Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/10/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
IDS
Reference #1 of the 4/7/2025 IDS does not appear to match the inventor name (applicant gives BOETTCHER the publication lists LEE) given by the applicant or the publication date (applicant gives 3/29/2007 the publication lists 2/15/2007). The Examiner believes this to be in error.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resin” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the wet strength resin”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "agitating the slurry” " in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “agitating the aqueous slurry”.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
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, 3-8, 11, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN112553935A XU et al., hereinafter XU.
*The Examiner refers to the English Machine translation of XU.
As for claims 1, 3, and 6, XU discloses treating a waste paper that comprises a wet strength resin [n0026]. The waste paper is added to a hydropulper [n0027]. Then xylanase and cellulase are added to the pulper and the pulper is agitated at 200 rpm [n0028]. 400 g per ton of enzymes are added [0028] which is 0.04% enzymes [n0028] which falls within the claimed range.
As for claims 4 and 5, XU the resin is PAE (polyacrylamide epichlorohydrin) [n0026]. The Examine takes Official Notice that PAE covalently bonds with pulp fibers.
As for claims 7 and 8, XU discloses xylanase [n0028].
As for claim 11, XU discloses a 1:1 ratio [n0028].
As for claim 13, the enzyme applied by XU meets the 100% limitation of the first range and 0% of the other ranges.
As for claim 18, XU discloses 60 minutes [n0028].
As for claim 19, oxidizing agents are not added to after stirring therefore XU teaches an aqueous slurry without oxidizing agents. In the alternative, 0.15% ozone [n0029] is added to pulp at 15% consistency. Therefore for a 100 grams of suspension there is 15 grams of pulp which is treated by 0.000225 grams ozone which is 225 ppm in the slurry which also falls within the claimed range.
As for claims 20, XU does not add hypochlorite [n0026-n0028]
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112553935A XU et al., hereinafter XU, in view of Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK, or, alternatively, SMOOK in view of XU.
XU discloses recycling waste paper with wet-strength resin in a repulper. XU does not disclose broke. SMOOK discloses recycling broke with wet-strength resin in a repulper [pg. 194 col. 2 par. 3]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to substitute one known paper with wet strength resin for a broke paper with wet strength resin intended for repulping/recycling. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as broke is paper taken fresh off the paper machine and therefore will have less contaminants then mixed use or other waste papers.
In the alternative, SMOOK discloses repulping broke and says it is relatively easy unless wet-strength resins are present. XU discloses a process for repulping papers with wet-strength resins as per above. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to add the treatment enzymes of XU to the repulper of SMOOK. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to make repulping and removing wet-strength resin easier.
Claims 12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112553935A XU et al., hereinafter XU, in view of U.S. 2018/0363249 GHOSH et al., hereinafter GHOSH.
As for claim 12, 14, and 16-17, XU discloses treating wet strength waste paper with cellulase and hemicellulase. XU fails to disclose a pectinase, lipase, amylase, or esterase. GHOOSH discloses enzymes for treating waste paper during repulping [abstract]. GHOSH discloses a mixture of enzymes [0043] including cellulase and hemicellulase [0044-0045], pectinase [0047], along with esterases [0050] and alpha-amylases [0046].
XU discloses 22-23 percent cellulase [0054] and 22-23 hemicellulase which totals 44-46 percent cellulase and hemicellulose which falls within the claimed range. XU discloses 7% esterase which falls within the claimed range [0054]. XU discloses pectinase and lipase as part of the composition. Additional enzymes can be present in 1-50% [0055] which overlaps with the instant claimed range for protease [0042] and alpha-amylase [0046]
At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to add the additional enzymes of GHOSH to the enzyme treatment of XU. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do by GHOSH so decrease stickies and adhesives [abstract] and therefore prevent rewinder breaks [0019] The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the mixture of enzymes to have a synergistic effect [0020]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as GHOSH already discloses cellulase and hemicellulose as major components of the enzyme treatment. GHOSH additionally mentions that wet-strength resins can be considered stickies [0008]
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112553935A XU et al., hereinafter XU, in view of U.S. 5,330,619 JOHNSON et al., hereinafter JOHNSON
As for claims 14 and 15, XU discloses treating wet strength waste paper with cellulase and hemicellulase. XU fails to disclose a protease. JOHNSON discloses treating wet strength paper which comprise polyamide crosslinked with epichlorohydrin with proteases [col. 1 lines 20-23] to improve repulping [abstract]. The proteases include bromelain and pepsin [claim 1]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the protease enzymes of JOHNSON to the wet strength recycled fiber of XU. The person of ordinary skill in the art would look to combine enzymes intended for the same purpose of repulping wet-strength paper with polyamide resins [MPEP 2144.06 (I)]. The person of ordinary skill in the art would except success as JOHN SON suggests the use of a combination of enzymes and suggests both cellulase and hemicellulose as able to degrade polyamide resins [col. 2 lines 33-43col. 3 lines 34-36]. Concentration of the protease is a result effective variable. The person of ordinary skill in the art would look to optimize the concentration of protease through routine experimentation.
Claims 1, 6-10, 13, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over RU2154703 BEZBORDOV et al., hereinafter BEZ.
*The Examiner refers to the English Machine translation of XU.
As for claim 1, BEZ discloses treating a fibrous paper mass within enzyme mixture of cellulases and hemicellulases [0016] in a hydropulper (which agitates the slurry) [claim 1]. The mixture is further mixed while grinding [0018] after the hydropulper. The Enzymes are present in a range of 0.005% to 0.1% which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range of in the alternate makes a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claim 6, the waste paper is added to the pulper at a 5% concentration and mixed [0016] after 10 minutes the enzymatic composition is added and dissolution continues for 15 minutes [0016-0017].
As for claims 7-9, BEZ discloses xylanse [0016] which can be an endoxylanse (endo-1,4-B-xylanase) [0016].
As for claim 10, BEZ discloses the cellulase can be beta-glucosidase [0016].
As for claim 13, the enzyme mixture of BEX has only hemicellulases and cellulases and therefore supplies 100% falling within the claimed range
As for claim 18, the enzyme after the peroxide treats pulp in the hydropulper for 15 minutes after the addition of enzymes [0017]. The pulp is then further mixed with a grinder for 8 minutes [0019]. The total treatment time is 23 minutes which falls within the claimed range
As for claim 19, BEZ discloses the oxidant hydrogen peroxide is at 0.5% mass of dry waste paper and the waste paper is at 5% consistency [0016]. Therefore for 5 grams of waste paper there is 95 grams of water in the slurry. As there is 0.5% peroxide on waste paper this results in 0.025 grams hydrogen peroxide. This is equivalent to 250 ppm oxidizer (0.025 grams/100 grams total suspension) which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 20, BEZ does not use hypochlorite but instead uses peroxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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 (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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights