Detailed Action
The communications received 04/15/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 13-24 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harlin et al (US 2023/0132641 supplied as WO 2021/181007 in the IDS filed 04/15/2024) hereinafter HAR.
As for claim 13, HAR teaches a method for preparing cellulose dope from textile waste comprising cellulose fibers in a mass percentage greater than 50% [Abstract; 0020; 0025], the method comprising the following steps:
step (S1) shredding the textile waste in order to obtain a first mixture of shredded fibers and residues [0025-26],
step (S2) separating at least a portion of the non-cellulosic components from the first mixture in order to obtain a second mixture in which the mass percentage of cellulose fibers is greater than the mass percentage of cellulose fibers in the first mixture (via removal of metal) [0026-30],
step (S3) filtering the second mixture in order to recover a solid phase comprising the cellulose fibers [0049],
step (S4) dissolving the cellulose fibers of the solid phase so as to obtain a cellulose dope comprising undissolved particles (to be used after carbamate reaction as spinning dope, polyurethane for a moment pre filtration will be present) [0040], and
step (SS) filtering the cellulose dope in order to obtain a cellulose dope that is separated from the undissolved particles (to be used after carbamate reaction as spinning dope, polyurethane understood to be removed during filtration) [0040].
As for claim 17, HAR teaches claim 13 and wherein step (S2) is carried out by dissolving a portion of the non-cellulosic components of the first mixture by placing the first mixture in contact with an alkaline aqueous solution [0025].
As for claim 18, HAR teaches claim 17 and , wherein the aqueous alkaline solution is an aqueous alkaline solution based on sodium hydroxide, the mass percentage of the sodium hydroxide being between 3 and 25% (83/1000 * 100 = 8.3%) [0056].
As for claim 19, HAR teaches claim 17 and wherein step (S2) is carried out at a temperature between 50 and 150 degrees Celsius (110 degrees Celsius) [0056].
As for claim 20, HAR teaches claim 17 and wherein step (S2) is carried out during a time interval of between 15 and 240 minutes (120 minutes) [0056].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAR.
As for claim 16, HAR teaches claim 13 and the overlapping claim of above 50% cellulose [0025].
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ 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)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim(s) 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAR in view of Jinzarli et al (US 2020/0369786) hereinafter JIN.
As for claim 14, HAR teaches claim 13, wherein step (S4) comprises:
a step (S4-11) of placing the solid phase comprising the cellulose fibers in contact with an alkaline aqueous solution comprising sodium hydroxide in order to obtain a solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers [0058],
But otherwise fails to teach the next series of steps claimed.
JIN teaches that when making a cellulose dope that one manner of producing one is by:
a step (S4-11) of placing the solid phase comprising cellulose fibers in contact with an alkaline aqueous solution comprising sodium hydroxide in order to obtain a solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers [0004]
a step (S4-12) of pressing the solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers in order to eliminate the excess alkaline solution and obtain a compact solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers (pressing under vacuum) [0005],
a step (S4-13) of grinding the solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers obtained at the end of step (S4-12), in order to obtain a solid phase of alkaline cellulose fibers that is less compact than the solid phase obtained at the end of step (S4-12) (shredded) [0005],
a step (S4-14) of aging the solid phase comprising the alkaline cellulose fibers obtained at the end of step (S4-13) [0005],
a step (S4-15) of placing the solid phase of aged alkaline cellulose fibers in contact with carbon disulfide in order to obtain a solid phase of cellulose xanthate fibers,
a step (S4-16) of placing the solid phase of cellulose xanthate fibers in contact with an alkaline aqueous solution comprising sodium hydroxide in order to obtain a cellulose dope comprising undissolved particles [0006], and
a step (S4-17) of maturing the cellulose dope comprising undissolved particles (as they are reacted which requires some maturing of the cellulose dope in with the reactant) [0007-8].
In accordance with the MPEP a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the dope making step of HAR with the one of JIN as this amounts to a simple substitution of making dopes with dissolving pulp with the expected result of forming a wet spinnable dope [0011; 0014-15].
As for claim 24, HAR teaches claim 13 and that filtration is used but does not teach the details of pore size etc [0040].
JIN teaches that known filtering pore sizes for the dope to produce fibers is 5 um which is at an end of the claimed range [0219].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the pore size of JIN as this would allow for the filtering of the dope of HAR to occur. As both HAR and JIN pertain to cellulose dopes they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAR in view of Ganvir et al (US 2017/0362342) hereinafter GAN.
As for claim 15, HAR teaches claim 13, but does not teach NMMO in step 4.
GAN teaches that in conventional production of cellulose dope that dissolving the cellulose in NMMO and then evaporating water achieves a uniformity of slurry and homogeneous dope formation [0003].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the conventional manner of employing Step 4 of the process NMMO and evaporating water as GAN teaches that this is the conventional manner which achieves a uniformity of slurry and homogenous dope formation. As this is the conventional manner, one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination and would find GAN and HAR to be analogous art.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAR in view of Barla et al (US 2019/0218362) hereinafter BAR.
As for claim 21, HAR teaches claim 17 and but does not teach wherein the alkaline aqueous solution comprises a phase transfer catalyst.
BAR teaches that when making a cellulose dope of recycled cellulose that phase transfer catalysts such as benzyltributylammonium chloride improves energy efficiency of the process [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the phase transfer catalyst of BAR to the solution of HAR in order to improve the energy efficiency of the process. As both HAR and BAR pertain to creating a dope from recycled cellulose they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected success in the combination.
As for claim 22, HAR/BAR teaches claim 21, and wherein the quaternary ammonium is benzyltributylammonium chloride [BAR: 0053].
As for claim 23, HAR/BAR teaches claim 22, wherein the quaternary ammonium is benzyltributylammonium chloride [BAR: 0053] and while a direct concentration of the benzyltributylammonium chloride is not taught, it serves also as a surfactant which HAR teaches occurs in a mass percentage between 0.1 and 2% (0.05-0.5 wt% which overlaps the claimed range) [HAR: 0043].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/RITA P ADHLAKHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights