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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 17-18 are 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al. (“Hydrogen bond reconstruction strategy for eutectic solvents that realizes room-temperature dissolution of cellulose”, Green Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 24,8760–8769, 10/11/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Tong et al. teaches an esterification method of cellulose comprising mixing cellulose with an esterification system to obtain a mixture and subjecting the mixture to esterification wherein the esterification system comprises formic acid, zinc chloride and water at the claimed molar ratio [8766-8767 and Table 1].
Regarding claims 3-5, Tong et al. teach mass ratio of the cellulose to the esterification system is in the claimed range (8% is taught).
Regarding claims 6-7, Tong et al. teaches the esterification is conducted at room temperature for the claimed hours [8761].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (“Hydrogen bond reconstruction strategy for eutectic solvents that realizes room-temperature dissolution of cellulose”, Green Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 24,8760–8769, 10/11/2022).
Regarding claim 2, Tong et al. are silent regarding the claimed ratio. However, It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed ratio and that taught by Tong et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the ratio disclosed by Tong et al. and the ratio disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the claimed ratio, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed ratio disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the ratio disclosed in Tong et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (“Hydrogen bond reconstruction strategy for eutectic solvents that realizes room-temperature dissolution of cellulose”, Green Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 24,8760–8769, 10/11/2022) in view of Jurling (US Patent 1,656,119).
Regarding claim 8, Tong et al. teach a preparation method of cellulose formate filament material (fibers are taught which includes filaments and in the alternatives it would have been obvious to make filaments given the limited number of options and in order to have longer and stronger fibers) comprising preparing a reaction solution containing cellulose formate according to the esterification method of claim 1. Tong et al. are silent regarding the claimed remaining method steps of claim 8. However, Jurling teaches subjecting reaction solution to coagulation, washing and drying in sequence to obtain cellulose formate filament material in order yield filaments It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the coagulation, washing and drying of Jurling in Tong in order to form filaments and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Tong et al. are silent regarding the claimed ratio. However, It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed ratio and that taught by Tong et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the ratio disclosed by Tong et al. and the ratio disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the claimed ratio, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed ratio disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the ratio disclosed in Tong et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12-13, Tong et al. teach mass ratio of the cellulose to the esterification system is in the claimed range (8% is taught).
Regarding claims 14-15, Tong et al. teaches the esterification is conducted at room temperature for the claimed hours [8761].
Claims 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (“Hydrogen bond reconstruction strategy for eutectic solvents that realizes room-temperature dissolution of cellulose”, Green Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 24,8760–8769, 10/11/2022) in view of Jurling (US Patent 1,656,119) in view of Meraldi et al. (US Patent 6,139,959).
Regarding claim 16, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed diameter. However, Meraldi et al. teaches diameters of 50-100 micrometers in order to have adequate strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the diameter of Meraldi et al. in order to have adequate strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights