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 Objections
Claims 1 and 19-22 are objected to because they contain multiple periods, which is improper. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-14, 16, 17, and 21-24 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding Claim 5, the phrase “the recycled fiber sliver” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 6, the phrase “one or each fine opener line” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding Claim 6, the phrase “the recycled fiber sliver” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, the phrase “one or each drawing station” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 8, the phrase “one or each can filling station” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding Claim 8, the phrase “mixing it” is unclear. What does “it” refer to?
Regarding Claim 10, the phrase “the drawn recycled fiber slivers” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 11, the phrase “the fiber opener line” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further regarding Claim 11, the phrase “the one or more parallel fine opener lines” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 14, the phrase “each fine opener line” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 16, the phrase “the integrated drawing and spinning unit” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 17, the phrase “linen fiber” is unclear. Linen is a fabric, not a fiber.
Regarding Claim 21, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 22, the phrase “the drawn recycled fiber sliver” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 23, the phrase “the parallel fine opener lines” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 24, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The remaining claims inherit the rejection by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-16, and 19-24 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Specification in view of Ball et al (5471720).
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s Specification teaches as prior art a recycling and spinning system for manufacturing yarn from textile waste, comprising:
a recycling unit (Detail 100) that is configured to recycle textile waste material into recycled fiber material, and
a drawing unit (Detail 190) and a spinning unit (Detail 21)that are configured to manufacture a yarn containing the recycled fiber material.
While the prior art essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach that the individual components can be integrated with one another. Ball, however, teaches that when dealing with similar components, it is well known that individual components of a system can instead be integrated to be continuous (Column 4, lines 24-26). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the separate components, so as to more efficiently recycle the waste into yarn. The ordinarily skilled artisan understands the time benefits of removing stops between machines, and would know to integrate as taught.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art teaches the recycling unit comprises a cutter (Detail 2) for textile waste, a fiber opener line (Detail 6), and at least one fine opener line (Detail 10) for obtaining the recycled fiber material.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art teaches the recycling unit comprises several fine opener lines in parallel (Details 10, 11, 12) to feed the recycled fiber material in the form of a sliver to a spinning machine (Detail 21) of the spinning unit.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art teaches the drawing unit comprises a drawing station (Detail 190).
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art teaches the spinning unit comprises a spinning machine (Detail 21).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art teaches at least one or each fine opener line is associated with an assigned drawing station (Detail 190). Ball teaches these would obviously be integrated.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art teaches at least one or each drawing station comprises an assigned can filling station (Detail 20).
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art teaches at least one or each can filling station is or are connected to a common can change (Detail 20b to 21b).
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art teaches the recycling unit comprises one fiber opener line equipped with a butter container (Detail 3) connected via feed ducts (Detail 4) to one or more parallel fine opener lines, each connected at its downstream side to an assigned card, drawing station, and can filling station. Ball teaches these would obviously be integrated.
Regarding Claim 11, the production capacity of the fiber opener line would obviously be matched to production capacity of the spinning unit, otherwise there would be too much, or too little fiber supplied. Ball teaches the components are integrated, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that fiber capacity throughout the system would have to be monitored.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the limitations are drawn to a sliver mixing draw frame, which is optionally listed in Claim 8. Since the can filling station was chosen above for Claim 8, and not the sliver mixing draw frame, the limitations of Claims 12 and 13 simply further specify a non-elected component.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art teaches the fine opener line comprises a mechanic extraction module capable of extracting synthetic fiber material from mixed textile waste fiber material containing synthetic fiber material and natural fiber material (described as finely opening and aligning the fibers for canning, which would act as a card, removing waste fiber from the mixed textile waste. The limitations do not require the synthetic fiber material is separated from the natural fiber material; it just requires synthetic fiber material to be extracted, which could be along with natural fiber material, which would occur during carding).
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art is not taught as comprising a chemical fiber treatment unit.
Regarding Claim 16, if the components are integrated as taught by Ball, then baling will not occur.
Regarding Claims 19-24, the combination of the prior art and Ball will teach the method of using the integrated machine as detailed above.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Speciation and Ball as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Leifeld (5664398).
Regarding Claim 9, while the combination of Applicant’s Specification and Ball essentially teaches the invention as detailed, including moving cans between locations, it fails to specifically teach a can conveyor system. Leifeld, however, teaches that when dealing with moving cans of sliver, it is well known to utilize a can conveyor system (Details 8, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized such a can conveyor system, so as to move the cans of the combination as required. The ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate the ability to automate movement of the cans, removing manual labor, and known to utilize the conveyor system as taught.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected, to the degree definite, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Specification and Ball as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ermecheo (20190316276).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, while the combination of Applicant’s Specification and Ball essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the types of fiber material to be recycled. Ermecheo, however, teaches that when dealing with recycling of textile waste material, it is well known that such materials can include cotton and polyester (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the textile waste material would include cotton and polyester, as these are common fibers used in textile materials. The ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate the ability to recycle common fiber materials, including cotton and polyester, and would know that textile waste containing these fibers could be recycled with an expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
