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 § 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.
Claim 1-3, 5-12, 14, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harlin et al. (WO2018197756) in view of Harlin (Harlin, A. 2019, “Cellulose carbamate: production and applications”, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, https://doi.org/10.32040/2019.978-951-38-8707-0) in view of Paunonen (“Environmental impact of cellulose carbamate fibers from chemically recycled cotton”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 222, 6/10/2019, pp. 871-881) in view of Turenen et al. (US Pat. 4,639,515).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-9, 14, 19, 21 and 23, Harlin et al. teaches a manmade cellulosic textile fiber (cellulose carbamate fiber) and a method for the manufacture of cellulosic textile fiber [Abstract and 0038-0041], comprising the steps of pre-treating cellulose based material (cotton waste) comprising raw material of the cellulose textile fiber being cellulose containing waste (cotton waste) and the cellulose containing waste being textile waste [0002, 0013-0016 and 0035] to form pre-treated cellulose based material. Harlin et al. teaches performing carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose based material to form cellulose carbamate [0026 and 0038]. Harlin et al. teaches dissolving the cellulose carbamate in an aqueous alkaline medium (including sodium carbonate and no sodium hydroxide is taught which reads on the claimed amount) to form a cellulose carbamate dope [0038]. Harlin et al. teaches spinning the cellulose carbamate dope [0038-0041], but is silent regarding the specifics of the spinning, the stretching, elongation and nitrogen content. However, Harlin teaches spinning cellulose carbamate in an aqueous spinning medium to form filaments of filament tow while stretching the filament or filament tow to stretching by at least 70% by length in a hot stretching bath at the claimed temperature [pp. 20] to obtain cellulose carbamate fibers (for use in wovens) having a tenacity in the claimed range (2.3 cN/dtex is taught) and elongation in the claimed range and nitrogen content in the claimed range (1-2% is taught and also teaches the nitrogen content as a results effective variable in order to affect solubility and therefore also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art) in order to affect the mechanical properties of the fiber including tenacity [pp. 20 and 23]. Harlin also teaches the holes from which the fiber is spun has diameter of 40-90 micrometers and that stretching in excess of 100% is carried out. Therefore, based upon a simple math calculation to obtain the associated dtex, it is clear that Harlin teaches the linear density in the claimed range assuming a carbamate concentration of 10% (up to 30% is taught) and a density of 1.20 at a 50 micrometer hole diameter would yield 1.07 dtex and would be at least 1.1 using a larger diameter hole or increasing carbamate concentration and which is in the claimed range. In the alternative, giving the teachings of Harlin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed linear density through routine experimentation given the teachings of varying the stretching and thus linear density in order to affect the tenacity and mechanical properties. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed properties of initial modulus, difference between wet elongation at break and dry elongation at break, wet tenacity and relative wet tenacity. However, given the cited art teaches such similar fiber made of such similar materials by such a similar method with such similar properties, the claimed initial modulus is necessarily inherent to the fiber of the cited art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the linear density, stretching, and nitrogen content of Harlin in Harlin et al. in order to improve tenacity and mechanical properties.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed amount of cellulose containing waste and weight percent of cellulose by dry weight. However, Paunonen et al. teaches at least 50 wt% (including 100%) of the raw material of the textile fiber being cellulose containing waste and at least 50 wt% (including 100%) of the cellulose containing waste being textile waste (In order to produce 1000 kg of CCA fibers, 1267 kg of recycled cotton was needed, from which 13 kg was attributed to buttons, zippers, etc., that were removed during the cutting process. [Table 1]) and at least 90% cellulose by dry weight in the fiber (impurities are removed and Paunonen et al. teaches the fiber is produced from recycled cotton and cellulose carbamate preserves cellulose at the predominant component and impurities are taught as being removed and therefore the claimed cellulose percent by dry weight is taught) in order to be environmentally friendly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amounts of cellulose containing textile waste of Paunonen et al. in the previous combination in order to be environmentally friendly.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed alkaline spin bath. However, Turenen et al. teaches an alkaline spin bath comprising sodium hydroxide and sodium carbamate in the claimed weight ratio in order to coagulate cellulose carbamate and control the rate and conditions of precipitation in order to improve mechanical properties and handling. The alkaline spin bath comprises sodium carbamate and less than 3 weight % sodium hydroxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the alkaline spin bath of Turenen et al. In the previous combination and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Harlin et al. teaches the pre-treated cellulose based material, cellulose carbamate, cellulose carbamate dope or the filaments are modified by chemical treatment [0020, 0024, and 0029].
Regarding claim 11, Harlin et al. teaches the cellulose based material is pretreated by mechanically treating it to a predetermined particle size (coarsely grinded) [0035] and the mechanically treated material is then subjected to an acidic treatment and an alkaline treatment in a cooking liquor in a desired order [0024 and 0029-0034]. Bleaching treatment is also taught [0024 and 0027].
Regarding claim 12, the aqueous alkaline medium is an alkaline solution comprising sodium hydroxide and zinc (sodium zincate is taught) [0038].
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed spinneret draw ratio. However, given the teachings of the cited art and the level of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use spinneret draw ratio (including of 1.0) in order to prevent breakage of the filament before entering the coagulation bath and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Harlin et al. are silent regarding the claimed total stretching after coagulation. However, Harlin teaches the total stretching after coagulation of the filaments is in the claimed range (greater than 100% is taught) [pp. 20]. in order to affect fiber mechanical properties including tenacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the stretching of Harlin in Harlin et al. in order to affect fiber properties including tenacity and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harlin et al. (WO2018197756) in view of Harlin (Harlin, A. 2019, “Cellulose carbamate: production and applications”, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. https://doi.org/10.32040/2019.978-951-38-8707-0) in view of Paunonen (“Environmental impact of cellulose carbamate fibers from chemically recycled cotton”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 222, 6/10/2019, pp. 871-881) in view of Turenen et al. (US Pat. 4,639,515) in view of Turenen et al. (NO 169246).
Regarding claim 22, The previous combination teaches cellulose carbamate fiber in fabrics, but is silent regarding nonwoven comprising cotton. However, Turunen et al. teach nonwoven blended with cotton to yield a nonwoven fabric that is stronger [claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the nonwoven of Turunen et al. with the cotton fibers blended with the cellulose carbamate fibers in order to improve strength of the nonwoven and arrive at the claimed invention.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2008/0023874 teaches using cellulose carbamate to form fibers.
Response to Arguments
Claim 15 was erroneously not included in the rejection and therefore, this Office Action is set forth as Non-final Rejection.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the limitations of previous claim 15 now incorporated into claims 9 and 23. As set forth in the rejection above, Turenen et al. teaches the limitations of previous claim 15 including the spin with sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate in the claimed weight ratio. Therefore, the claimed properties would be inherent to the fiber taught by the prior art combination. The present claims are therefore not allowable. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights