Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 7/18/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-21 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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendment the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the textile material comprises natural cellulosic fibers and man-made fibers.
LINDGREN discloses textiles that can be man-made, natural or mixtures thereof.
Applicant argues that the instant process is specifically tailored to a mixed textile material. The applicant argues that LINDGREN while disclosing a mixture of material does not teach the specific composition is a critical variable.
The composition is not a critical variable in the instant claims either. The applicant while claiming a mixture of natural and regenerated cellulose. The composition could comprise 99.99% natural and 0.01% man-made fibers or 0.01% man-made and 99.9 natural fibers. The claim does not claim the quality or the structure of the natural fibers or man-made fibers which all can have a wide range of properties.
The applicant argues that LINDGREN teaches a process that would degrade all celluloses and therefore teaches away from the applicant’s solution.
LINDGREN teaches the same pH, same temperature, and same time of treatment as claimed. It is not clear what specific teaching the applicant believes is a “teaching away”.
Applicant argues that WEILACH provides no guidance for a mixture of fibers including those containing low-viscosity man-made cellulosic fibers.
The applicant does not claim the viscosity of the man-made cellulosic fibers or claim the amount of man-made fibers present.
Applicant argues that the person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to WEILACH for treating a mixture but instead would look to a reference that is treating only a single material.
In response WEILACH is used to suggest what viscosity should be obtained for dissolving pulps being used to make regenerated cellulose. This final value is useful for both cotton or cotton/man-made mixtures that are being treated to be used for making regenerated cellulose. The Examiner notes that LINDGREN already discloses viscosity as a result effective variable that should be lowered to a certain value but fails to disclose the specific value.
The applicant argues hindsight reasoning.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the instant case LINDGREN already recognizes that viscosity of the final product must be lowered for spinnerets to work. This makes viscosity a result-effective variable. WEILACH provides the viscosity that LINDGREN is silent on.
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.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0165747 LINDGREN et al., hereinafter LINDGREN, in view of, if necessary, U.S. 2016/0237619 WEILACH et al., hereinafter WEILACH.
As for claims 1, 2, 17, and 18, LINDGREN discloses a waste textile material comprising a natural cellulose (cotton) and a man-made cellulose rayon/viscose (a. providing at least one textile material, wherein the at least one textile material comprises natural cellulose fibers and man-made cellulose fibers [0035, claim 2]).
LINDGREN discloses mechanically disintegrating textile material (b. mechanically disintegrating the material [0036]).
LINDGREN discloses treating the mechanically disintegrated is treated at a pH of 11-13.3 which falls within the claimed range [0037]. LINDGREN discloses that the treatment temperature is 50-100 degrees C which falls within the claimed range [0038]. LINDGREN discloses the addition of a reducing agent sodium dithionite [0039]. LINDGREN discloses the specific time of 30 minutes which falls within the claimed range (c. treating the material to swell the cellulose fibers in an aqueous solution during a time in the interval 5 minutes to 24 hours, preferably 20 minutes to 120 minutes, under reducing conditions, wherein at least one reducing agent is present at least during a part of the swelling, wherein the pH is in the range 8-14, wherein the temperature is above 0 0C [0050]) .
LINDGREN discloses a subsequent oxidative bleaching treatment to adjust the chain length (viscosity) of the material (d. performing at least one oxidative bleach, wherein the time for the at least one oxidative bleach in step d) and a concentration of at least one bleaching substance in step d) are adjusted so that the limiting viscosity number as determined by ISO 5351:2010 for the resulting material after step d) is reduced to a value in the interval 200-1200 ml/g [0032, 0033, 0040]).
LINDGREN does not disclose the specific viscosity that the recycled pulp after treatment. However, the viscosity is a result effective variable. LINDGREN discloses the viscosity of the pulp produced from recycling textiles should be controlled [0019] to prevent clogging of nozzles while producing viscose from the pulp [0019]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to optimize the bleaching steps which lower chain length (and hence lower viscosity) to obtain a suitable viscosity to prevent clogging through routine experimentation.
In the alternative, if necessary, in the same art of recycling textiles for use to form regenerated celluloses including viscose WEILACH [0035 ] discloses adjusting the viscosity to 300 to 850ml/g and 350 to 650 both of which fall within the claimed ranges or overlaps the instant claimed ranges for forming viscose. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to limit the viscosity of the recycled pulp of LINDGREN to the values of WEILACH which it describes as being favorable for forming viscose. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as WEILACH states that these viscosities are suitable for producing viscose [0046] while LINDGREN recognizes that the viscosity must be adjusted.
In addition to the above as for claim 21, as the same starting materials are used and are treated in substantially the same way to substantially the same way (alkali with the same reducing agent and then the same bleaching) it follows that limiting viscosity would decrease in substantially the same way.
As for claim 3, LINDGREN discloses treating the mechanically disintegrated is treated at a pH of 11-13.3 which falls within the claimed range [0037].
As for claim 4, LINDGREN discloses NaOH [0037].
As for claim 5, LINDGREN discloses that the treatment temperature is 50-100 degrees C which falls within the claimed range [0038].
As for claim 6, LINDGREN discloses the addition of a reducing agent sodium dithionite [0039].
As for claim 7, LINDGREN discloses the addition of sodium dithionite at 0.01 to 0.25 mol/Liter ( 174 grams dithionite/mol dithionite). This is equivalent to 1.74 – 43.5 grams sodium dithionite/Liter. LINDGREN discloses an example with 3.86 grams textile and 100 grams (0.5M NaOH) which is about 0.1 Liters. Therefore the sodium dithionite could range from 0.174 grams-4.35 grams which is 0.174 grams sodium dithionite/3.86 grams textile - 4.35 grams sodium dithionite/3.86 grams textile = 45 kg/ton to 1,130 kg/ton which overlaps the instant claimed range making a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, differences in concentration are typically not sufficient for non-obviousness absent evidence of criticality.
As for claim 8, WEILACH discloses that oxidative bleaching with peroxides can be used to lower viscosity [0047]
As for claim 9, LINDGREN discloses bleaching with ozone at a pH of below 6 [0033].
As for claim 10, WIELACH discloses that chlorine dioxide can be used for controlling viscosity of recycled cellulosic fibers [0046]
As for claim 11, LINDGREN discloses the temperature of 60-120 degrees C which falls within the claimed range [0041]
As for claims 12-13, LINDGREN discloses bleaching for 30 minutes to 120 minutes which falls within the claimed range [0042, claim 14].
As for claim 14, LINDGREN discloses washing before bleaching of step (d) of the claims [0043].
As for claim 15, LINDGREN discloses dewatering to less than 66% water content [0043].
As for claim 16, LINDGREN discloses a pH of 1.5 to 5.5 [0043].
As for claims 19 and 20, LINDGREN discloses that the recycled fabrics are used to make viscose [abstract, 0046]. As the process of LINDGREN can uses fabrics made out of viscose it would be obvious to use fabrics that have been made with recycled viscose. This would have the advantage of reducing waste and being environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights