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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claim 1-13 and 16-22 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Uerdingen does not teach an active substance. This is not found persuasive because Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the subject matter of claim 1 and therefore the identified technical feature of Groups I-III is not a special technical feature. See art rejection of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 and 23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “other cellulose containing waste streams” should read –or other cellulose containing waste streams--.
In claim 21, “is comprising” should read --comprises--.
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 7, 9, 13, 19, and 22 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 7 recites the limitation "(c)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 4 recites a step (c) and the issue appears to be a result of applicant amendments to claim dependency.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cellulose polymer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is further rendered indefinite because it is not clear what “the beginning” is referencing, e.g., the entire method, specific steps, etc.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step (c)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 4 recites a step (c) and the issue appears to be a result of applicant amendments to claim dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the protic coagulation agent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to depend from claim 12.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "(c)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 4 recites a step (c) and the issue appears to be a result of applicant amendments to claim dependency.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the cellulose polymer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is further rendered indefinite because it is not clear what “the beginning” is referencing, e.g., the entire method, specific steps, etc.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the coagulation medium". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to depend from claim 13.
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) 1-13, 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 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 (a) and/or are added after (a) and before or during (b) (Fig 10; p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent; Fig 10 teaches pretreating agents and media may be included with the cellulosic material).
Flynn does not teach that the ionic liquid is a solution of molten ionic liquid.
In the same field of endeavor regarding production of cellulose yarns, Uerdingen teaches dissolving cellulose in a solution of molten ionic liquid for the motivation of providing flexible adjustment of product properties and a particularly economical process procedure ([0001, 0196, 0227]).
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 4, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein after step (a) and before or after step (b) there is a step (c) 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).
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 6, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches wherein the active substance is selected from the group of absorbents, cleaving agents, including biological cleaving agents, physical cleaving agents and chemical cleaving agents (Fig 10; p 10, ln 9-p 11, ln 5; peroxide bleaching agent).
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 9, Flynn in view of Uerdingen teaches the method of claim 1.
Flynn further teaches 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).
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 after step (a) and before or after step (b) there is a step (c) of separation of non-dissolved or non-dissolvable impurities due to the dissolution of the recycling cellulose material or of absorbents, wherein this step includes at least one of filtration, decanting, centrifugation, 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 the active substance is selected from the group of absorbents, cleaving agents, including biological cleaving agents, physical cleaving agents and chemical cleaving agents, 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 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, 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 is comprising 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 13.
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.
Conclusion
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