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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 33, line 23, the unit of pressure (kP) is unknown, should be changed to –kPa--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the unit of pressure (kP) is unknown, should be changed to –kPa--. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/887,258 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope overlaps. Note that the process steps of the current application are broader than that of the reference application and thus the claims of the reference application could be used to reject the claims of the current application. Note also that the dependent claims of reference application are the same or at the very least in eth scope than eth dependent claims of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/011,926 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope overlaps. Note that the process steps of the current application are broader than that of the reference application and thus the claims of the reference application could be used to reject the claims of the current application. Note also that the dependent claims of reference application are the same or at the very least in eth scope than eth dependent claims of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,146,262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope overlaps. Note that the process steps of the current application are broader than that of the reference application and thus the claims of the reference application could be used to reject the claims of the current application. Note also that the dependent claims of reference application are the same or at the very least in eth scope than eth dependent claims of the current application.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eklund et al., (hereafter Eklund), US Patent 3,620,911 in view of Hurter et al., (hereafter Hurter), US patent No. 6,302,997 and further in view of Xu, WO 2005/042830 Al (all of them cited in the IDS filed on January 16, 2025).
With regard to claims 1 and 4, 10, Eklund teaches a method of making a non-woody pulp including the steps of, (see column 1, lines 60-75 and column 4, lines 4-9 for the optional bleaching ):
a) providing a non-wood material;
b) cutting the non-wood material; (the material is pre-cut before being employed in the process. The material is manually cut; see example 1 on column 4, lines 40-42);
c) compressing and macerating the cut material; (the shredding of the wet non-woody material);
d) impregnation of the bagasse with a caustic solution; (the dewatering and impregnation with an alkali metal hydroxide);
e) Cooking the impregnated bagasse to extract the fibers;
f) Optionally Bleaching the fiber/pulp.
The primary reference fails to explicitly teach the use of Asparagaceae family of the non-woody plants, but teaches that other non-wood can be used; see column 2, lines 1-5. However, Hurter teaches that pulps can be made using sugar cane (bagasse) and other non-wood plants including Hesperaloe; see table on column 1, lines 25 through 33 and column 5, lines 31-36. Therefore, using Hesperaloe in the process taught by Eklund would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if such non-wood plan were used to make papermaking pulps as suggested by Hurter. The other difference is the mechanical pulping step of the impregnated bagasse, since Eklund uses a chemical process. However, the use of mechanical processing steps instead of a chemical cooking to obtain the pulp is considered an obvious design choice, since such processes are known in the art as evidenced by Hurter; column 3, lines 39-52 and Xu that teaches a chemical-mechanical pulping with a refiner flown line treatment as the ones claimed; see abstract and the Summary of the invention expanding from page 2 through page 3.
Regarding to claims 2-3, Hurter teaches the cutting of the non-wood into pieces of 2 to 4 inches, but the cut size/length would depend on the type of conveyors and feed screws used; see column 11, lines 10-12, and therefore cutting the pieces to the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it depends on the type of non-wood and the tool used for the cut.
With regard to claims 5-6 and 9-12, Xu teaches that using alkaline peroxide, in a mechanical pulping system (APMP) before, during or after the refining, is well-known in the art; see page 1, lines 1-2 of the Background of the Invention. The alkaline peroxide consists of a mixture of hydroxide/caustic, a hydrogen peroxide and usually a stabilizer, which silicate is commonly used1. Xu also teaches the mixing of the alkaline peroxide through blow line; see for example, page 7, lines 7-9 and teaches temperature within the claimed range, i.e., at least 80 ºC; see page 7, end of the first full paragraph.
Regarding to claims 7-8, Xu teaches the use of a refiner operating at pressure falling within the claimed range, since Xu teaches that the refiner operates at pressure higher that 45 psi (310 kPa) at the high pressure refiner and lower than 45 psi (310 kPa) at the low pressure refiner; see page 8, lines 1-9. Xu also teaches that the consistency of the bagasse falls within the claimed range; see page 7, at the end of the first paragraph, which teaches that “Prior to entry into the separator the pulp may have a consistency of about 20% to about 60% and a temperature of about 80°C to about 155°C.,” which indicates that the bagasse in the refiner is at that consistency range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method of Making Non-Wood Pulp a Dispersible Non-Wood Pulp.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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 on 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 See ¶-[0061] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0095491 A1, which also teaches the use of the alkaline peroxide on non-wood fibers/pulp.
Prosecution Insights