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 II in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/17/2026.
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 9, 11-12 and 14 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 claims 9, 11-12, and 14, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 7, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hiraoka et al, EP 3417954A1 (already of record).
Regarding claim 7, Hiraoka teaches a method of recovering separated fibres from a biomass composite material (see abstract), the method comprising:
providing a slurry comprising a liquid medium and a biomass composite material (pulp and super absorbent polymer [0069]);
moving the slurry through a channel using two or more conveyor belts (see figure 1), wherein the biomass composite material is disposed between the two or more conveyor belts (items 31 and 32 referred to as first and second electrodes that are belt conveyers [0073]); and
passing an electric current through the slurry while the biomass composite material is between the conveyor belts to heat the biomass composite material [0070], to effect separation of the fibres in the biomass composite material (teaches deactivation of the polymers to allow for the separation of fibers polymers and waste material) [0070-0071]; and recovering the separated fibres (see abstract, claims 13-15 and [0071].
Regarding claim 9, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the biomass composite material is heated to between 50 and 100 °C, and preferably between 75 °C and 100 °C (see claim 11)
Regarding claim 10, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the slurry is provided by feeding the biomass-composite material into the channel and wetting the biomass-composite material with water in the channel [0025 and 0029] – see figure 1.
Regarding claim 12, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the biomass composite material is shredded into pieces (figure 2 and [0015-0017] show the cutting of the starting material and the teachings of crushing and perforating the composite material to access the fibers and SAP).
Regarding claim 13, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the liquid medium comprises or is water [0025].
Regarding claim 14, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the water further comprises an electrolyte (ions and salts are included in the water during the processing and is removed as part of the waste water [0032].
Regarding claim 15, Hiraoka further teaches wherein the ratio of liquid medium to bio-mass composite material in the slurry is from 20:1 to 1:1 by weight (90% water [0026]).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraoka et al, EP 3417954A1 (already of record) in view of Nienaber et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0283749.
Regarding claim 11, Hiraoka further teaches keeping a steady speed on the belts [0070], but is silent as to what the speed should be.
In the same field of endeavor of controlling he speed of conveyors and screen electrodes in processing fiber materials, Nienaber teaches that the movement of the fiber material should be 1.52 meters per minute [0125], which equates to 25.33 mm/s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventional belt speeds of a moving fiber material to be acted upon by a screen electrode as taught by Nienaber in the Hiraoka method for the benefit of utilizing a known and conventional value for the speed of the belt when the primary reference did not provide guidance on the speed. It is within the ability of the average artisan to look for the conventional values of basic engineering practices.
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