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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 90-109 are pending in the application. Claims 1-89 have been cancelled.
Amendments to claims 90, 93, 99 and 109, filed on 4/20/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Claim Objections
Claim 93 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 93 recites the limitation “wherein collagen content is more than 50% of total weight of natural fiber fibrils in the suspension.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 109 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 109 recites the limitation “wherein collagen content is more than 50% of total weight of natural fiber fibrils in the suspension.” 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.
Claim 91 is 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 91 recites the limitation “thereby forming staple fibers,” while a filament is
being claimed. It is unclear if the claimed staple fibers are the same as or different from the
filament that is extracted from the surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 90-109 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bowlin ‘032 (US 2004/0116032 A1).
Regarding claims 90, 92-93, 99-100 and 103-109, Bowlin ‘032 teaches a matrix of collagen that is obtained through a method of electroprocessing (Abstract). This processing may comprise electrospinning collagen fibers, or it may comprise electrospraying collagen droplets ([0010]). Electrospun collagen has a repeating, banded pattern when it is examined by electron microscopy ([0036]). This banded pattern is typical of collagen fibrils produced by natural processes (i.e. banded pattern is observed in collagen when it is produced by cells ([0036], [0055] and [0073]). Collagen from rawhide, or any other source can be isolated and prepared for electroprocessing ([0076]). For example, hide can be cut into small pieces, frozen and fragmented into small pieces, lyophilized and used as a crude mixture of raw material for electroprocessing ([0076]). Other isolation procedures are also possible, i.e., acid hydrolysis or the isolation of collagen to form a gel dispersion ([0076]). Adding other specific materials into the collagen can further modify material properties ([0077]-[0078]). For example, adding a natural material like elastin or a synthetic material like rubber can be expected to produce leather with novel elastic properties ([0077]; also see [0044] and Examples 2-3).
Claims 90, 92-93, 99-100 and 102-109 include product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in a difference, including an unobvious difference, between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claims 91, 94-98 and 101-102, Bowlin ‘032 remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations.
Bowlin ‘032 does not explicitly disclose staple fibers.
However, Bowlin ‘032 teaches that processing may comprise electrospinning collagen fibers, or it may comprise electrospraying collagen droplets ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have produced the collagen fibers in the form of staple fibers because Bowlin ‘032’s teaching of electrospinning either fibers or droplets would have suggested electro-processed material ranging in length from droplets to fibers, which would include staple fibers lengths.
Claims 91, 94-98 and 101-102 also include product-by-process limitations. The product being claimed appears to be the same as or obvious over the prior art product, in which case differences in process are not considered to impart patentability. Thus, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show that any differences in process would result in a difference, including an unobvious difference, between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 90-109 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nain (US 2010/0028999 A1) teaches highly aligned arrays of polymeric fibers having isodiameters ranging from sub 50 nm to microns with lengths of several millimeters (Abstract and [0086]). Polymers include collagen and elastin ([0080]).
Iddon (WO 2013/050428 A1) teaches a medical wound dressing that includes a biodegradable porous scaffold (Abstract). Examples of suitable biodegradable materials include elastin and collagen (page 11, lines 31-34). The fibers may be continuous, semi-continuous or staple fibers (page 13, line 36).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights