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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 44-57, 59-61 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matayeva (1) - Evaluation of different fiber impurities on hydrothermal liquefaction of mixed textile waste (appears on PTO-1449).
Matayeva (1) teaches sustainable recycling technologies for mixed textile waste, including the two main fibers polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and cotton but also containing other fiber types (see abstract).
Matayeva uses PET and cotton garments, nylon, polyurethane (PU), acrylic, suede, wool, modal, elastane, rubber, viscose and modal. All metals (e.g. zippers, buttons) were removed manually and shredded into smaller pieces. Potassium hydroxide (KOH) was used in the experiment (see section 2.1 Materials).
The hydrothermal liquefaction reactions with ternary mixtures were performed in duplicates at 325 ◦C, whereas experiments with the complex mixed textile waste were conducted in triplicates at temperatures of 300, 325 and 350 ◦C. In each experiment, 1.0 g of blended textile waste was mixed with 8.0 g of alkaline solution (12.5 g/L KOH) and loaded into the reactor. Before the experiments, all fibers were dried at 105 ◦C overnight to remove any residual moisture. All experiments were performed under alkali conditions such that high yields of bio-oil and terephthalic acid are recovered. The reactions were quenched with water and the reactors were weighed before and after gas release to determine the amount of gas produced. The aqueous and solid/bio-oil fractions are separated by centrifugation (10 min, 5000 rpm). The process is a continuous process (see section 2.2 Experimental procedure of HTL).
Table 1 list the textile materials and the percentage of PET and cotton present in each material. Matayeva(1) meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Matayeva(1) does not specifically teach the moisture regain of the material. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because Matayeva(1) teaches that the material is dried overnight. The removal of moisture from the material would lend itself to a moisture content lower than the moisture regain value of the materials and wherein the moisture content would be at least 10 percentage point by weight above the standard moisture regain.
Claims 44-58, 60-61 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matayeva (2) (Hydrothermal liquefaction of post-consumer mixed textile waste for recovery of bio-oil and terephthalic acid-appears on the PTO-1449).
Matayeva (2) teaches that hydrothermal liquefaction, a thermochemical depolymerization process commonly used for liquid fuel production from synthetic and biopolymers, is used as an alternative approach to treat textile waste in order to produce bio-oil, a precursor for biofuels or chemicals, and value-added monomeric products (see second column of 1. Introduction). Matayeva (2) teaches subjecting post-consumer polyester (polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) and cotton garments to hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) to produce bio-oil and terephthalic acid (TPA). The effects of blending ratio of PET and cotton, temperature and alkali catalyst on the product distributions are investigated. A maximum bio-oil yield of 26% was attained at 325 ◦ C for a 95% Cotton/ 5% PET mix under alkali conditions. TPA yields ranged from 48 to 91%, where 50/50% PET/cotton resulted in a higher TPA yield than 95/5% PET/cotton textile wastes (see abstract).
Post-consumer textile waste included three compositions (100% PET, 100% cotton, and 51% PET/ 49% cotton). After manual removal of metallic zippers (organic components) , buttons etc. the garments were shredded into small pieces and blended to obtain 95% PET/ 5% cotton, 50% PET/ 50% cotton, 5% PET/ 95% cotton mixed textiles. Dichloromethane (DCM) and potassium hydroxide (KOH) were used. The HTL experiments were conducted in a batch reactor at temperatures of 300, 325 and 350 ◦C for 20 min. In the experiment, 1.0 g of blended feedstock and 8.0 g of water or alkaline solution (12.5 g/L KOH) were mixed and loaded into the reactor (see 2.1 Materials and 2.2 HTL experiment). Matayeva (2) meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Matayeva (2) does not specifically teach the moisture regain of the material. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because Matayeva(2) teaches the same materials as set forth in the present claims. One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that if the materials of the present invention possess this property then the materials of Matayeva would also have a moisture regain less than the moisture content of the feedstock, absent evidence to the contrary. The same reasoning would apply to the moisture content and water content.
Claim 62 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach or suggest the step of subjecting the feedstock mixture to hydrothermal liquefaction at a pressure of at least 50 bar.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18880590/20260720
Prosecution Insights