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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Imai et al, US Patent Publication 2017/0001162.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Imai teaches a nanocellulose-slurry dewatering system (CNF, see example 1 and 17) comprising:
a nanocellulose slurry feed sub-system (CNF-1 [0130], wherein said nanocellulose slurry comprises nanocellulose and water [0130;
an inlet for a dispersion/drying agent (adding polymer dispersant into the mixture composition [0130] (inlet is implied by the teaching of adding the dispersant into the composition prior o the use of an extruder [0130]) ;
a twin-screw extruder in flow communication with said nanocellulose slurry feed sub-system [0130] (screw extruder reads on two rotor mixer as well as it is a mixing device with a pair of rotors), wherein said twin-screw extruder is configured for intimately mixing said nanocellulose slurry and said dispersion/drying agent [0130], and wherein said twin-screw extruder is configured with one or more extruder vents to remove at least a portion of said water from said nanocellulose slurry (vent holes in the extruder to remove water [0130]);
an extruder outlet for recovering a nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate comprising said nanocellulose and said dispersion/drying agent (ejected in strand form is an implicit teaching of an outlet [0130]); and
an optional milling device configured to generate a powder containing said nanocellulose-dispersion concentrate (optional limitation).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Imai remains as applied above and further teaches that said nanocellulose slurry feed sub-system is configured with an internal rotating agitator and/or wiping blade to mix said nanocellulose slurry ([0130] teaches stirred and mixed]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Imai remains as applied above and further teaches that said nanocellulose-slurry dewatering system comprises a mixing unit configured for mixing said nanocellulose slurry with said dispersion/drying agent (stirred and mixed to uniform [0130].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Imai remains as applied above and further teaches that said nanocellulose-slurry dewatering system comprises a nanocellulose slurry pre-concentration unit configured to remove at least a portion of said water from said nanocellulose slurry prior to water removal in said extruder (Example 17 states that the slurry is filtered into a state containing 20% water prior to the extruder [0130]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Imai remain as applied above and teach the act of using a filter to reduce the water content prior to the extruder [0130].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Imai remain as applied above and teaches the act of inserting the dispersant into the mixture in the pre concentration unit at the same time through the discloser of how to contact the cellulose with the dispersant in [0081-0083] and the teaching of mixing the mixture that is filtered down to 20% at the same instance as the addition of the dispersant in example 17 [0130]. While the language is not explicit, the teachings provide an implied teaching of the claimed limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al, US Patent Publication 2017/0001162 in view of Harris et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0008749.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Imai remain as applied above and teach the act of using a filter to reduce the water content prior to the extruder [0130], but is silent on the use of a centrifuge.
In the same field of endeavor of making nanocellulose products [0062], Harris teaches that the dewatering steps can be done through filtration or through a centrifuge [0185].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a centrifuge instead of a filter as it has been shown that this would be a simple substitution fo one known element in the art to arrive at the same end result in an obvious manner.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al, US Patent Publication 2017/0001162 in view of Riebel et al, US Patent Publication 2009/0281203.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19, Imai remain as applied above and teach the use of any known screw extruder [0070 and 0130], but is silent on the if the screw extruder is co-rotating or counter rotating.
In order to show that these are the two main options of screw extruders that would have been available to the average artisan at the time of the invention, the Riebel reference is presented.
In the same field of endeavor of preparing nanocellulose based compounds and products [0055], Riebel teaches that the mixing actions of the materials can be performed in either a counter rotating or co rating twin screw extruder as long as there are vent holes to allow moisture to escape [0095 and 0113]
Claim(s) 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al, US Patent Publication 2017/0001162 in view of Tilton, US Patent Publication 2017/0321380.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Imai remain as applied above and teaches further processing of the products and pellets made from extruded composition, but doesn’t say what those further steps could be, leaving it up to the average artisan to descried additional process steps of the nanocellulose based composition.
In the same field of endeavor of using nanocellulose materials [0143] to be processed in an extruder [0189] to form a preform, Tilton further teaches that the extruded preform is then further treated for additional processing [0117] which includes the act of milling [0192].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a post extrusion milling step as taught by Tilton as a possible further processing stage in the open ended treatment system of Imai as it would have been a simple and known option to the average artisan for additional steps in a conventional manner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,065,782. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations are almost exact only directed to the method of using the system and the instant claims are directed to the system itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748