Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 9/11/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
112(f) and Claim interpretation
Claim 10:
Means of a venturi tube does not invoke 112(f) as it does not meet the 3-prong test in claim 11 as “means” is not modified by functional language.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the broad recitation greater than 10.5, and the claim also recites 10.5 to 14 and 11-13 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 2023/0132641 HARLIN et al., hereinafter HARLIN, in view of U.S. 2018/0134994 STEELE et al., hereinafter STEELE.
Note: Harlin is also available under 102(a)(1) as WO202181007A1 (see Notice of References cited)
As for claims 1 and 2, HARLIN discloses taking cotton textile waste and de-sizing the waste in a milling apparatus [0004, 0025, 0026]. HARLIN then discloses that the milled cotton waste can be suspended in an alkaline solution [0038]. HARLIN discloses taking the alkali treated slurry and then exposing it to ozone [0039]. Therefore HARLIN has means for exposing the pulp to ozone.
HARLIN discloses the system for treating textiles with grinding, alkali, and ozone as per above. HARLIN fails to disclose an ozone venturi tube for supplying ozone or the size of the bubbles that can be produced. STEELE discloses a venturi tube for supplying ozone to cellulosic like cotton [0001, 0125, 0200]. STEELE discloses that the venturi tube provides bubbles with a size of at least 1 micron to less than 0.25 mm (250 micron) which falls within the claimed range.
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to use the known bubbler generator of STEELE to supply the bubbles of ozone in HARLIN. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the device supplies ozone bubbles efficiently [0012, 0200, 0253]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as STEELE can treat cotton with ozone. Further the device can also be used with cellulosic fiber (paper) recycling [0014]
As for claim 3, HARLIN discloses removing metal elements of the textile waste [0021].
As for claim 5, HARLIN discloses that the treated fiber can be dissolved in the carbamate process. A fully dissolved cellulose carbamate is present at nanosize and therefore is nanocellulose [0027, 0058].
As for claim 6, HARLIN discloses an acid step and an alkaline step both of which can hydrolyze amorphous fractions into soluble sugars [0038].
As for claim 7, HARLIN discloses 1 to 5 mm which falls within the claimed range [0025].
As for claim 8, HARLIN discloses that the alkaline treatment can be heated to 50 to 200 degrees C which overlaps with the instant claimed range making a prima facie case of obviousness [0038].
As for claims 9, HARLIN discloses alkaline conditions with high concentrations of sodium hydroxide which would result in about a pH of 14 [0095]; as water is added the pH decreases to 9.9 and therefore p[asses through the other values.
As for claim 10, STEELE discloses a venturi tube (the Examiner interprets a tube in which a venturi effect occurs to be a venturi tube) for supplying ozone to cellulosic like cotton [0001, 0125, 0200].
As for claims 11-13, HARLIN can supply ozone to the pulp. HARLINE discloses a charge of 0.5% ozone on dry pulp [0066]. The pulp is at 10% consistency. Therefore for 0.1 grams pulp there are 0.9 grams water and 1 gram slurry. The ozone charge would 0.005* 0. 1 gram cellulose * 1000 mg O3 /gram O3 = 0.5 mg O3 which is slightly outside the claimed ranges. The Examiner notes in this example hydrogen peroxide was additionally added but hydrogen peroxide is optional [claim 46[ which would require higher amounts of ozone. Further, concentration will not typically support non-obviousness.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.)
The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect that by increasing the ozone charge the pulp could be made brighter. Although this would decrease viscosity [see e.g. decrease in viscosity [par. 0065 and 0067; 305-215 ml/g]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARLIN and STEELE in view of U.S. 5,130,032 SARTORI, hereinafter SARTORI.
As for claim 4, HARLIN discloses the system for treating textiles with grinding, alkali, and ozone as per above. HARLIN and STEELE fail to disclose ultrasonic mixing. In the art of ozonation SARTORI discloses treating suspended material to be oxidized with ozone from a venturi tube and subjected the suspension to ultrasonics [abstract, Figure 1]. The ultrasonics control and optimize bubble size by increasing the reactive surface area of the ozone [col. 5 lines 20-30]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to use the ozone treatment system of SARTORI to treat the fiber suspension of HARLIN/STEELE. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by SARTORI to increase the surface area of the bubbles and therefore enhance the ozone treatment of the fibers [col. 5 lines 20-30].
Conclusion
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