**This Office Action supersedes/replaces the prior office action. A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire 3 months from the mailing date of this communication.**
DETAILED ACTION
The communicator dated 6/11/2024 has been entered and full considered.
Claims 1-19 and 21-22 are pending with claims 17-19 and 21 withdrawn from further consideration.
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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-16 and 22, drawn to a process.
Group II, claim(s) 17-19 and 21, drawn to a product.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group I and Group II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Group I is directed to a process of manufacturing a textile fibre by dissolving nitrogen content, spinning in a spinning unit and stretching the filaments. Group II is directed to a textile fibre having an initial modulus, a linear density and a tenacity. Thus, the groups do not share a technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Mark Scott on 3/27/2025 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16 and 22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-19 and 21 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: : “comprises 8-11 wt-%, of cellulose carbamate,” should read “comprises 8-11 wt-%” (remove the extra comma after 8-11 wt-%). 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 4 and 7 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “0.5-2.0”, and the claim also recites “0.8 to 1.5” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1, 4 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A, original and translation provided), hereinafter ZHOU, in view of Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON.
Regarding claim 1, ZHOU teaches: A method for the manufacture of cellulose carbamate textile fibre (ZHOU teaches a method for manufacturing cellulose carbamate textile fibre [Abstract; pg. 1].), comprising the steps of;- dissolving cellulose carbamate having a maximum nitrogen content, as measured according to SFS 5505:1988, of 2.5 wt-% in an aqueous sodium hydroxide medium to form a cellulose carbamate dope (ZHOU teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 2-3% [pg. 3]. ZHOU also teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate in Example 3 is 1.785% [pg. 4]. Although ZHOU is silent regarding the measurement method, the nitrogen content of 1.785% is prima facie expected to meet the claimed nitrogen content absent evidence or rational to suggest otherwise. ZHOU teaches the cellulose carbamate is in an aqueous sodium hydroxide medium to form a cellulose carbamate dope [Example 3; pg. 4].), wherein the dope comprises zinc (ZHOU teaches the dope comprise zinc [Example 3; pg. 4].); . . . .
ZHOU is silent as to: spinning the cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous spin bath in a spinning unit, to form filaments or filament tow, wherein a temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 35-60 0C; and - stretching the filaments or filament tow to obtain cellulose carbamate fibres; wherein a sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 1.0-1.99 wt- % and a sodium carbonate content of the spin bath is maintained at a content of at most 30 wt-%, by withdrawing a portion of the alkaline spin bath from the spinning unit for recycling. In the same field of endeavor, spinning, STIGSSON teaches spinning a cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous spin bath in a spinning unit to form filaments or filament tow [Col. 1, lines 50-56; Col. 2, lines 1-21; claim 4]. STIGSSON teaches the temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 20 to 40°C [Col. 3, lines 22-23]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. STIGSSON teaches stretching the filaments to obtain cellulose carbamate fibers [Col. 3, lines 10-13]. STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is in the range of 2 to 12% (by weight), preferably 2 to 6 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-28], which is close enough. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sodium hydroxide content be 2 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 2 to have a convenient process [STIGSSON; Col. 3, line 3]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties). STIGSSON teaches a sodium carbonate concentration is in the range of 15 to 45% (by weight), preferably 20 to 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 29-31]. STIGSSON teaches a portion of the alkaline spin bath from the spinning unit is for recycling [claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by spinning the cellulose carbamate dope into an alkaline aqueous bath unit with the sodium hydroxide in the range of 2-6 wt% and the sodium carbonate in the range of 20-30 wt%, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to increase structural integrity of the fibers [Col. 3, lines 32-35].
Regarding claim 4, ZHOU teaches: wherein the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 0.5-2.0 wt-%, preferably 0.8 to 1.5 wt-% (ZHOU teaches the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate is 2-3% [pg. 3].).
Regarding claim 9, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 1.5-1.9 wt-% (STIGSSON teaches the sodium hydroxide content of the spin bath is in the range of 2 to 12% (by weight), preferably 2 to 6 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-28], which 2 wt %, is close enough. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sodium hydroxide content be 2 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 2 wt % to have a convenient process [STIGSSON; Col. 3, line 3]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties).).
Regarding claim 10, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the alkaline spin bath comprises sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate at a weight ratio of 1:11-1:20 (STIGSSON teaches the lowest weight percentage is 2 wt % for sodium hydroxide and the highest weight percentage for sodium carbonate is preferably 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 27-31], which gives a ratio of 2:30 that turns to 1:15 and meets the claimed range. Therefore, STIGSSON teaches overlapping claimed ratios. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Regarding claim 11, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the sodium carbonate content of the spin bath is maintained within a range of 22-30 wt-% (STIGSSON teaches a sodium carbonate concentration is in the range of 15 to 45% (by weight), preferably 20 to 30 wt % [Col. 3, lines 29-31].).
Regarding claim 12, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the temperature of the alkaline spin bath is in the range of 40-55°C (STIGSSON teaches the temperature of the alkaline aqueous spin bath is in the range of 20 to 40°C [Col. 3, lines 22-23]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Regarding claim 13, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the spinning has a spinneret draw ratio in the range of 0.75-1.4 (STIGSSON teaches the draw ratio may be in the range of 0.1-2 [Col. 4, lines 37-39]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by having a draw ratio of 0.1-2, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to avoid lump formation on the spinneret surface [Col. 4, lines 40-42].
Regarding claim 14, STIGSSON further teaches: wherein the total stretching after coagulation of the filament or filament tow is at least 70 % by length in a stretching unit (STIGSSON teaches the stretch is at least 75% by length in a stretching unit [Col. 3, lines 10-14].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, by stretching the fibers at least 75% by length, as suggested by STIGSSON, in order to improve mechanical properties [Col. 3, lines 10-11].
Regarding claim 15, ZHOU teaches: further comprising at least one post-treatment step selected from an acid treatment to remove zinc oxide residues from the filaments and a post-hydrolysis treatment to reduce the nitrogen content of the filaments to a range of 0.05-0.4 wt-% (ZHOU teaches after the formed tow is pulled out by coagulation rollers, the tow enters a second coagulation bath, which can be a sodium hydroxide solution [Example 6; pg. 5]. ZHOU teaches the fibers can go through several post treatments [Examples 14-18; pgs. 8-9]. ZHOU teaches the zinc content is zero and the nitrogen content of the filament is 0.3% [Example 14; pgs. 2, 8].).
Regarding claim 16, ZHOU teaches: wherein the nitrogen content of the cellulose carbamate filament after coagulation is in the range of 0.40-1.0 wt-% (ZHOU teaches the residual content of nitrogen is relatively low, 0.3% [pg. 2], which is close enough to 0.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the content be 0.3 since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, and one would have been motivated to have it at 0.3 to be safe and comfortable [ZHOU: pg. 2]. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties).).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6-7 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Määttänen et al. (“Pre-treatments of pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste for production of textile fibres in the cold NaOH(aq) and cellulose carbamate processes”, provided in the IDS of 3/30/2026), hereinafter MÄÄTTÄNEN.
Regarding claim 2, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material, the waste material being selected from the group consisting of textile waste, paper waste, cardboard waste, agro waste, and mixtures thereof. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials used were pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste [pg. 3871]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870].
Regarding claim 3, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste, in an amount of at least 50 wt-% of the cellulose carbamate. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste in an amount of dry content of 91-94% [pg. 3871; see also Table 3 on pg. 3875]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870], and homogenise the structure [pg. 3871].
Regarding claim 6, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate is prepared by pre-treating cellulose-based material, and preforming cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate is pre-treated and performing the cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material [pgs. 3871-3873]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate pre-treated and performing the cellulose carbamation on the pre-treated cellulose-based material, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to remove the dye and decrease the inorganic content as well as reduce the degree of polymerisation but only sufficiently enough for produce of fibres in the cellulose carbamate process [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, MÄÄTTÄNEN further teaches: wherein the pre-treatment comprises a mechanical treatment to obtain a predetermined particle size of the cellulose-based material (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials are shredded with a hammer mill [pg. 3871].), followed by an acidic treatment and an alkaline treatment in a cooking liquor (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches an alkaline washing and acid washing [pg. 3871].), and optionally a bleaching and/or decolourisation treatment (MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw material goes through a bleaching treatment [Abstract].).
Regarding claim 22, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate comprises at least 25 wt-% of the cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose-containing waste material. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate obtained from textile waste in an amount of dry content of 91-94% [pg. 3871; see also Table 3 on pg. 3875]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having the cellulose carbamate comprise cellulose carbamate obtained from cellulose containing waste material selected from textile waste, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to develop and improve textile recycling process and open the possibility to use recycled cotton waste textiles as raw materials for man-made cellulosic fibres [pg. 3870], and homogenise the structure [pg. 3871].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Määttänen et al. (“Pre-treatments of pre-consumer cotton-based textile waste for production of textile fibres in the cold NaOH(aq) and cellulose carbamate processes”, provided in the IDS of 3/30/2026), hereinafter MÄÄTTÄNEN, and HEDLUND et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0062950), hereinafter HEDLUND.
Regarding claim 5, ZHOU and STIGSSON teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cellulose carbamate has a polydispersity in the range of 2.0 to 5.0, as measured by Gel Permeation Chromatography/Size Exclusion Chromatography instrument, and an average intrinsic viscosity of 147 to 225 ml/g, as measured by CED viscosity measurement according to ISO 5351:2010. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the cellulose carbamate has a polydispersity in the range of 2.9-3.9 [Table 5; pg. 3876]. MÄÄTTÄNEN teaches the raw materials and pre-treated materials were determined by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and the viscosity was characterized by ISO 5351:2010 [pg. 3873]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having a polydispersity in the range of 2.9-3.9, as suggested by MÄÄTTÄNEN, in order to have even degradation due to pre-treatments [pg. 3875].
ZHOU, STIGSSON and MÄÄTTÄNEN are silent as to: an average intrinsic viscosity of 147 to 225 ml/g. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, HEDLUND teaches intrinsic viscosity to be in the range of 140-230 ml/g [0053], which encompasses the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU, STIGSSON and MÄÄTTÄNEN, by having an intrinsic viscosity in the range of 140-230 ml/g, as suggested by HEDLUND, in order to measure molecular-weight distribution and have a low degree of polymerization to more easily dissolve [0053].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHOU et al. (CN 102691125A), hereinafter ZHOU, and Stigsson et al. (U.S. 10,138,578), hereinafter STIGSSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HEDLUND et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0062950), hereinafter HEDLUND.
Regarding claim 8, ZHOU and STIGSSON teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: wherein the cellulose carbamate dope comprises 8-11 wt-% of cellulose carbamate (ZHOU teaches a 5.0-8.0 wt-% cellulose carbamate solution [pg. 3], which overlaps with the claimed range.), 5-8 wt-% of sodium hydroxide and 0.08-1.2 wt-% of zinc (ZHOU teaches the dope has 7-8 wt-% of sodium hydroxide and 1.2-1.8 wt-% of zinc oxide [pg. 2, which overlaps with the claimed range]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.), but are silent as to: the dope has a viscosity of 15 Pas or less (measured at 20 degrees Celsius), as measured by ASTM D1343-93:2019. In the same field of endeavor, cellulose carbamate, HEDLUND teaches the dope has a shear viscosity of 1 to 500 Pas, preferably 5 to 100 Pas [0018; 0054], which overlaps with the claimed range. Although HEDLUND is silent regarding the measurement method, the viscosity of the range of 5 to 100 Pas is prima facie expected to meet the claimed viscosity range absent evidence or rational to suggest otherwise. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify ZHOU and STIGSSON, by having shear viscosity in the range of 5-100 Pas, as suggested by HEDLUND, in order to measure molecular-weight distribution and have a low degree of polymerization to more easily dissolve [0053].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights