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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30 32, and 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/08/2026.
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 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 33-35 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.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear as to if the reactant must be a mixture of cotton and PET or if that is presented as an example. For purposes of continued examination the term “namely” will be treated like the term “preferably.” Therefore the limitation of a mixture of cotton and PET having a fiber length of at most 60-mm – 1mm is not given weight as it is an example of what the reactant can be.
Additionally the phrase at most 60 mm – 1 mm is unclear. It is not understood if this is intended to be a range of 1-60 mm or if 60 mm or 1 mm can be the “at most” value. For purposes of continued examination the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it read “at most 60 mm”.
Furthermore the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, and 33-35 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 22, 24-25, 27, and 29, the presentation of the limitations with the term “can” renders the remaining limitations to be optional. For purposes of continued examination, and limitations that “can” occur is not given patentable weight as it is considered to be an optional limitation.
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) 18, 20, 22, 24-25, 27, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Barla et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0218362.
Regarding claims 18 and 34-35, Barla teaches a method for producing a cellulosic polymer [0055], wherein the method comprises:
providing the reactant (waste cotton/polyester textile see claims 1 and 20), namely a mixture of cotton and PET having a fiber length of at most 60 mm - 1 mm [0047],
treating the reactant in a reactor with subcritical water at a temperature of 130-200°C [0052], particularly preferably 160°C - 200°C and a pressure in a range of 1-25 bar ([0052] with ranges of 110-140 psi as one of many examples), preferably 1-10 bar for approximately 1-120 min, wherein no catalyst is added and the pH is between 5 and 7 during the entire reaction time (the examples do not include the use of a catalyst and only include the addition of acetic acid in order to control the pH of the super critical fluid [0056-0057] so that the pH can be up to 6 for examples 1-4),
the method takes place with exclusion of oxygen (not included in examples 1-4).
Barla teaches that oxygen or oxygen based additives can be involved with the removal of colors form the waste textiles and lists it as an optional element that can take place before, during, or after the supercritical water treatment [0011]. As the Examples do not teach the reaction to take place in the presence of oxygen, and the only mention of oxygen is provided in an optional and additional treatment, it is the Examiner’s stance that the limitations of the claims have been met by the teachings of Barla.
The same can be said about the use of a catalyst. Barla does teach the use of catalysts as optional components for additional treatments to the produced material. These are limited to PTC and are only present in some embodiments. The teaching that a catalyst is known and can be optionally used is not a teaching away from it not being utilized. Examples 1-4 utilized in the rejection above do not teach their use.
Regarding claim 20, Barla further teaches wherein the product has a cellulose content of at least 90% [0042], preferably 92%, and an average degree of polymerization, which can, however, be predetermined, of 300-1000 DP [0044], preferably 450-650.
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Barla further teaches wherein the reactant can additionally have a part of up to 5% foreign fibers and/or PET (even though “can” renders the claimed limitation as optional, Barla teaches that the cotton can have a purity of 94-98% [0006 and 0042] reading on the limitation of foreign fibers up to 5%).
Regarding claims 25 and 27, Barla further teaches the act of removing non-cellulosic materials such as zippers, buttons, and other [0046-0048] prior to the treatment of the textiles. The implied teaching is a lack of metal present in the reactant as the materials have been sorted to remove any metal (non-cellulosic materials) [0046-0048]. This lack of metal present will read on the limitation of up to 35 ppm as 0 falls within that range.
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.
Claim(s) 29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barla et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0218362 in view of Luo et al, US Patent Publication 2004/0209078.
Regarding claims 29, 31, and 33, Barla teaches the treatment of the produced material with many different pretreatments and post treatments, but is silent on the use of a vapor pressure explosion is performed upstream and/or downstream.
In the same field of endeavor of making lyocell or viscose for the textile industry, Luo teaches that the dissolving pulp process for preparing lyocell products can utilize a steam explosion step for the benefit of controlling the viscosity of the pulp to be utilized [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventional act of steam explosion (as taught in Luo) for the known benefits of controlling the physical properties of the pulp created in the Barla method that teaches other pulp modification and pretreatment steps, but is simply silent on this one. The act of utilizing a conventional processing step in the same field of art is a simple substitution of one known treatment step for another to arrive at a predictable end result in a conventional fashion.
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
Prosecution Insights