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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 indicates that the mixture must be filtered, but claim 1 already has a filtering step for the mixture.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firgo et al, USP 5,601,767 in view of Keh et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0262108.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-14, Firgo teaches a process and apparatus for regenerating materials form textiles (see abstract and Example 1 being a used fabric) comprising, providing textiles to a container (see example 1); adding aqueous NMMO to the container (see Example 1); stirring/kneading the mixture and raising the temperature to create a mixture (see Example 1), and then removal of water from the solution to create a final mixture (see claim 1 and example 1).
Firgo teaches that the solution is removed form the container and then has its water removed before further processing, which is focused on using it in further molding operations.
Firgo is silent on the use of filtering with a vacuum filtration unit and drying in a vacuum over to make the final material, but instead teaches a generic water reduction step prior to the materials being utilized in further processing.
In the same field of endeavor of regenerating old textiles, Keh teaches a method for recycling waste textile (see abstract) comprising: providing samples of textile into a container [0026]; adding an aqueous solution of an organic acid [0025-0026]; heating the system to create a heated mixture [0027]; filtering the mixture with a vacuum filtration [0028]; and drying the filtered mixture (see claim 8).
While Keh teaches the use of an oven for drying the mixture, there is not an explicit teaching that the dryer is vacuum oven. It is the Examiner’s stance that the selection of a vacuum oven vs a blast oven is a simple engineering choice that does not have an effect on the materials being dried. The simple substitution of one known element for another (in this case a vacuum oven vs a blast oven) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as both are basic drying means that produce the same predictable end result.
It would have been obvious to utilize the filtration and drying method of Keh in the Firgo method as both references teach the same act of taking a dissolved textile and heating and mixture the solution then removing water from it prior to further processing. The explicit use of Keh’s vacuum filtration followed by oven drying would have been an obvious addition to the Firgo method that simply states to remove water for the benefit of utilizing a known process in a known manner to arrive at a predictable end result.
Regarding claim 2, Firgo teaches filtering the mixture (see example 1 and claim 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 9-10, Keh further teaches that the heating step occurs at 110-180 degrees C (see claim 12) for .5-3 hours (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 5, Keh further teaches that the filtering is performed with a 20 mesh screen sized sieve [0036]. A 20 mesh is approximately the same size as a 1 mm screen and at the very least is an obvious equivalate as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Firgo further teaches in Example 1 that the ANMMO aqueous solution has a water content of 40% leaving a 60% concentration of NMMO (see example 1).
Regarding claim 8, Firgo does not provide a starting ratio of textiles to aqueous solution, but instead provides a concentration of the water after the heating to forma mixture.
In Example 1, the textiles are added to a container and a mixture is produced after water removal to a final mixture of 10%.(or 3:20 ratio). This means that the ratio of the starting aqueous solution must be greater than that due to water being actively removed to arrive at the 10% mixture.
While an exact number cannot be calculated for the ratio, we have an ending result that provides a top end of the range. Finding an optimal range is within the ability of the average artisan. With the discloser of Firgo, the average artisan would have been motivated to optimize the amount of fabric to aqueous solution ratio in order for best practices.
Regarding claim 16, Firgo teaches an apparatus that is capable of having an aqueous solution of at least 85% NMMO.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firgo et al, USP 5,601,767 in view of Keh et al, US Patent Publication 2020/0262108 and in further view of Kind et al, USP 6,610,134.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Firgo and Keh teach the controlling of the amount of materials and the drying of the materials, but do not explicitly states that a homogenizer is used to determine the concentration of the NMMO in the material.
In the same field of endeavor of producing a cellulose suspension in NMMO, Kind teaches the use of a homogenizer (see example 2) in the process of determining the amount and concentration of NMMO solution (see column 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention totalize the homogenizer as taught by Kind in the Firgo method for the benefit of utilizing a known method to determine the make up of the materials during production in a known and conventional manner.
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