Detailed Action
The communications received 03/19/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-19 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 reads “…wherein the process steps comprising…” which instead should read “…wherein the process steps comprise…”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 reads “…the group consisting wood and non-wood feedstocks…” and should read “…the group consisting of wood and non-wood feedstocks…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a blower” in claim 15 as it is understood that “means of a blower” is supplying the structure required to perform a blowing step.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said pulp wet feedstock". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this is understood to be “a pulp wet feedstock”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said upgradation apparatus". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this is understood to be “an upgradation apparatus”. Dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the elevated temperature". It is unclear whether this is supposed to refer to “the temperature” as found in step (ii) or whether there is a new elevated temperature. For purposes of examination it is understood to correspond to “the temperature”.
Claims 17 and 19 recite the limitation "the upgraded and dried pulp feedstock". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination this is understood to be “an upgraded and dried pulp feedstock”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" 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). For purposes of examination the limitations following the phrase are optional.
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.
For the rejections below, the Examiner notes:
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindahl et al (US 4244778 A) hereinafter LIN.
As for claim 1, a process for upgradation of quality of pulp feedstock wherein the process steps comprising (chemical refining of pulp [LIN: Abstract]);
i. feeding said pulp wet feedstock into a vaporized oxygen free apparatus at elevated pressure conditions in the range between 0.1 barg to 10 barg (it is understood that less than 1% oxygen is substantially oxygen free/overlaps oxygen free at a pressure range of 5-500 kPa which is 0.05-5 barg which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract]),
ii. subjecting said feedstock to super-heated circulating vapor at a temperature in the range from 120 °C to 300 °C, thereby modifying the properties of said feedstock (100-150 °C of gaseous atmosphere consisting of steam which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract]),
iii. discharging the modified pulp feedstock from said upgradation apparatus when the moisture content of the pulp feedstock is controlled between 5 % to 30 % (less than a 8% change of moisture therefore 'maintained', dry solids are at least 40% at the end which would mean a moisture content under 60% which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract; col. 6 l.10-15]),
wherein, said process is characterized by the operating parameters of high temperature and pressure at a short residence time between 2 seconds to 3 minutes (5-60 seconds which fall within the claimed range [LIN: col. 5 l. 65-col. 6 l. 5]).
As for claim 2, LIN teaches claim 1, wherein the moisture content of the resultant pulp feedstock is controlled between 5% to 30 % (less than a 8% change of moisture therefore 'maintained', dry solids are at least 40% which would mean a moisture content under 60% which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract; col. 6 l.10-15]).
As for claims 3-4, 16, and 19, LIN teaches claim 1 the Examiner notes that the pulp feedstock as supplied has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. the pulp product that has undergone the pressure, temperature, under the corresponding time, with the moisture content) which would result in the claimed properties. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the pulp feedstock product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
As for claim 6, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the bulk properties of the resultant pulp feedstock obtained by the process is enhanced by 5 % to 40 % (a pressure range of 5-500 kPa which is 0.05-5 barg which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract]).
As for claim 7, LIN teaches claim 1 wherein the elevated temperature in step (ii) is in the range of from 120 °C to 300 °C (100-150 °C of gaseous atmosphere consisting of steam which overlaps the claimed range [LIN: Abstract]).
As for claim 8, LIN teaches claim 1 wherein, the residence time for the feedstock inside the apparatus is between 1 second to 3 minutes (5-60 seconds which fall within the claimed range [LIN: col. 5 l. 65-col. 6 l. 5]).
As for claim 9, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises extracting moisture from resultant feedstock in the form of vapor from the apparatus (via the recycling of steam in the process [LIN: col. 7 l. 35-55; Fig. 1 #20]).
As for claim 10, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises circulating vapors in the internal area of the apparatus constantly (the steam is circulated via fans [LIN: col. 7 l. 39-55]).
As for claim 11, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises the constant circulation of vapor by arrangement of one or more circulating fans (the steam is circulated via fans [LIN: col. 7 l. 39-55]).
As for claim 12, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises elevated operating temperature such as temperature in the range of from 120 °C to 300 °C, by heat exchangers (heat exchangers are used to heat the steam [LIN: col. 8 l. 34-54]).
As for claim 13, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises circulating vapor through a combination of conduits [LIN: Fig. 1 #8 and #20].
As for claim 14, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process further comprises the steps of iv. separating vapor in a separator, v. re-circulating the separated vapor to heat exchangers (via the cyclone to heat exchangers [LIN: Fig. 1 #16; col. 8 l. 34-54]).
As for claim 15, LIN teaches claim 1 and wherein the process is carried out in an apparatus comprising a closed, pressurized conveying loop, in which superheated water vapor is circulated by means of a blower, the conveying loop is fitted with feeding and discharge apparatus, heat exchangers for adding heat and controlling of temperature and water content, a separation apparatus such as cyclone for separation of paper pulp and water vapors (steam is circulated via fans, cyclone is used to separate the pulp from the steam, and the steam is cycled via various circulation loops) [LIN: Fig. 1; col. 7 l. 39-55, col. 8 l. 10 – 65].
As for claim 17, LIN teaches claim 1 wherein, the upgraded and dried pulp feedstock is used in the production of various products including tissue papers, hygiene articles, packaging paper, board, other paper products (production of a paper product [LIN: col. 6 l. 35-37]). The Examiner notes that the pulp feedstock has a similar composition as claimed by applicant, (i.e. the pulp product that has undergone the pressure, temperature, under the corresponding time, with the moisture content) which would result in the claimed property (bulk capacity). The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the pulp feedstock product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 20160237617 A1) hereinafter YAM.
As for claim 18, YAM teaches a pulp feedstock having a moisture content of 5 % to 30 %, and an absorption capacity of at least 15 g/g (a moisture content of 5-13% which falls within the claimed range and water absorption of 7 g/g or greater which overlaps the claimed range [YAM: 0107, 0141]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748