a group consisting of”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the washing water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the recovered second modified raw-material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the preparation of cellulose". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests “to prepare cellulose”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the colour pigments". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim 1 does not introduce colour pigments only claim 14 introduces colour pigments.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the range of". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests “a range of”.
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.
Claim 1-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over YU (US 20180002837 A1) in view of PARKER (US 20150166723 A1).
For claim 1, YU teaches a method to process polyester [abstract] and cellulose fibers [0050]. The process starts with raw material [0007]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of treating a fibrous raw-material, comprising the steps of; -providing a fibrous raw-material containing cellulosic fibres and polyester fibres”. The process starts with acid precipitation with a pH of 3-4 [0048] and an alkali solution. The examiner notes the pH of any alkali solution is greater than 7 making the pH of the alkali solution of YU greater than 7. This teaches the limitation of “-subjecting the fibrous raw-material to acid treatment at a pH of less than 5 in an aqueous acid medium to obtain a first modified fibrous raw-material; -subjecting the first modified fibrous raw-material to a washing operation carried out with water; -subjecting the washed first modified fibrous raw-material to an alkaline treatment at a pH of more than 7 in an alkaline cooking liquor to dissolve at least a portion of the polyester fibres and to form a second modified fibrous raw-material”. YU further teaches the solid material is separated out from the filtrate liquid [0043]. The filtrate is later filtered with a filtering membrane [0048]. This teaches the limitation of “-subjecting the second modified fibrous raw-material to separation to separate solid matter from an aqueous liquid phase comprising dissolved material; -recovering the solid matter from the separation; and -subjecting the recovered second modified raw-material to a washing operation carried out with water or an aqueous liquid wherein, the aqueous liquid phase is subjected to a first membrane filtration step using a micromembrane to obtain a first reject fraction and a first aqueous permeate”. This teaches the limitation of”. The remaining material is later recycled by being sent back to later treatment processes [0048]. This teaches the limitation of “and the second aqueous permeate is recycled to an alkaline treatment step”.
YU does not teach the use of a nanomembrane. PARKER teaches a similar acid precipitation of cellulose and polyester fibers [0176]. PARKER further teaches the use of micro and nano-filtration membranes to separate solutions with multiple passes [0503]. This teaches the limitation of “; the first permeate is subjected to a second membrane filtration step using a nanomembrane to obtain a second reject fraction and a second permeate; the second aqueous permeate is recovered;”. PARKER teaches the advantage of the multiple passes with fine membranes is good removal with less than 0.02% of polyester remaining in the liquid phase [0486]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the multiple filtration method of PARKER into the YU process. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved filtration/removal as taught by PARKER.
For claim 2, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising subjecting at least one of the following aqueous streams to wet air oxidation: the washing water of the washing operation, the aqueous liquid phase of the separation step, the first aqueous permeate of the first membrane filtration step, or the second aqueous permeate of the second membrane filtration step, optionally along with at least one of the first and the second reject fractions”.
For claim 3, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “comprising recycling, in addition to the second aqueous permeate, at least one of the following aqueous streams to an alkaline treatment step: the washing water of the washing operation, the aqueous liquid phase of the separation step, or the first aqueous permeate of the first membrane filtration step”.
For claim 4, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the second aqueous permeate is recycled to the alkaline treatment step of the first modified fibrous raw-material”.
For claim 5, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the acid treatment is carried out in an aqueous inorganic or organic acid”.
For claim 6, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “comprising carrying out the washing operation of the first modified raw-material such that the first modified raw-material has a residual acid content of less than 5 % by weight of dry weight pulp”.
For claim 7, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the alkaline treatment is carried out in an aqueous alkaline medium with at least one alkaline agent selected from the group consisting of inorganic and organic bases, said alkaline agent being present in an amount which gives an alkalinity corresponding to at least 20 g/l of NaOH”.
For claim 8, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the alkaline treatment is at least partially carried out with white liquor from a pulping process”.
For claim 9, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the second modified fibrous raw-material is subjected to separation to separate solid matter from the aqueous liquid phase is done in a filter, a filter press, a screw press, a drum filter, or a centrifuge”.
For claim 10, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the first membrane filtration step is carried out using a membrane having an average pore size (pore diameter) of 0.025 to 10 pm or a molecular weight cut-off of 50 to 500 kDa”.
For claim 11, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the second membrane filtration step is carried out using a membrane having an average molecular weight cut-off of 50 to 1000 Da”.
For claim 12, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising concentrating an aqueous stream selected from the group consisting of: the washing water of the washing operation of the first modified fibrous raw-material and/or the recovered second modified fibrous raw-material, the aqueous filtrate of the filtration step, the first aqueous permeate of the first membrane filtration step, and the second aqueous permeate of the second membrane filtration step, to an effective alkalinity corresponding to at least 20 g/l of NaOH, before recycling of said aqueous stream to the alkaline treatment step”.
For claim 13, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein at least a part of the second reject fraction is subjected to diafiltering in the second membrane filtration step”.
For claim 14, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising recovering at least one of the first and the second reject fractions, wherein the first and/or second reject fractions comprise at least one of terephthalate, colour pigments, and other organic carbon, and optionally subjecting the first and/or second reject fractions to further treatment”.
For claim 15, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the fibrous raw-material comprises mixed-colour textiles”.
For claim 16, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising subjecting the recovered solid matter from the separation to bleaching”.
For claim 17, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the fibrous raw-material comprises at least 0.1 % by weight of polyester fibres, and up to 25 % of polyester fibres, by dry weight of the raw-material”.
For claim 18, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising subjecting the solid matter of the separation to dissolution”.
For claim 19, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 18, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the dissolution is carried out with a cellulose solvent and/or in the presence of a derivatizing agent”.
For claim 20, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “further comprising using the solid matter from the separation as a starting material in the preparation of cellulose carbamate dope and/or cellulose carbamate”.
For claim 21, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein the solid matter from the separation contains less than 1 % by weight of terephthalate and its polymers”.
For claim 22, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein evaporated liquor originating from aqueous liquid phase of the separation step and recycled back to the alkaline treatment step exhibits a colour reduction of at least 90 % of the absorbance at 430 nm”.
For claim 23, YU and PARKER teach the method according to claim 1, as above. YU and PARKER do not teach the limitation of “wherein evaporated liquor originating from aqueous liquid phase of the separation step recycled back to the alkaline treatment exhibits a reduction of total organic carbon based on the colour pigments and cellulosic and polyester degradation products of at least 60 % by weight”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights