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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 07/24/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-23 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn et al. (WO2017019802 of record) hereinafter Flynn in view of Uerdingen et al. (US2010/0256352 of record) hereinafter Uerdingen.
Regarding claim 1, Flynn teaches:
A method for the production of cellulose yarns from recycling cellulose material, wherein the method comprises the following steps (p 1, ln 14-23):
(a) dissolution of the recycling cellulose material in solution containing at least a molten ionic liquid (Fig 10; p 19, ln 4-p 20, ln 3);
(b) adapting the conditions, by changing a solvent composition, by adding active substances, by activating said active substances, by changing a temperature, a pH or by changing a pressure, or by introducing activation energy or a combination of such adaptations, such that active substances dissolved or dispersed in the solution containing molten ionic liquid or generated in situ in the solution containing molten ionic liquid act to degrade non-cellulose material initially contained in the recycling cellulose material and contained in the solution containing molten ionic liquid due to the dissolution of the recycling cellulose material, wherein the active substances are either already present during step (a) and/or are added after step (a) and before or during step (b) (Fig 10; p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent; Flynn teaches Fig 10 teaches an optional step of adding glycerine to the solution. Fig 10 teaches pretreating agents and media may be included with the cellulosic material. Flynn teaches neutralization of the bleaching agent is optional, and therefore the bleaching agent from the pretreatment step of Fig 10 is optionally still active in the solution after solvent introduction in Fig 10 when glycerine is added).
wherein after step (b) or after step (c) the cellulose yarn is directly spun from the cellulose dissolved in the solution containing ionic liquid (p 22, ln 19-30), wherein step (c) takes place after step (a) and before or after step (b) and is a step of separation of non-dissolved or non-dissolvable impurities due to the dissolution of the recycling cellulose material or of absorbents (Fig 10; p 14, ln 18-20),
wherein the active substance is selected from the group consisting of absorbents, cleaving agents, including physical cleaving agents and chemical cleaving agents, and a combination thereof (Fig 10; p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent).
Flynn does not teach that the ionic liquid is a solution of molten ionic liquid, wherein the molten ionic liquid is based on methylimidazolium, based on dimethylimidazolium, based on dimethylpyridinium, or based on a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor regarding production of cellulose yarns, Uerdingen teaches dissolving cellulose in a solution of molten ionic liquid, wherein the molten ionic liquid is based on methylimidazolium, based on dimethylimidazolium, based on dimethylpyridinium, or based on a combination thereof for the motivation of providing flexible adjustment of product properties and a particularly economical process procedure ([0001, 0196, 0227-0228]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ionic liquid as taught by Flynn with the solution system as taught by Uerdingen in order to provide flexible adjustment of product properties and a particularly economical process procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein the recycling cellulose material is selected from at least one of cellulose waste, recycling yarns, recycling fabrics, recycling tissue, recycling clothing, other cellulose containing waste streams (p 2, ln 33-p 3, ln 6).
Regarding claim 3, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein the non-cellulose material is selected from at least one of dyestuffs, fatty and other organic impurities including oils, waxes and detergents and residues thereof, inorganic substances including sand, clay, water-soluble and water-insoluble pigments (p 6, ln 22-27).
Regarding claim 5, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein the solution containing ionic liquid comprises a protic liquid ([0001]).
Regarding claim 7, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein the solution containing ionic liquid from the beginning comprises or is supplemented after step (b) or after (c), if present, with a system to reduce the molecular weight of the cellulose polymer (p 11, ln 25-31).
Regarding claim 8, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn in view of Uerdingen does not explicitly recite wherein in step (b) the temperature is increased to a range of 40-120°C.
However, Flynn teaches that the active substance and cellulose is combined with the ionic liquid during dissolving and pulping (Fig 10; p 19, ln 4-14).
Uerdingen teaches heating a solution of cellulose and solution containing ionic liquid to a range of temperatures to promote dissolving of the biopolymers ([0197]).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the heating temperature as taught by Uerdingen that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein said molten ionic liquid comprises a protic solvent or a mixture of several protic solvents ([0001]), the cellulose dissolved in the molten ionic liquid are precipitated in a coagulation medium ([0001]), the coagulation medium comprising a solvent which does not dissolve the cellulose and is miscible with the molten ionic liquid, and a protic solvent ([0209]), and the process involves precipitating dissolved cellulose in the form of carbohydrates in a coagulation medium ([0001]), comprising a solvent which does not dissolve the cellulose and is miscible with the molten ionic liquid ([0205]).
Regarding claim 11, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 10.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein said protic solvent is selected from the group consisting of
1) water as the sole protic solvent which is present in said solution system in an amount of at least 5 or 6 wt. %,
2) at least 0.1 wt. % based on said solution system of at least one protic solvent selected from the group consisting of alcohols, carboxylic acids or amines, including methanol, ethanol, 1- propanol, 2-propanol and 1-butanol as well as amylalcohol and linear and branched alcohols and higher linear and branched alcohols; and
3) water and at least one protic solvent selected from the group consisting of methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, 2-propanol and 1-butanol ([0013, 0206, 0209]).
Regarding claim 12, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein said molten ionic liquid comprises a protic solvent or a mixture thereof ([0001]), and the method involves precipitating the cellulose in a coagulation medium ([0001]), a protic coagulation agent or a mixture of protic coagulation agents being present in the coagulation medium ([0001]), and wherein the surface tension a of the protic coagulation agent or the mixture of protic coagulation agents is 99% to 30% of the surface tension a of water, each surface tension being measured in accordance with ASTM D 1590-60 at a temperature of 50° C ([0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 12.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein the protic coagulation agent is selected from 1-hexanol, 1-heptanol, 1- octanol, 1-nonanol, 1-decanol, 1-undecanol, 1-dodecanol, 1-tridecanol, 1-tetradecanol, 2-ethyl-1- hexanol, 1,2-ethanediol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, 1,2-butanediol, 1,3-butanediol, 1,4- butanediol, 1,5-pentanediol, 1,6-hexanediol, 1,2,3-propanetriol, 2,2-dimethyl-1,5-propanediol, cyclohexanol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol and mixtures thereof ([0206]).
Regarding claim 16, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein step (c) includes at least one of filtration, decanting, centrifugation, or sieving (Fig 10; p 14, ln 18-20).
Regarding claim 18, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein absorbents are selected from the group of substances adsorbing at least one of dyestuffs, fatty impurities and other organic impurities, and wherein cleaving agents are selected from the group of direct cleaving agents or activatable cleaving agents, including activated by irradiation of electromagnetic irradiation, wherein the cleaving agents can be selected from the group of enzymatic systems including proteases, amylases, laccases, oxidoreductases, and lipases, ozone, peroxides, photocatalysts, and a combination thereof (Fig 10; p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent).
Regarding claim 19, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein the solution containing ionic liquid of step (a) comprises or is supplemented after step (b) or after step (c), if present, with a system to reduce a molecular weight of the cellulose polymer, selected from the group of enzymatic systems including cellulases or hemicellulases or cellulose oxidases, including exoglucanases and/or endoglucanases, or cleaving agents activated by irradiation of electromagnetic irradiation, or strong bases, or a combination thereof (p 11, ln 25-31).
Regarding claim 20, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn in view of Uerdingen does not explicitly recite wherein in step (b) the temperature is increased to a range of 40-120°C.
However, Flynn teaches that the active substance and cellulose is combined with the ionic liquid during dissolving and pulping (Fig 10; p18, ln 30-p 19, ln 14).
Uerdingen teaches heating a solution of cellulose and solution containing ionic liquid to a range of temperatures to promote dissolving of the biopolymers ([0197]).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the heating temperature as taught by Uerdingen that overlaps with the claimed range.
Flynn further teaches a range of values for the residence time for dissolving and pulping to occur that overlaps with the claimed range (p 18, ln 30-32)
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the residence time as taught by Flynn that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein said molten ionic liquid comprises a protic solvent or a mixture of several protic solvents ([0001]), wherein, in the case where the protic solvent is solely water, the water is present in the solution system in an amount of more than 5 wt. % ([0013]; this limitation is conditional on the protic solvent being solely water. Uerdingen teaches the protic solvent can be a mixture that is not solely water, and therefore the conditional limitation does not apply), the cellulose dissolved in the molten ionic liquid are precipitated in a coagulation medium ([0001]), the coagulation medium comprising a solvent which does not dissolve the cellulose and is miscible with the molten ionic liquid ([0205]), wherein the molten ionic liquid comprises a cation that is formed from compounds which contain at least one five-to six membered heterocyclic rings and a protic solvent ([0001, 0015, 0026]), and the process involves precipitating dissolved cellulose in the form of carbohydrates in a coagulation medium ([0001]), comprising a solvent which does not dissolve the cellulose and is miscible with the molten ionic liquid ([0205]).
Regarding claim 22, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 12.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein the coagulation medium does not contain more than 5% of carboxylic acid ([0205-0206]; Uerdingen teaches possible coagulation mediums that do not include carboxylic acid).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Uerdingen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stegmann et al. (US2008/0269477 of record) hereinafter Stegmann.
Regarding claim 17, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Uerdingen further teaches wherein the solution containing ionic liquid comprises water ([0013]).
Flynn in view of Uerdingen does not teach water in an amount of more than 2%, or more than 4% or more than 5 wt. %.
Flynn in view of Uerdingen is silent as to the amount of water. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other ionic liquids comprising water in the art for the amount of water to use.
In the same field of endeavor regarding yarn production, Stegmann teaches an ionic liquid comprising water for dissolving cellulose ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the amount of water as taught by Stegmann and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art references teach an ionic liquid comprising water for dissolving cellulose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that using ionic liquid as a swelling agent is not a dissolution process. This argument and any argument stemming from said argument is moot as the office action does not rely on any such interpretation of the ionic liquid used in an optional swelling pretreatment as the interpreted ionic liquid. Rather, as cited in the art rejection, Fig 10 of Flynn explicitly discloses “Solvent Introduction solvent may be: Ionic Liquid”. P 19, ln 4-14 recites “Fig. 10 illustrates a cellulose pulping stage in which pretreated cellulosic-containing material is treated with a dissolving solvent in the pulping stage, wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of: ionic liquids…”. Furthermore, p 20 of Flynn and Fig 11 provide further examples of specific ionic liquid solvents. A teaching that ionic liquids may optionally be used in an optional pretreatment step as a swelling agent does not constitute a teaching away from the explicit disclosure of ionic liquid solvents in a separate step.
Applicant argues that there is no combined ionic liquid treatment and active substance treatment in Flynn. However, Fig 10 explicitly depicts “Input of pretreated cellulosic material may include pretreating agents and media” immediately prior to “Solvent Introduction solvent may be: Ionic Liquid”. Flynn further teaches that the pretreatment agents and media can include an active substance (p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent). In the same citation, Flynn further teaches that neutralization of the bleaching agent is optional. Therefore an embodiment of Flynn exists where the bleaching agent is still active when ionic liquid solvent is introduced and would act on any solution produced by the cellulosic material and ionic liquid solvent. Applicant attempts to use an alternative embodiment of Flynn in p 14, ln 27-28 to show that pretreatment is followed by cellulose dissolving/pulping stage. First, this embodiment is not relied upon in the art rejection at any point. Furthermore, the specific embodiment as discussed by applicant does not appear to filter the pretreatment media until after cellulose dissolving/pulping. This, in combination with the previously cited teaching that deactivation of the bleaching agent is optional, would mean that the embodiment, cited by applicant as factual evidence of a teaching away from the claimed invention, instead actually makes obvious the limitation under discussion, contrary to applicant assertions.
Applicant addresses the process of Fig 10 and alleges that the figure does not focus on using ionic liquid. This is self-evidently false as basic facial examination of the figure would result in a finding of “Solvent Introduction solvent may be: Ionic Liquid”. Furthermore, p 19, ln 4-14 recites “Fig. 10 illustrates a cellulose pulping stage in which pretreated cellulosic-containing material is treated with a dissolving solvent in the pulping stage, wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of: ionic liquids…”. Applicant argues that Fig 10 is not for pretreatment, but then proceeds state that “It is expressly stated in the head portion of this figure that the input is pretreated cellulosic material”. Rather than a complete dismissal of pretreatments, one would logically and reasonably expect the portions of Flynn discussing pretreatments to be applicable to the pretreated input. Applicant argues that p 10 and 11 of Flynn is directed specifically towards aqueous solutions, not ionic liquids. P 10, ln 10-13 recites “In some embodiments, a pretreatment stage involves exposing the textile feed material (and/or cellulose-containing treated solids) to a "bleaching" agent, such as an oxidative or reducing agent, typically in an aqueous solution”. First, aqueous solution is described as “typically”, not absolutely required. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Second, discussion of aqueous solution appears to be in the context of the composition of the bleaching agent, in that it comprises an oxidative or reducing agent typically in an aqueous solution, as opposed to applicant’s interpretation that the entire discussion of pretreatment is confined solely to the pretreatment of only aqueous solutions. Finally, even if applicant’s limited interpretation were true, and that pretreatment could only occur in an aqueous solution, Fig 10 of Flynn still teaches that the pretreated cellulose may be added to solution along with all of the pretreatment agents and media. Furthermore, p 19, ln 4-14 of Flyn recites “Fig. 10 illustrates a cellulose pulping stage in which pretreated cellulosic-containing material is treated with a dissolving solvent in the pulping stage, wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of: ionic liquids; metal alkali system complexes; organic solvents; and other solvents, such as sulfuric acid, xanthogenation; or combinations thereof. “ Therefore the dissolution of Flynn does not exclude aqueous solutions as implied by applicant, but rather explicitly desires ionic liquids in combination with “other solvents”. Therefore even if applicant’s incorrect interpretation were applied, applicant arguments would still be wrong. Rather than hindsight, the art rejection relies solely on what is taught or suggest from the cited portions of the prior art.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure on changing the conditions for triggering any of the actives. However, applicant claim 1 actually recites “(b) adapting the conditions, by changing a solvent composition, by adding active substances, by activating said active substances, by changing a temperature, a pH or by changing a pressure, or by introducing activation energy or a combination of such adaptations, such that active substances dissolved or dispersed in the solution containing molten ionic liquid or generated in situ in the solution containing molten ionic liquid act to degrade non-cellulose material initially contained in the recycling cellulose material and contained in the solution containing molten ionic liquid due to the dissolution of the recycling cellulose material, wherein the active substances are either already present during-step(a) and/or are added after step (a) and before or during step (b)”. The examiner notes that the claim does not require the active substance to be triggered by changing conditions, but rather that changes in certain conditions simply occur, and that the active substances simply act to degrade non-cellulose material initially contained in the recycling cellulose material and contained in the solution containing molten ionic liquid due to the dissolution of the recycling cellulose material after/concurrent with the condition change. It is noted that activating of said substance or introducing activation energy is included in the claimed forms of adapting conditions, but nowhere in the claim is it required that all of the claimed changing conditions, for example changing the solvent composition, results in a triggering/activation of the active substance. It is further noted that applicant specification does not disclose that all the disclosed condition changes directly cause a triggering/activation of the active substance outside of the aforementioned activation of the active substance or introduction of activation energy. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As explained above, Flynn teaches active bleaching agent in the ionic liquid solution. Flynn further teaches addition of optional conditioning agents such as glycerine (Fig 10), which inherently changes the solvent composition prior to filtration of the solution, i.e., removal of constituents such as the bleaching agent. Therefore Flynn teaches or suggests the above limitation.
Applicant argues that Uerdingen does not cure the deficiencies argued above by applicant. However, Uerdingen is not relied upon for any of the limitations discussed by applicant, but only for those cited in the art rejection. Therefore applicant arguments regarding Uerdingen are moot.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
